Beam me in, Scotty.

Gathering at various school and college videoconference sites across the state, some as far away as 500 miles from the capital, 288 Wyoming ranchers recently "attended" a meeting on proposed legislation to change brand inspections.

Their testimony was fed back over telephone lines to Cheyenne's videoconference center. Each videoconference site, equipped with a system of television monitors, microphones, cameras and other equipment, enabled the ranchers to see and hear participants at other locations as if they were in the same room. Pam Child, Wyoming's video communications coordinator, says the beauty of the videoconference was that everyone was able to come together in live time, hear firsthand the proposed changes, voice their opinions and agree on policies that everyone could live with.

Using similar technology, interested citizens in Kentucky met in the Legislative Research Commission office in Frankfort and in five college and university classrooms across the state for a briefing before the Business Organizations and Professions Committee. At issue was how the state's 1994 charitable gaming law affected nonprofit corporations. Was the law doing what it was supposed to do to prevent commercialization of charitable gaming, keep out criminals and hinder the diversion of funds from legitimate charitable purposes? Citizens testified and discussed with lawmakers how to most effectively amend the law.

In March 1995, the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare held a teleconference that brought together educators, teenagers, parents, senior citizens and social workers from nearly every one of the state's 67 counties. They used the teleconference to determine the most serious problems confronting children: crime, juvenile delinquency, dropout rates and poor school performance. The teleconference was part of an effort to develop a plan for using money from a new federal source.

Testimony from citizens and experts before state legislative committees is now as close as a television monitor at a videoconference site. These sites, once primarily found in large corporate offices, are becoming more common in schools, colleges, state government offices and capitol buildings. As of 1995, 16 legislatures were using teleconferences (audio only) or videoconferences (one-way or two-way video): Alaska, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Richard Hezel, author of Beyond Convergence: Teleconferencing in State Government explains that support from a legislator or governor is essential in obtaining the funding for a system. There are several reasons a legislature or government agency may want to use videoconferencing technology. Its an efficient tool for training people, and it's cost effective. In Pennsylvania, police officers can be trained by videoconference for $5 each, while on-site training is more than $100.

And this form of electronic democracy has opened up a new world to citizens who can't afford the time and expense to travel to their state capitals. But cost isn't the only benefit -- the technology can bring government to more people, making real the term "participatory government." And it is more efficient than face-to-face meetings. Many ranchers live as much as nine hours from Cheyenne and would not have driven in to testify at the brand inspection meeting. But because 96 percent of Wyoming's population is within 50 miles of a videoconference site (less than an hour's travel time), ranchers all across the state were able to voice their opinions. Videoconferencing can allow more viewpoints to be heard and make expert witnesses more accessible.

A BIG MONEY SAVER

Nevada spends approximately $35,000 a year to maintain its videoconferencing system. Because more than half the state's legislators live in the Las Vegas area, travel costs to and from the Capitol in Carson City can be very high. Videoconferencing saved the Legislature $363,000 in airfare and travel costs in 1993, and $158,000 through May 1994. Nevada set up its system in 1991 with an appropriation of approximately $200,000. It is used by the Legislature and various executive branch agencies for study committees, legislative meetings and other uses where travel costs may be saved, according to Steve Watson, deputy director of the Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau.

Other states are saving, too. Virginia's Department of Information Technology reports that its technology saves more than $900 per meeting. Ten years ago, Virginia government agencies used videoconferencing for some 500 events. Now, there are over 4,000.

In Montana, with 5.6 people per square mile, the technology has enhanced participation in government and cut down on travel costs, according to Rick Wine, the state's videoconferencing manager. It also provides widespread access to important educational programs. During the 1995 legislative session, Montana citizens met at community colleges and universities throughout the state to conduct videoconferences on a range of topics including funding of the state's universities and women's prisons. Various lawmakers, the governor and citizens also held in electronic "town meeting" through the combined use of videoconferencing technology and the state's public television system. And universities, hospitals, doctors and psychiatrists provide telemedicine and classes for medical certification through videoconferences.

The legislatures in Alaska, Kentucky and Nevada use both teleconferences and videoconferences. The Alaska Legislature in the late 1970s funded the Legislative Teleconference Network and the Legislative Information Offices. To allow state lawmakers and citizens to exchange views and information, the network managed about 30 teleconferences in the first year. They were up to 1,000 in 1995. The audio teleconference network links the Capitol to 22 information offices and more than 80 volunteer teleconference sites around the state. Equipment and staff from the executive branch and the state university system are used.

Since March 1994, Kentucky's videoconferencing center in Frankfort has permitted lawmakers to take expert testimony from participants in diverse sites not only in the commonwealth but from other states such as Arizona, Washington and Massachusetts. In addition to saving him a four-and-a-half-hour drive to the Capitol, Kentucky Senator Jeff Green says the technology has made him a better legislator and saved the taxpayers a considerable amount of money. As chairman of the Business Organizations and Professions Committee, Senator Green was the first to use the videoconferencing center. During hearings on gaming, comments from citizens at six college and university sites provided "firsthand and very effective" information. Green believes it is an efficient tool for receiving testimony, but he admits some fine-tuning of the system may be necessary such as amending the open meeting rules to permit more videoconferences.

STATE AGENCIES AND OTHER USERS

The most frequent users of state agency videoconferencing are in administration, education, health, public safety and criminal justice. State agencies use it to conduct public hearings and agency meetings, provide training and education, take pleas from criminal defendants, and take arraignments from prison inmates (in which prisoners stay at the jailhouse and go before a camera rather than a judge).

Distance learning -- beaming school classes to remote locations -- is also widely used throughout the country. Several veterinary colleges offer courses through it. The University of California-Davis recently held one interactive conference on bovine neosporosis between the main campus and the veterinary teaching and research center in Tulare, Calif., 200 miles to the south. High schools, colleges and other professional schools use the technology to teach core classes. An instructor from Price, in the middle of Utah, recently taught English classes to Monument Valley high school students in the southern part of the state. Teachers in distant locations also use videoconferences to teach classes such as foreign languages and advanced mathematics, economically bringing specialists to remote areas.

IT'S NOT ALL ROSY

Although videoconferencing offers an alternative to face-to-face committee hearings, citizens must still have the interest and the patience to participate. It would be a mistake to believe this technology will make all people more involved. As former Iowa Senator Richard Varn says, "Not everyone can have a turn on camera."

Varn, now the director of telecommunications at the University of Northern Iowa, also points out that before a state can determine whether videoconferencing is the most cost effective way of accomplishing something, the task must be clearly defined. If a state wants to provide information or education, encourage public participation, form policy, or collect data for historical records, videoconferencing is but one tool among many to choose from, Varn says. He suggests, for example, that a radio broadcast of a legislative committee hearing may reach more citizens than any videoconference meeting. Videoconferencing is not a substitute for other methods of involving the public in policy formation, he says.

Another problem is the fact that state freedom of information acts may prohibit electronic public meetings. Courts have issued several contradictory rulings on whether a videoconference constitutes a "meeting" and whether it is considered "public." Until 1989 Virginia agencies subject to the commonwealth's freedom of information were prohibited from conducting electronic meetings. Virginia has amended its law and currently is using videoconferencing technology.

VIDEOCONFERENCING AND NCSL 

Recognizing its potential, the Florida House of Representatives has leased since 1995 state-of-the-art satellite videoconference equipment, but so far they've used it only to download coverage of NCSL's recent videoconference programs. It has yet to be used for legislative committee hearings. This possibility and the proposal of providing workshops to members are currently being considered in the Sunshine State.

NCSL's videoconference programs beamed in national experts on crime and state budgets, energy efficiency, telecommunications deregulation and utility competition and deregulation. Participants included state lawmakers, legislative staff, federal policymakers and private industry representatives from 30 different states.

a

CALIFORNIA TUNES IN THE KIDS

In California:

* A 58.7 percent turnout of registered voters in the November 1994 election was the lowest recorded since the secretary of state began keeping records in 1910.

* Only about 59 percent of the state's 19 million eligible voters are actually registered.

* Only 49 percent of citizens ages 18 to 24 are registered.

* Only 42 percent of eligible Hispanics, 58 percent of African Americans and 39 percent of eligible Asians are registered, and only 17 percent of all these minorities voted in last June's primary election.

After studying these bleak numbers and other surveys showing that young adults are especially prone to stay home on Election Day, members of the California Legislature decided to tackle the issue face-to-face with high school students in an October LegiSchool interactive town hall meeting.

Unlike previous LegiSchool programs that addressed such problems as school violence or teen pregnancy, this broadcast -- "Why Vote?" pulled legislators and high school students into a discussion of what discourages people from participating in the political process.

Senator Pat Johnston pointed out to the Sacramento and San Francisco students who were in the Capitol hearing room that older voters traditionally make the trek to the polls while young people don't. "If young people don't vote, then government will respond to those who do vote," he said, adding that those who cast ballots had the most influence in legislative decisions.

Assemblyman Jan Goldsmith took on a question about "fixed" elections, explaining the states rigorous election laws. Assemblywoman Kerry Mazzoni also fielded student queries as teens from Los Angeles and other areas participated through the Assembly's interactive phone lines.

The LegiSchool project unites the Legislature, California State University at Sacramento and the nonprofit California Channel in an effort to put a new spin on civics by bringing state government into high school classrooms.

In addition to the town hall-type telecasts, the program has a video collection of legislative debates and accompanying classroom curriculum drafted by the university. "If a teacher is interested in, say, death penalty legislation" explains Doug Stone of the California Assembly Television Project, "he or she can request a videotape of the legislative debate and curriculum based on it."

About 150 California high schools have tuned in to the interactive television programs or obtained videos and written material, Stone said, while 300 to 400 teachers use the material regularly.

"We've been televising the Assembly for five-and-a-half years," Stone said, "but we were getting frustrated because we knew we weren't reaching a young audience. LegiSchool is reaching them, and it's making an impact.

"The response has been tremendous. A lot of legislative issues that teachers have chosen to present are ones the kids have a high stake in -- teen pregnancy, helmet laws, school uniforms. These issues affect ordinary kids, who can watch the legislators debating the issues on the floor, and who are now telling legislators, We want you to ask us what we think."

Assemblywoman Kerry Mazzoni discusses "Why Vote" with a California high school student during a LegiSchool interactive town hall meeting. Teens participated in person at the Capitol in Sacramento and through videoconferencing from around the state. LegiSchool puts a new spin on civics by bringing state government to high school classroom and lets students question legislators on bills or new laws.