by David DeGerolamo and John Keida
See additional comments on CNNews
When you go to your State Legislator’s web site and send him/her an email, does he/she read it? Probably not. It seems to go into a big black hole – probably the same big black hole that so many tax dollars go. The following email was sent to each of North Carolina’s 120 House Representatives and 50 Senators to gauge their responsiveness to emails:
From: CNNews.US [mailto:david.degerolamo@CNNews.US]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 09:25 AM
To: Rep. [name]
Subject: CNNews.US
Dear North Carolina State Legislator [name]:
As a CNNews.US journalist, I am writing an article about the responsiveness of state legislators to email inquiries. Simply click on reply and then click on send to acknowledge that you have read this email. No message is necessary. Your response, or lack of response, will be the basis for an article on whether State legislators read their emails. You will be notified by email when the article is written.
The legislators were given one week to respond. I checked my spam account prior to writing the article to ensure that all responses would be properly counted.
Response for the House of Representatives:
120 total representatives
37 replied to the email – 30.83% response rate
Breakdown by Party:
13 Democrat responses out of 52 representatives – 25%
24 Republican responses out of 68 representatives – 35.29%
The responses that were sent by an assistant were also tracked. If both a representative and their assistant responded, the assistant’s response was not tracked.
46.15% of the Democrat responses were made by an assistant to the representative. 16.67% of the Republican responses were made by an assistant to the representative.
Response for the Senate:
50 total senators
22 replied to the email – 44% response rate
Breakdown by Party:
6 Democrat responses out of 19 senators – 31.58%
16 Republican responses out of 31 senators – 51.61%
The responses that were sent by an assistant were also tracked. If both a senator and their assistant responded, the assistant’s response was not tracked.
50% of the Democrat responses were made by an assistant to the senator. 25% of the Republican responses were made by an assistant to the senator.
David DeGerolamo
| North Carolina State House of Representatives 2011/2012 | |||||
| First name | Last name | Party | Dist | Response | |
| Alma | Adams | Dem | 58 | ||
| Kelly M. | Alexander | Dem | 107 | ||
| Martha B. | Alexander | Dem | 106 | ||
| Marilyn | Avila | Rep | 40 | yes | |
| Larry M. | Bell | Dem | 21 | ||
| Hugh | Blackwell | Rep | 86 | ||
| John M. | Blust | Rep | 62 | ||
| James L. | Boles | Rep | 52 | yes | |
| Alice L. | Bordsen | Dem | 63 | yes | |
| Glen | Bradley | Rep | 49 | ||
| Marcus | Brandon | Dem | 60 | ||
| William | Brawley | Rep | 103 | yes | |
| William D. | Brisson | Dem | 22 | ||
| Larry R. | Brown | Rep | 73 | yes | |
| Rayne | Brown | Rep | 81 | ||
| Harold J. | Brubaker | Rep | 78 | ||
| Angela R. | Bryant | Dem | 7 | ||
| Justin P. | Burr | Rep | 67 | ||
| Becky | Carney | Dem | 102 | yes | |
| George G. | Cleveland | Rep | 14 | yes | |
| Jeff | Collins | Rep | 25 | ||
| Bill | Cook | Rep | 6 | yes | |
| TriciAnn | Cotham | Dem | 100 | ||
| James W. | Crawford | Dem | 32 | ||
| William A. | Current, Sr. | Rep | 109 | yes | |
| N. Leo | Daughtry | Rep | 26 | ||
| Jimmy | Dixon | Rep | 4 | ||
| Jerry C. | Dockham | Rep | 80 | ||
| Nelson | Dollar | Rep | 36 | ||
| Beverly M. | Earle | Dem | 101 | ||
| John | Faircloth | Rep | 61 | yes | |
| Bill | Faison | Dem | 50 | yes | |
| Jean | Farmer-Butterfield | Dem | 24 | ||
| Susan C. | Fisher | Dem | 114 | yes | |
| Elmer | Floyd | Dem | 43 | ||
| Dale R. | Folwell | Rep | 74 | ||
| Phillip | Frye | Rep | 84 | ||
| Rosa U. | Gill | Dem | 33 | ||
| Mitch | Gillespie | Rep | 85 | ||
| Rick | Glazier | Dem | 45 | yes | |
| Ken | Goodman | Dem | 66 | yes | |
| Charles | Graham | Dem | 47 | ||
| Joe | Hackney | Dem | 54 | yes | |
| Mike | Hager | Rep | 112 | ||
| Rphillip | Haire | Dem | 119 | ||
| Larry D. | Hall | Dem | 29 | ||
| Susi H. | Hamilton | Dem | 18 | yes | |
| Pricey | Harrison | Dem | 57 | ||
| Kelly E. | Hastings | Rep | 110 | ||
| Dewey L. | Hill | Dem | 20 | yes | |
| Mark K. | Hilton | Rep | 96 | ||
| Mark W. | Hollo | Rep | 88 | ||
| Bryan R. | Holloway | Rep | 91 | ||
| Dcraig | Horn | Rep | 68 | yes | |
| Julia C. | Howard | Rep | 79 | ||
| Pat B. | Hurley | Rep | 70 | ||
| Frank | Iler | Rep | 17 | yes | |
| Dan W. | Ingle | Rep | 64 | ||
| Verla | Insko | Dem | 56 | ||
| Darren G. | Jackson | Dem | 39 | ||
| Maggie | Jeffus | Dem | 59 | ||
| Linda P. | Johnson | Rep | 83 | yes | |
| Bert | Jones | Rep | 65 | ||
| Jonathan C. | Jordan | Rep | 93 | yes | |
| Carolyn H. | Justice | Rep | 16 | ||
| Patsy | Keever | Dem | 115 | ||
| Ric | Killian | Rep | 105 | yes | |
| James H. | Langdon | Rep | 28 | yes | |
| Stephen A. | LaRoque | Rep | 10 | yes | |
| David R. | Lewis | Rep | 53 | ||
| Marvin W. | Lucas | Dem | 42 | yes | |
| Paul | Luebke | Dem | 30 | ||
| Grier | Martin | Dem | 34 | ||
| Daniel F. | McComas | Rep | 19 | yes | |
| Darrell G. | McCormick | Rep | 92 | ||
| Pat | McElraft | Rep | 13 | ||
| Wm. C. | McGee | Rep | 75 | ||
| Chuck | McGrady | Rep | 117 | yes | |
| Frank | McGuirt | Dem | 69 | ||
| Marian N. | McLawhorn | Dem | 9 | ||
| Henry M. | Michaux, Jr. | Dem | 31 | ||
| Grey | Mills | Rep | 95 | yes | |
| Annie W. | Mobley | Dem | 5 | ||
| Tim D. | Moffitt | Rep | 116 | yes | |
| Rodney W. | Moore | Dem | 99 | ||
| Tim | Moore | Rep | 111 | ||
| Tom | Murry | Rep | 41 | yes | |
| Bill | Owens | Dem | 1 | ||
| Diane | Parfitt | Dem | 44 | ||
| Earline W. | Parmon | Dem | 72 | ||
| Garland E. | Pierce | Dem | 48 | ||
| Larry G. | Pittman | Rep | 82 | yes | |
| G. L. | Pridgen | Rep | 46 | yes | |
| Shirley B. | Randleman | Rep | 94 | ||
| Ray | Rapp | Dem | 118 | ||
| Deborah K. | Ross | Dem | 38 | ||
| Efton M. | Sager | Rep | 11 | ||
| Jason | Saine | Rep | 97 | yes | |
| Ruth | Samuelson | Rep | 104 | ||
| Norman W. | Sanderson | Rep | 3 | ||
| Mitchell S. | Setzer | Rep | 89 | ||
| Phil R. | Shepard | Rep | 15 | ||
| Timothy L. | Spear | Dem | 2 | ||
| Paul | Stam | Rep | 37 | ||
| Edgar V. | Starnes | Rep | 87 | ||
| Fred F. | Steen | Rep | 76 | ||
| Sarah | Stevens | Rep | 90 | ||
| Mike C. | Stone | Rep | 51 | ||
| Thom | Tillis | Rep | 98 | ||
| Joe P. | Tolson | Dem | 23 | yes | |
| John A. | Torbett | Rep | 108 | ||
| William L. | Wainwright | Dem | 12 | ||
| Trudi | Walend | Rep | 113 | ||
| Edith D. | Warren | Dem | 8 | ||
| Harry | Warren | Rep | 77 | yes | |
| Jennifer | Weiss | Dem | 35 | yes | |
| Roger | West | Rep | 120 | ||
| W. A. | Wilkins | Dem | 55 | yes | |
| Larry | Womble | Dem | 71 | ||
| Michael H. | Wray | Dem | 27 | ||
| North Carolina State Senate 2011/2012 | |||||
| First name | Last name | Party | Dist | Response | |
| Austin M. | Allran | Rep | 42 | ||
| Tom | Apodaca | Rep | 48 | ||
| Bob | Atwater | Dem | 18 | ||
| Doug | Berger | Dem | 7 | yes | |
| Phil | Berger | Rep | 26 | ||
| Stan | Bingham | Rep | 33 | yes | |
| Harris | Blake | Rep | 22 | ||
| Dan | Blue | Dem | 14 | ||
| Andrew C. | Brock | Rep | 34 | ||
| Harry | Brown | Rep | 6 | ||
| Peter S. | Brunstetter | Rep | 31 | ||
| Chris | Carney | Rep | 41 | yes | |
| Daniel G. | Clodfelter | Dem | 37 | ||
| Warren | Daniel | Rep | 44 | yes | |
| Chae Smith | Dannelly | Dem | 38 | yes | |
| Jim | Davis | Rep | 50 | yes | |
| Don | East | Rep | 30 | ||
| Linda | Garrou | Dem | 32 | yes | |
| Thom | Goolsby | Rep | 9 | yes | |
| Malcolm | Graham | Dem | 40 | ||
| Rick | Gunn | Rep | 24 | ||
| Kathy | Harrington | Rep | 43 | yes | |
| Fletcher L. | Hartsell | Rep | 36 | ||
| Ralph | Hise | Rep | 47 | yes | |
| Neal | Hunt | Rep | 15 | yes | |
| Brent | Jackson | Rep | 10 | yes | |
| Clark | Jenkins | Dem | 3 | ||
| Ed | Jones | Dem | 4 | ||
| Eleanor | Kinnaird | Dem | 23 | ||
| Eric | Mansfield | Dem | 21 | yes | |
| Floyd B. | McKissick | Dem | 20 | yes | |
| Wesley | Meredith | Rep | 19 | yes | |
| Martin L. | Nesbitt | Dem | 49 | ||
| E. S. (Buck) | Newton | Rep | 11 | ||
| Louis | Pate | Rep | 5 | ||
| Jean | Preston | Rep | 2 | ||
| William R. | Purcell | Dem | 25 | ||
| Bill | Rabon | Rep | 8 | ||
| Gladys A. | Robinson | Dem | 28 | ||
| David | Rouzer | Rep | 12 | yes | |
| Bob | Rucho | Rep | 39 | yes | |
| Dan | Soucek | Rep | 45 | ||
| Josh | Stein | Dem | 16 | ||
| Richard | Stevens | Rep | 17 | yes | |
| Jerry W. | Tillman | Rep | 29 | yes | |
| Tommy | Tucker | Rep | 35 | yes | |
| Don | Vaughan | Dem | 27 | ||
| Michael P. | Walters | Dem | 13 | yes | |
| Wes | Westmoreland | Rep | 46 | yes | |
| Stan | White | Dem | 1 | ||
Pathetic, but certainly not surprising. Vote the “no answers’ out. How much effort was required to do this?
Not to try and justify my lack of response, but in explanation of the poor response rate, a big part of the problem is that the ISD expires the passwords every few weeks and makes you rotate them, such that you have to be in the office to reset them. During the interim, most of our meetings are in district and we often don’t get to Raleigh but once a month. As for me, I answer as much of my email as I can without a staff, and I did see this email, after resetting the password in Raleigh during a committee meeting but it was 4 days past the deadline.
I have asked that the pasword expiry policy be revised because it is a significant hinderance to conducting business and constituent response during the interim, but it falls on deaf ears. It seems most people do not use passwords as complicated as I do.
Again, not trying to justify it, but I hope it helps to explain why the NCGA in particular has such a horrible response rate during the interim. I do in fact read all my legislative emails.
Glen
What a terrible waste of legislators’ time. I think it’s clear they have better things to do than play stupid email games with pseudo-journalists like you?
Hitting “reply” to an email is an email game? Based on your comment, I suspect you are one of the legislators whose time I was wasting. I guess you are welcome to call me a pseudo-journalist since I do not get paid and do not distort my reporting as “real” journalists do.
I received your email this morning Saturday, April 21. Have not seen anything from you prior to today. I was suspicious of your email, thought it might have been fishing so I did not reply. In fact, I seldom reply to emails from people who are not my district constituents. I receive emails most everyday and I do not think I have ever failed to reply from a constituent.
I have completed all required fields. Why will my comment not be posted?
The first time anyone posts a comment, it must be approved. After that first time, all comments by that email address are approved. It is very rare that a comment is not posted since this site is a forum for people.
As another “TRUE Journalist”, I SilenceDogood2010, do applaud you David in your effort to make our elected officials accountable for their actions…. or lack thereof.
Respectfully submitted by SD2010.
These are not days of games Tom Paine (yeah right), these are days of waking up and paying attention to those who we have entrusted our very lives to! Perhaps you should grow up and wake-up.
I can understand Mr. Bradley’s position. I worked for one of our counties for several years and the passwords were forever expiring. It as an absolute pain in the..uh…neck. I do not blame them for not remaining current on all emails. You are right, it is a “black hole”, but only when the stupid passwords expire. If I were there, I would probably never receive an email because I would refuse to play the silly password game.