How the technology behind Bitcoin can save our elections

Bitcoin has been dismissed as an anarcho-capitalist fantasy, but its underlying tech could enable secure e-voting – By JULIAN GOTTLIEB

You can be forgiven for thinking of Bitcoin, the best-known cryptocurrency, as the realm of thieves, Wall Street bankers and libertarian techies who’ve drunk too much Soylent. Despite recently intensified media interest, trading Bitcoin is not a particularly accessible hobby to folks outside the finance or tech worlds. So it’s healthy to be skeptical about Bitcoin’s promise, beyond its utility as a speculative investment or a means of laundering money or buying black market drugs.

All that could change as the technology matures. Indeed, there is evidence that the technologies underlying cryptocurrencies  — what are called “blockchain protocols” — have potential uses beyond peer-to-peer payment systems. One of the most exciting possibilities is the potential to use Bitcoin’s underlying technology to improve our system of voting. It’s called “blockchain voting,” and it has some voting experts and security researchers convinced we can bolster our democracy with a secure, transparent and auditable way for citizens to vote from their smart phones.

How it works

First, some background. Bitcoin is built on a type of distributed ledger technology called a blockchain protocol, or blockchain for short. Quite simply, a blockchain is a type of distributed database for recording all of the activity on a network. If Bob pays Alice five bitcoins, that transaction is broadcast to and confirmed by the network. When a majority of the nodes in the network confirm the validity of the transaction, it is settled and recorded on the blockchain.

Each block in the blockchain refers to the most recent set of transactions confirmed on the network. Moreover, each block in the blockchain contains a reference to the previous set of transactions confirmed. In this sense, the entire blockchain is immutable, meaning it cannot be changed retroactively. Thus, it is very hard to counterfeit or “double spend” because the network has to achieve consensus about the accuracy of the blockchain.

In broad strokes, blockchains allow the transfer of value across networks in a transparent and secure way. As a cryptocurrency, Bitcoin’s blockchain is designed to record transactions: payments between third parties using bitcoins. Yet, blockchains themselves could be used to record other things as well: car titles, stocks, gambling debts, and shareholder votes among them. The next wave of blockchain development is focused on the sale and transfer of other types of digital assets, which could rewrite the way people exchange goods and services. Some people are so excited about blockchain’s potential they think it signals the emergence of Web 3.0.

While much of blockchain development is focused on finance, stock trading, cybersecurity and supply chain management, there is some interest in blockchain applications in government. Lawmakers, activists and policy wonks seem to project their own partisan fantasies onto the nascent technology. There is even a Congressional Blockchain Caucus that has garnered bipartisan support. For Republicans, migrating administration and record-keeping to digital ledgers could precipitate the shedding of layers of government bureaucracy.

Blockchain evangelists, like writer and business strategist Don Tapscott, envision fully automated DMVs where all registrations, renewals and permits are recorded on blockchains with self-service stations akin to self-checkout in the grocery store. Admittedly, this comes off as a bit simplistic. We should not discount the expertise, judgment and value of bureaucrats in favor of an elegant piece of computer code that can’t really replicate the work real human beings perform. But for most who favor blockchains over bureaucrats, these are just messy details and most conservatives would gladly throw their weight behind a blockchain or any Rube Goldberg machine that allows the privatization of public services.

For Democrats, blockchain represents an opportunity to give citizens more control over government records, privacy and information security. It could also expand payment services to the unbanked. It may even be an alternative pathway for financing local municipal banks. Even though a federal judge put the brakes on President Trump’s executive order to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities, what would happen if the injunction was lifted and Trump withheld funds from California? Could the state issue its own local currency on a blockchain to make up for the loss in federal funding? Constitutionally, no. But for now, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are in murky legal waters; it’s unclear whether the federal government even sees cryptocurrencies as currencies at all. All of which is to suggest that there are some intriguing possibilities with blockchain technology that have garnered bipartisan support from elected officials. Which is why one of the most promising blockchain applications for government involves voting.

Blockchain voting

Online voting has been a vexing problem for election officials for years. It seems like voting online could have the potential to make voting easier and more accessible, a noble pursuit for any democracy; and yet, most existing online voting systems are vulnerable to tampering. While blockchains have their own security vulnerabilities, there are a number of features that make a blockchain a very attractive way to record votes. In the same way that blockchains record transfers of digital assets like Bitcoin, blockchains can record the transfer of a voting token to a particular candidate or issue position, so the theory goes. Nasdaq has already successfully completed a blockchain voting test in Estonia to allow proxy voting on a stock exchange.

There are a number of advantages built into a blockchain voting system. Arguably the greatest strength of a blockchain voting system is that people can vote from their mobile phones. The government could issue voting tokens to citizens through a unique mobile wallet address connected to voter registration information, and voters could send the tokens to their preferred candidates.

Blockchain ledgers are transparent to all of the participants in the network. Anyone can see Bitcoin’s blockchain; the entire record of transactions is publicly available. This gives users faith in the integrity of the network because it can be audited and verified in real time by the entire network of users. With a blockchain voting system, we could see the record of votes as they happen in real time with almost instant verification.

Distributed ledgers like blockchains are not stored on any one particular server, but distributed among nodes in a network. The strength of distributed systems like blockchains is that a local failure of any node in the network cannot crash the whole system because the other nodes in the network still update and maintain the blockchain. This feature also means it is very difficult to alter a blockchain entry once it has been recorded without a massive amount of computing power or a shutdown of the entire network. This makes such a system less vulnerable to hackers.

While blockchain voting might seem like an elegant solution to our electoral problems, it faces significant barriers to adoption. Indeed, with Republican voter suppression efforts like insidious voter ID laws, it’s clear that half of our country’s politicians don’t really want to make voting easier. Vinny Lingham, the CEO of Civic, an identity verification and management company, has argued that you can’t have blockchain voting without identity verification. And whether blockchain voting works or not, the same questions about voter IDs and accusations of fraud are likely to emerge.

There are a number of startups working to create secure digital identity services that would allow people to verify their identities before engaging in activities like voting, but most states are not ready to take that leap yet. Until then, blockchain voting systems are unlikely to be rolled out.

There are some flawed assumptions and hollow political beliefs underlying blockchain evangelism in government. A digital ledger is not a panacea for what most ails our democracy. Blockchains do not solve austerity, generational poverty, pollution and institutional racism any more than the neoliberal institutions we have already built to meekly confront these challenges. Even if blockchain does live up to the hype, building blockchain-based voting platforms that manage real elections will require careful planning and democratic feedback. The capacity of blockchains to create decentralized voting systems may “disrupt” the flawed electoral process we have, but that doesn’t guarantee we can replace it with something better.

Article Written by Julian Gotleib – Salon

Why another orchestra?

Let me start backwards:

I founded a chamber orchestra in Los Angeles in 2016,  called the Vicente Chamber Orchestra. So far, we have performed two concerts – one in November 2016 and the last one in October 2017. Both went amazingly well. But, why start another orchestra in Los Angeles when there are so many great performing arts groups in this city? Who cares about yet another classical music ensemble?

I do.

Music has always been important to me, and who I really am as a person. I am a musician. That’s what I studied back in college and with my beloved mentor, Mehli Mehta. Everything I do is colored by my love of music. This goes for my business activities as well (running a business is much like conducting an orchestra – which I will get into later in another blog post).

Ed and me
LA County Supervisor, Ed Edelman (1930-2016) and the members of the Temple Emanuel Chamber Orchestra, Beverly Hills. Circa 1990. Ed loved music and, come rain or shine, he played his cello every week. He appreciated the beauty of music.

So, I woke up one day and decided to pursue my life long passion of conducting my very own ensemble. I didn’t want to wait any longer. After all, there may be no tomorrow – NOW is the time to do what you really love to do. I went ahead and founded my own orchestra, naming it the “Vicente Chamber Orchestra” – after San Vicente Blvd, a street close to my home in Los Angeles. It’s all I could come up with at the time and the name of the group was just a side issue for me. It was more urgent that I get going and make music.

My Mission

The mission of the Vicente Chamber Orchestra is simple: to make “music for music’s sake.” We don’t have a subscription season, offer music education in our public schools, have red carpet galas with Hollywood celebrities, pander to an audience who crave Hollywood movie music, have lavish fundraisers for the rich of Los Angeles, or even have a Board (at least, as of current).

And, I really don’t care. Because, all I (really) want to do is make music. Music is not a means to an end. It’s all that really matters to me. All the other stuff is a distraction from my core mission.

I want to share my love of music with those who perform with me and those who come to hear us. And, THIS is the core of what the Vicente Chamber Orchestra is all about; it’s not a stepping stone to something else for me, and I don’t have any illusions of conducting any other group, other than the Vicente Chamber Orchestra. I am perfectly happy making music on my own terms with other musicians who have the same vision as I.

Most of the musicians in the Vicente Chamber Orchestra are volunteers – they play for free, because they love music like me. Some of the musicians are paid. But, they are just as passionate about making music as everyone else. It so happens that these few musicians make a living in music, so I honor and respect this requirement.

The Vicente Chamber Orchestra only performs when we are inspired. Otherwise, why perform? Why play a concert for concert’s sake? You need to be inspired, excited and want to share this with everyone who attends. If not, don’t bother performing. Forget it. The Vicente Chamber Orchestra is about expressing our love of music and not about anything else.

I admit, I am idealistic. But, I can afford to be. Music is not a career for me (it was many years ago). However, it’s a life. Music is my life and not my career. It’s what I love and what I want to share with everyone who wants to listen.

In the past, when I was younger, music was a means to an end, a path to somewhere else. But, now I realize that music is the end point. It’s the most beautiful thing in the world, a language all its own.

Mehli and Zain (1)
Mehli Mehta and a few of the American Youth Symphony orchestra members at a fundraiser circa 1991-2. Mehli’s greatest talent was teaching his students to LOVE music and to really feel the spirit of the music we performed.


Richard Clarke on take-aways from the global WannaCry ransomware attack


From my friends at Good Harbor Security Risk Management (@ghsrm)

  1. A short primer on WannaCry that may be helpful in discussing WannaCry with colleagues in your organization.
  2. Good Harbor Chairman Richard Clarke’s op-ed, “WannaCry: Whom to Blame?” with four key take-aways from WannaCry.
  3. A few additional resources for further reading.


  1. A primer on WannaCry


On Friday, May 12, a new strain of ransomware, which encrypts critical files on targeted desktops and servers, called WannaCry, was released into the wild. WannaCry, with its worm-like ability to propagate quickly within and between networks, spread globally, impacting large organizations worldwide including NHS hospitals in the United Kingdom, FedEx in the United States, Telefonica in Spain, and Peru’s LATAM Airlines.

The exploit used in the attacks, nicknamed EternalBlue, was drawn from National Security Agency (NSA) exploits that had been stolen and posted online in a dump of hacking tools by a group calling itself The Shadow Brokers. The Shadow Brokers are believed by many security experts to be a front for Russian intelligence, although no formal attribution has been made publicly by the US government. EternalBlue exploits a vulnerability in Microsoft’s Server Message Block (SMB) protocol, which allows an attacker to take full control of a targeted system and, in this case, hold it for ransom.

Following the Shadow Brokers dump, on March 14 Microsoft issued a patch for the exploited vulnerability, but many organizations have been slow to apply the patch. Also, older, legacy systems like Windows XP are no longer directly supported by Microsoft, leaving them vulnerable from 14 March to the outbreak of WannaCry. Microsoft has since issued patches for systems that are beyond end-of-life support.

Luckily, the original WannaCry ransomware included code that “checked back” to an Internet domain, and a security researcher was able to register that domain as his own and use that control as a “kill switch” to stop the malware from propagating further.

Experts fear that criminals or hackers will jump on the success of WannaCry and learn from the original malware’s mistake, perhaps developing and releasing “WannaCry 2.0” without the discovered “kill switch.”

The ongoing WannaCry incident raises important questions about the difficulties of timely patching within major organizations, the challenge of unsupported legacy IT, the ability of intelligence agencies to keep their own tools secure, and how and when intelligence agencies should disclose dangerous vulnerabilities to vendors.

Good Harbor Chairman and CEO Richard Clarke penned the following op-ed to examine the four key take-aways from the WannaCry episode so far.

Below the op-ed are three additional resources to understand the issues raised by WannaCry.


  1. Richard A. Clarke, “WannaCry: Whom to Blame?”

The extensive damage done by the WannaCry cyberattack reveals persistent problems that governments and companies have failed to address despite repeated warnings.

There are four big takeaways:

First, America’s own National Security Agency (NSA) found the vulnerability in Microsoft Windows that would permit a hacker to gain control of a device. When the agency found that vulnerability, it should have told Microsoft right away, so that the error could have been fixed as part of the regular monthly “patching” program without calling attention to it.

As a member of the President Barack Obama’s Review Group on Intelligence and Technology, I recommended (see: The NSA Report, Recommendation 30) a policy of telling software makers about vulnerabilities in 2013. I came to the conclusion that the costs to our corporations and governments of having these vulnerabilities used against us far outweighed the benefit of having NSA secretly using them to collect intelligence. WannaCry proves that point.

The Obama Administration said it accepted that policy recommendation, but clearly there was a problem in its implementation which needs to be rectified.

Second, this would not have happened if NSA had been able to protect its own software. The attack tool used in the WannaCry attack was developed by NSA and then was somehow stolen and posted on the Internet for all to see and some to use.

Despite the lessons learned from the Snowden affair, the NSA’s repeated inability to protect itself from the theft of its internal documents and tools is placing the networked world at risk. This problem must now be addressed urgently by the Director of National Intelligence and the White House.

Third, many companies and government agencies are still running software (Windows XP for example) that is no longer supported by Microsoft and is riddled with vulnerabilities that hackers can use. In the U.S., most companies have the more modern, more secure versions, but many U.S. government agencies are still running software from the 20th century.

It is time for a complete refresh of government software similar to the effort in 1999 to prevent the “Y2K” software vulnerability from disrupting networks at the turn of the millennium. That effort was expensive and a new refresh now will be even more costly, but it is equally necessary.

Fourth, companies and government agencies ignored Microsoft’s clear warning to fix the vulnerability that WannaCry exploited. The software maker issued a critical “patch” two months ago. Many network administrators want to test a patch before they deploy it and that delays implementation, but it should never delay it by more than a few weeks. In the case of a critical patch, it should be a matter of days.

CEOs and board members do not like to get into the weeds of their networks’ management, but they need to understand issues like “patch” policy. They need to know when their systems are at risk and for how long.

Whoever sent WannaCry into cyberspace may not have done it for the money. Thus far, they have collected relatively little money, far less than they have cost companies and governments. The attackers may have done it to teach us some lessons like the four points above. Do you think we will learn those lessons this time? Past experience suggests we will not.


  1. Microsoft’s President and Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith on lessons from WannaCry:


  1. Lily Hay Newman, “The Ransomware Meltdown Experts Warned About is Here”:


  1. MalwareTech, “How I Accidentally Stopped a Global WannaCry Decryptor Ransomware Attack”:




Emilian Papadopoulos | President | m + | o +1.703.812.9199 | @ghsrm

How Bad Is the Digital Divide in California?


Lloyd Levine is a consultant to the California Emerging Technology Fund, a former California Assembly Member, and currently President at Filament Strategies.

Lloyd Levine, September 7, 2016

In California in 2016, the state that practically invented the Internet, 30% of Californians (nearly 12 million people) do not have meaningful broadband at home, according to an August 2016 survey by The Field Research Corporation.

This article, part one of a two-part series, will look at the historical data on the Digital Divide and the new data from the recent Field Poll. This data will provide the context necessary to understand the problem and formulate appropriate public policy solutions.

The graph to the left provides some historical context for California’s current Digital Divide. The overall broadband (i.e. high-speed internet) adoption rate has increased significantly since 2008, climbing from 55% in 2008 to 84% as of July 2016. However, that 84% is really illusory and doesn’t paint a full picture. California’s broadband adoption rate is at 84%, only if we include the 14% of people whose only access is on a smartphone.

The California Emerging Technology Fund, which commissioned the survey, is technology neutral but recognizes differences in technological functionality. Smartphones do not have the necessary functionality to be an appropriate substitute for laptop or desktop computers. Because smartphones have small screens, small keyboards, and limited functionality on websites and applications, individuals who rely on them are considered “under-connected”—in other words, they are not able to fully compete in the digital economy.

Because of the limitations inherent in smartphones, and because 14% of Californians are “smartphone only” users, it is more accurate and appropriate for policy makers to use the “meaningful” broadband adoption rate of 70%.

To really understand why and how a 30% Digital Divide exists in California, it is necessary to understand the terms “access” and “adoption.”

Access has to do with the physical infrastructure necessary to bring broadband into a home, apartment, school, library, workplace, etc. A community that does not have broadband infrastructure is labeled an “unserved” or “underserved” area (with speeds below what the federal and state governments define as “broadband”). “Unserved” means broadband is simply not available, as the infrastructure does not exist to connect that community. “Underserved” means Internet speeds are too slow for properly transmitting the amount of data necessary to have meaningful functionality. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) considers an area served if broadband is available at speeds of 6 mbps downstream and 1.5 mbps upstream, or greater. And recently, the federal government redefined broadband as 25 mbps up and 3mbps down.

Lack of access is predominantly a rural issue, because many rural areas lack the fiber optic cable infrastructure that enables broadband. The “Geocode” section of the chart at left illustrates that point, showing that as the population in an area declines so does the broadband adoption rate. Because of distance and often challenging terrain, it costs significantly more to deploy the infrastructure necessary to reach and connect rural communities.

Broadband infrastructure is generally built by the private sector, which argues that because of the much smaller customer base in rural areas, it does not make financial sense to serve those areas. In areas lacking broadband, consumers either forego the Internet entirely, or depend on dial-up or satellite Internet service that provides speeds significantly slower than broadband.

Adoption is the process of a consumer signing up for broadband from an Internet service provider (either stand-alone or as part of bundled service). Numerous studies have shown that many low-income households do not “adopt” broadband, because the cost of the necessary computing device and the monthly fees are more than they can afford.

While the overall actual broadband adoption rate is 70%, the 2016 Field Research Corporation analysis of subgroup data shows the Digital Divide is worse among vulnerable populations.

Income is the strongest predictor of broadband adoption at home. As the chart at left shows, the lower the income level, the lower the broadband adoption rate. Also, note that the percentage of households (the green segments in the chart) that have Internet access only via smartphone increases as income decreases.

Age and ethnicity are also significant indicators of broadband adoption. The chart below provides the data for these groups and others. Among seniors 65 and older, only 51% have broadband at home, and monolingual Spanish-speakers also significantly trail the state average.

People with disabilities also have lower broadband adoption rates. Different disabilities require different equipment to enable computer use, and the equipment is often expensive. From a screen reader for the visually impaired to alternate input devices for those with muscular control disabilities, devices add a layer of cost and difficulty.

In Part 2 of this series, Which will be posted September 14, I will discuss why broadband access and adoption are matters of public policy, and look at some policy recommendations for closing the Digital Divide.

Lloyd Levine is a former California Assemblymember and chair of the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee. He is the co-founder of the UC Riverside Center for Broadband Policy and Digital Literacy, and runs his own consulting firm specializing in technology policy.

On the road with Jeff Green, iConstituent’s CTO


“Talk to one user – start jumping to a solution; talk to five+ users – start understanding the problem” – Luke Wroblewski, Google

You expect amazing customer service wherever you go today. Ever buy a pair of shoes from Zappos, order something from Amazon Prime? Get a ride using Uber? Book a room through AirBnB? The level of personalization, the “one-to-one” relationship from these services is exceptional – and not only because of human touch – but because of great technology.

The customer service you receive from government has to meet the expectations of an ever-connected population, too.

While it’s true that some of government is lagging behind the latest technological innovations, many departments and agencies are getting there; you can find encouraging stories from around the country and across the world of cities using technology to transform their operations (see Bill Eggers’ new “Delivering on Digital” for many examples). Citizen connectivity is the driving factor here – as you and I become more connected and get better and better service from consumer brands, the demand for government to provide personalization and exceptional service increase. Governments must continue to adapt in order to engage with their citizens. I expect tremendous growth in the “Government to Constituent” (G2C) space over the next several years.

For the past several months, I have been on the road with iConstituent’s Chief Technology Officer, Jeff Green. We are listening to and learning from our customers – completely focused on understanding what the market really wants. Our new and laser-focused mission statement at iConstituent is simple and to the point: “Connecting People and Government.” It fuels everything that we do and the core product we make. In line with our mission, iConstituent is rolling out major new enhancements to its flagship CRM that will make a big leap forward in the direction our customers are demanding – helping them provide better service to their customers, citizens like you and me.





Los Angeles Joins Google’s Government Innovation Lab

Read the story here.

The Google Government Innovation Lab opened with intrigue last year as the program, touting a curriculum for moonshot ideas and free technology, delivered more than a dozen projects in three California counties. Now the city of Los Angeles, and its roughly 4 million residents, are jump-starting the program to launch innovations of their own.

L.A.’s recently appointed Senior Technology Advisor Jeanne Holm confirmed the city’s participation, saying the program, re-branded as “Angels Lab,” is an attempt to answer five pressing citywide challenges. The ambitious goals — or as Google has coined them, “moonshots” — will be developed by five teams as Google guides the city with problem-solving strategies like quick prototyping and “failing fast.” Los Angeles has already selected its five impact areas. These include civic engagement, homelessness, city hiring, emergency management and economic development.

The Google projects are driven by 50-plus staffers divided into five startup-like teams, an approach that has worked in Kern, Alameda and San Joaquin counties. The Angels Lab will use people from various departments, ages, seniority and other demographics. Their work is funded through the city’s $1 Million Innovation Fund established in 2014. The money will help scale successful ideas from the lab after the six-week program ends in August with a presentation of ideas on Aug. 25.

“We ended up getting representation from about half the city departments, which was good,” Holm said. “Some of our youngest participants are 22 years old and maybe one is close to 80.”

Of all the obstacles L.A. is confronting, homelessness is one of the most pressing. In May, the Los Angeles Times reported that city and county homelessness increased to 47,000 people — with 28,000 of those city residents. The rising tally signified an 11 percent jump for the city compared to January the year before, and for L.A. County, the figure translated into a 5.7 percent increase.

“I think the most intractable issue we’ve faced is homelessness and the city has made a huge commitment of $138 million this year, pledged to help house people and move them into permanent housing.” Holm said.

The lab will enhance this work by pioneering a predictive analytics platform to identify early signs of homelessness so social services can assist.

“We’re hoping to be able to crack some of the code,” Holm said. We’ll ask what are the indicators three months, six months, nine months ahead, before a person or family falls into homelessness.”

The other impact areas have yet to finalize specific projects, but if San Joaquin County’s experience is any indication, the work is likely to be ongoing.

San Joaquin Administrator Monica Nino said her county’s five 2015 Google projects are in various stages of completion.

Its new website, now revamped and easily searchable, replaced its predecessor in a beta launch. Economic development Web pages to connect business to resources are still being added. A project to reduce the average entry-level hiring times from 40 days to seven — an impressive feat — has been realized in more than a few departments, with other departments awaiting online testing software to achieve similar results.


The last two projects — a tool for foster care placement and a mentorship platform for youth on probation — have been delayed. The mentorship platform did not receive bids in its RFP, and the county is waiting to see if state funding will arrive to turn the foster care tool into a statewide solution.

Whatever happens, Nino said the county is committed to seeing all of these projects through and is leveraging instruction from the lab for further initiatives.

“We don’t want to allow the waters to calm,” Nino said. “We want to continue to enhance our work and provide better services.”

Evidence of this can be found in the board of supervisors’ approval of 2016-2017 expenditures. Following Nino’s recommendation, the board allocated $500,000 to continue countywide innovation projects, including the expansion of credit and debit card use for online transactions.

Representatives from Kern and Alameda counties were not immediately available for comment.

Los Angeles has high yet realistic expectations for its “moonshot” projects. Holm, who worked for 17 years as the digital strategy manager at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, compared the city’s civic tech aspirations to NASA’s intended Mars landing — a grand objective that must be broken down using scientific processes “to turn it into small, doable problems.”

“The thing about a moonshot is that the end goal is extreme and inspirational,” Holm said. “Yet, in the meantime, there’s a whole lot of hard work to get from step, to step, to step, to get you there … I think that’s really where we’re at with this.”

Los Angeles CIO Ted Ross said the lab builds on much of the work the city has done in the past with regard to open data, civic tech, and making tech more accessible to residents.

“We’re excited about the Google Innovation Lab because it’s not only an opportunity to sit down and tackle five major challenges and continue the work we’re trying to do around innovation for the city of L.A., but we’re excited because it helps us bloom and grow,” Ross said. “We want to use both technology and good process of operations to make life better for every Angelino.”

Correction: An earlier version of this article listed Ted Ross as the former L.A. CTO when Ross is L.A.’s current CIO.

Jason Shueh

Jason Shueh Staff Writer

Jason Shueh is a staff writer for Government Technology magazine. His articles and writing have covered numerous subjects, from minute happenings to massive trends. A San Francisco Bay Area native, Shueh grew up in the east bay and Napa Valley, where his family is based. His writing has been published previously in the Tahoe Daily Tribune, Amazon Publishing, Bike Magazine, Diablo Magazine, The Sierra Sun, Nevada Appeal, The Union and theNorth Lake Tahoe Bonanza.

Click here for more about iConstituent’s flagship product

“Building Better City Websites Faster and Cheaper,” Luke Fretwell

As residents increasingly rely on the Web to interact with government, cities need ultimate flexibility when managing their digital offerings. Learn how WordPress — a platform that powers 25% of the world’s websites — allows cities to stand up government online services quicker and more cost-effective than ever before.

On July 12 at 12:00 p.m. CDT, I’ll present a webinar on WordPress and Government: Building better city websites faster and cheaper for National Association of Government Web Professionals members.

Learn more at the NAGWP website.

Luke Fretwell is co-founder and CEO of ProudCity, named by Government Technology as one of “5 to Watch” in 2016. He is also the founder of the government and civic technology blog, GovFresh. Connect with him on LinkedIn,Twitter and email at
For more information on iConstituent’s core product, click here.