1. STANDARD OF CARE AND
E-DEMOCRACY INITIATIVES:
POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE IMPACTS
Dr. Barry Wellar
Professor Emeritus, University of Ottawa
Principal, Wellar Consulting Inc.
President, Information Research Board Inc.
613-727-3483
wellarb@uottawa.ca
http://www.wellar.ca/wellarconsulting/
Text reprinted from
Proceedings, GIS-Pro 2012:
URISA’s 50th Annual Conference for
GIS Professionals
Pages 392-401

2. Dr. Barry Wellar
Professor Emeritus, University of Ottawa
Principal, Wellar Consulting Inc.
President, Information Research Board Inc.
613-727-3483
wellarb@uottawa.ca
http://www.wellar.ca/wellarconsulting/
STANDARD OF CARE AND E-DEMOCRACY INITIATIVES:
POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE IMPACTS
Abstract. This presentation summarizes the core arguments in the two
standard of care papers given by Wellar (Wellar, 2010a, 2010b) at the
2010 URISA conference, and then discusses some of the policy and
legislative impacts arising from and feeding into the fusion of GIS and e-
democracy infrastructure and activities. The presentation should be of
particular interest to: 1) elected and appointed members of the
executive function responsible for incorporating standard of care
obligations into the policies and legislative materials of local,
provincial/state, and federal governments; and 2) managers and GISPs
responsible for designing and implementing a GIS-based, e-democracy
capability that achieves enterprise-wide inter-connectivity between duty
of care and standard of care obligations and the modifications to
policies or legislative documents and procedures that pertain to those
care obligations.
INTRODUCTION
The background for this paper is provided by the Session Description which is posted
on the URISA website, and is published in the conference program.
Barry Wellar’s presentation at the 2010 GIS-Pro Conference introduced
the topic of governments using GIS to meet duty of care/standard of
care obligations. During the 2011 GIS-Pro Conference, Sean McGrath
reported on e-democracy activities designed to streamline the
legislative process, reduce the paper burden, and significantly improve
information exchanges between elected officials and citizens. This
panel session builds on those foundations by discussing how
information technology is modernizing the legislative process in different
jurisdictions, how the availability of GIS is increasing the onus on
governments to explicitly build GIS into their standard of care

3. capabilities, and how e-democracy principles and practices are
emerging as a core element of enterprise-wide computer-based
communications systems in governments.
The materials which follow are based on the slides used in my 2012 GIS-PRO
presentation. I begin by re-visiting several tables from the 2010 papers (Wellar 2010a,
2010b), which were initial contributions to the URISA dialogue on standard of care and
GIS. Then, I outline the responsibilities of the executive function (elected and appointed
officials) in building a GIS capability that meets tests for achieving standard of care and,
ultimately, duty of care obligations.
(NOTE: Readers wishing to know about the duty of care and standard of care
distinctions and relationships are referred to the earlier papers for details and additional
references. For the purposes of this paper it may suffice to state that duty of care refers
to the obligations of governments towards citizens and corporate entities, and standard
of care refers to the effort made to achieve those obligations and, in particular, whether
the effort made is reasonable under the circumstances. As indicated by the title,
emphasis in this paper is on standard of care (the means) rather than duty of care (the
ends). However, since there is an intimate relationship between duty of care and
standard of care, I frequently refer to both of the care aspects because changes in one
can lead to changes in the other.)
With the basic parameters in place, I present an illustrative selection of policy and
legislative impacts associated the policy and legislative impacts arising from and
feeding into the fusion of GIS and e-democracy infrastructure and activities.
While I acknowledge that there could be other catalysts behind such a fusion process, it
is my experience that standard of care is a domain which is equally important to
governments, citizens, and corporations. As a result, I suggest that governments,
citizens, and corporations are likely to be equally motivated to have the fusion process
proceed with standard of care serving as a pre-eminent fusion driver.
However, since a generic approach is being taken in suggesting policy and legislative
impacts, the domain of choice could be other than standard of care with little or no loss
of generality. As for the other domains that warrant consideration as fusion drivers,
dozens of them are suggested in this paper, and many more dozens are suggested in
Foundations of Urban and Regional Information Systems and Geographic Information
Systems and Science (Wellar, 2012).
And, as a final introductory remark, my session task in part is to set the table for
presentations which are discussing various e-democracy R&D initiatives that are in
process or under consideration. The emphasis on standard of care provides a
substantive rationale or “hook” for jurisdictions already in the e-democracy design
phase, as well as for those beginning to explore the operational aspects of e-democracy
and/or the fusion of GIS and e-democracy infrastructure and activities.

4. CONNECTING DUTY OF CARE AND STANDARD OF CARE ITEMS AND GIS
APPLICATIONS
In the first of two duty of care/standard of care presentations at the 2010 URISA GIS-
PRO conference, I suggested a number of duty of care and standard of care materials
and functions which are, could be, or should be the basis of GIS applications (Wellar,
2010a). The indicative list of materials and functions is presented in Table 1.
There are numerous other pertinent materials and functions to be added to Table 1, and
I welcome seeing the present list expanded by contributions from municipal, provincial,
state, and federal agencies, respectively. It is my expectation that the number of add-
ons from each level of government will be large and diverse, and I suggest that URISA
find a partnering association to take the lead in compiling the expanded lists of materials
and functions.
TABLE 1. PUBLIC AGENCY DUTY OF CARE/STANDARD OF
CARE MATERIALS AND FUNCTIONS THAT DO HAVE,
COULD HAVE, OR SHOULD HAVE GIS APPLICATIONS:
AN INDICATIVE LISTING
Address files Maps/mapping
Air pollution alerts Motor vehicle collision reports
Building demolitions Noise studies
Building permits Pandemic alerts
By-laws Pedestrian slip-and-fall events
Censuses Pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions
Crimes against people reports Performance measure reports
Crimes against property reports Plan amendments
Cyclist collision reports Plans – Comprehensive
Development approvals Plans – General
Emergency measures Plans – Official
Emergency vehicle reports Plans of subdivision
Engineering reports Property assessment files
Environmental assessments Public safety programs
Fire reports Public safety reports
Flood reports Restaurant inspection reports
Forest/tree inventories Rezoning applications
Green space inventories Risk analyses
Habitat inventories Road signage
Hazards reports Road widenings
Health alerts Seismic studies
Heritage property files Surveys/surveying
Impact assessments Toxic waste facility hearings
Infrastructure reviews Traffic counts
Intersection modifications Traffic police assignments
Inspection reports Transit routing
Maintenance of bike path reports Urban impact assessments
Maintenance of parks reports Utility corridors
Maintenance of public housing reports Water quality reporting
Maintenance of roadways reports Water supply analysis
Maintenance of sidewalks reports Zoning approvals

5. CONNECTING DUTY OF CARE AND STANDARD OF CARE FAILURES AND
EXECUTIVE IMPLICATIONS
Duty of care and standard of care failures come with consequences that affect the
individuals and entities experiencing the failures, as well as consequences that afflict
those responsible for the failures due to errors of omission or commission. Table 2 uses
a number of media headlines to illustrate a variety of duty of care and standard of care
failures, all of which have implications for the executives – elected and appointed – who
are ultimately accountable for the failures which are named in or can be adduced from
the headlines or the stories elaborating the headlines.
The headlines in Table 2 are illustrative of the 200-300 duty of care and standard of
care stories that I can assemble in 3-5 hours of electronically searching media outlets. It
is likely that people who are good at keyword searching, and have more tech savvy,
could likely get similar results in less than an hour. I strongly encourage such searches,
and look forward to being apprised of the results. Again, it is emphasized that the
current listing is illustrative, and that there are numerous other pertinent headlines to be
added to Table 2.
Further, and very importantly, it is timely at this point in the paper to explicitly recognize
the significance of the term “democracy”, which is at the heart of e-democracy
infrastructure and services. That is, and consistent with URISA’s “showing by example”
over the past 50 years, e-democracy is all about sharing data, information, and
knowledge, and towards that end a very instructive and perhaps invaluable service
could be provided by creating and maintaining a repository of fully-sourced media items
reporting on duty of care and standard of care failures and any associated actions.
TABLE 2. DEATHS, INJURIES AND OTHER COSTS OF STANDARD OF
CARE FAILURES? CHECK YOUR NEWS SOURCES!
“New cap for leaky well – Torrent of oil released as smaller cap is removed”
“Oil giant changes face – Next BP head says he’ll put safety first
“Heavy trucks need side mirrors to prevent more deaths”
“Chemical plant does not belong in residential area”
"Roads scholar takes stand for pedestrian safety"
“Board faces lawsuit over bullying”
“Mayor: Flood fix priority for city”
“Flood victims want solution”
“Taxpayers want answers for sewage spill”
“Death of elderly woman puts dangerous stretch of road in context”
‘District did not post contaminated water alert”
“Police action in Toronto worrisome”
“The road to anarchy”
“Top doc gives city a heads-up on helmet use”
“Bike lanes would boost tourism, increase safety”
“Collision – Stop sign obscured by tree”

6. TABLE 2. DEATHS, INJURIES AND OTHER COSTS OF STANDARD OF
CARE FAILURES? CHECK YOUR NEWS SOURCES! (CONTINUED)
“City health inspectors miss fast food strip”
“Drinking water safety push”
“Ice-covered road blamed for multi-vehicle crash”
“Smog warning not issued”
“Mudslide was predictable”
“Fatal crash stokes up cellphone debate”
“Wetland feud heats up at city hall”
“They tore down a heritage building – were all city staff asleep?”
“Notification missed 150 affected homes”
“Washed-out shoulder causes roll-over”
“Transport and highway designs need overhaul”
“Urban sprawl – Other cities show us the dangers of uncontrolled development”
“Gross misuse of scarce water”
“Totally wrong place for a playground”
“Protesters rip expanded landfill plan”
“Broken sidewalk causes broken leg, city sued”
“Bridge collapses, investigation begins”
“Development on flood plain big mistake”
“PG&E ignored gaps in data, engineer says”
“A life short changed: Dad of student killed in blast wants inquest,
not a financial slap on the wrist for board”
‘Riverside-Hunt Club No. 1 with a bang – Busy intersection remains
atop list of collision sites in 2011”
“Deadly level crossings”
CONNECTING DUTY OF CARE AND STANDARD OF CARE ITEMS IN TABLE 1
AND THE MEDIA HEADLINES IN TABLE 2
The connection between Table 1 and Table 2 is likely self-evident to many readers, so
brevity is in order here. Put simply, when duty of care and standard of care obligations
associated with the materials and functions such as those in Table 1 are not met to a
reasonable degree, then headlines such as those in Table 2 arise to afflict elected and
appointed officials legally, politically, financially, professionally, criminally, and so on.
EXECUTIVE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR BUILDING A GIS CAPABILITY THAT MEETS
TESTS FOR ACHIEVING DUTY OF CARE AND STANDARD OF CARE
OBLIGATIONS
Numerous URISA publications over the past near-fifty years have discussed in detail
the roles and responsibilities of executives (elected and appointed) in the design,
development, implementation, and use of information systems in general, and a variety
of sub-systems or standalone systems in particular, including:

7.  CJIS (Criminal Justice Information Systems)
 EDIS (Economic Development Information Systems)
 EIS (Environmental Information Systems)
 FIS (Financial Information Systems)
 HIN (Health information Network)
 HIS (Housing Information Systems)
 GIS (Geographic Information Systems)
 LIS (Land Information Systems)
 MIS (Management Information Systems)
 PAIS (Property Assessment Information Systems)
 PIS (Planning Information Systems)
 PPIS (Public Participation Information Systems)
 PSIS (Public Safety Information Systems)
 TIS (Transportation Information Systems)
 W/WIS (Water/Wastewater Information Systems)
As a result, therefore, and by way of a “heads up”, when it comes to what is known,
what could be known, and what should be known about a wide range of information
systems and their associated capabilities, it is the wise expert who knows what the
URISA literature has to say on using any of the various information systems in differing
duty of care and standard of care situations.
A key point to emphasize here is that while the focus of the presentation and this paper
is on GIS (geographic information systems), the fact remains that when it comes to
matters involving duty of care and standard of care failure, one of the other sub-systems
or standalone systems could be a minor or major, partial or total, etc., contributor to that
failure.
Therefore, while Table 3 is limited in scope to the GIS capability, what is said about GIS
in Table 3 is largely applicable to any of the sub-systems or standalone systems that
are part of e-democracy infrastructure and activities.
TABLE 3. A SHORT LIST OF EXECUTIVE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR
ENSURING THAT A GIS CAPABILITY MEETS
DUTY OF CARE AND STANDARD OF CARE OBLIGATIONS
1. Prepare staff in all units for an increasingly GIS-oriented work environment.
2. Prepare themselves and staff for standard of care situations in which the design,
development, and application of geographic information systems (GIS) are issues
in whether duty of care and standard of care obligations are met to a reasonable
degree.
3. Instruct staff in terms of the geographic information and associated
information needed to satisfy duty of care and standard of care obligations.
4. Approve the information content of duty of care and standard of care
documents (e.g., laws, by-laws, policies, plans, programs, budgets,
regulations, and manuals).

8. TABLE 3. A SHORT LIST OF EXECUTIVE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR
ENSURING THAT A GIS CAPABILITY MEETS DUTY OF CARE AND
STANDARD OF CARE OBLIGATIONS (CONTINUED)
5. Direct professional staff who provide the information (e.g., data, studies,
files, records, maps, surveys, and reports) needed to ensure that legal and
other duty of care and standard of care obligations can be achieved.
6. Adopt budget and work program envelopes containing the GIS technology
and applications capabilities.
7. Provide the resources which are appropriate under the circumstances to
enable professional staff and technical staff to specify, acquire, process,
disseminate, and apply the geographic information and associated
information needed to satisfy standard of care and duty of care obligations
as they apply to all pertinent documents (e.g., laws, statutes, acts, by-laws,
policies, plans, programs, budgets, regulations, and manuals).
DESIGNING A GIS CAPABILITY TO MEET DUTY OF CARE AND STANDARD OF
CARE OBLIGATIONS WITHIN AN E-DEMOCRACY FRAMEWORK
My assignment for the session includes suggesting a selection of policy and legislative
impacts involving duty of care and standard of care obligations that arise from the fusion
of GIS and e-democracy (infrastructure and activities).
Building on work published in URISA proceedings, and most notably papers with Britton
Harris (Wellar and Harris, 1992) and Ralph Smith (Smith and Wellar, 1992) in Volume 5
of the 1992 conference proceedings, I use generic language in Table 4 and Table 5 to
indicate how the fusion of GIS and e-democracy affects policy and legislative processes
in governments.
Policy Impact
Stages or phases in the policy formation process have similarities and differences
among municipal, provincial, state, central and federal governments.
It is my experience, however, that there are core stages or phases involving a common
language among many jurisdictions, and a selection of those terms is presented in
Table 4.
Perhaps future papers will add to the stages or phases in Table 4, leading to a more
comprehensive listing of policy impacts arising from the fusion of GIS and e-democracy.

9. TABLE 4. A SELECTION OF POLICY IMPACTS ARISING FROM THE FUSION OF
GIS AND E-DEMOCRACY INFRASTRUCTURE AND ACTIVITIES
1. Opportunity to use GIS to electronically inform and listen to the public on
identifying policy options involving duty of care and standard of care
obligations
2. Opportunity to use GIS to electronically inform and listen to the public on
prioritizing policy options involving duty of care and standard of care
obligations
3. Opportunity to use GIS to electronically inform and listen to the public on
prioritizing policy choices involving duty of care and standard of care
obligations
4. Opportunity to use GIS to electronically inform and listen to the public on
adopting policy choices involving duty of care and standard of care
obligations
5. Opportunity to use GIS to electronically inform and listen to the public on
implementing policy choices involving duty of care and standard of care
obligations
6. Opportunity to use GIS to electronically inform and listen to the public on
evaluating policy choices involving duty of care and standard of care
obligations
7. Opportunity to electronically inform and listen to the public on evaluating
policy options involving duty of care and standard of care obligations
Legislative Impact
The term “legislation is used in this paper to represent all statements or documents that
are officially adopted by municipal, provincial, state, federal, and central governments,
as well as any other forms or levels of government known to viewers in general and
URISA members in particular. Among such documents which are covered by the term
legislation are laws, statutes, acts, by-laws, policies, plans, programs, budgets,
regulations, and manuals), any which could directly or indirectly entail duty of care and
standard of care obligations.
It is my expectation that there are significant differences between the body of legislative
materials with which I am familiar, and the larger body of legislative materials known to
the URISA membership and viewers of this paper. I look forward to learning about
additional statements and documents which are being incorporated in e-democracy
initiatives.
And, it is my further expectation that there are a number of phases or stages in the
legislative process which are not included in Table 5. I look forward to learning about
these additional phases or stages in the legislative process which are being
incorporated in e-democracy initiatives.

10. TABLE 5. A SELECTION OF LEGISLATIVE IMPACTS ARISING FROM THE FUSION
OF GIS AND E-DEMOCRACY INFRASTRUCTURE AND ACTIVITIES
1. Opportunity to use GIS to electronically inform and listen to the public
on amending legislation duty of care and standard of care obligations
2. Opportunity to use GIS to electronically inform and listen to the public
on revising legislation involving duty of care and standard of care
obligations
3. Opportunity to use GIS to electronically inform and listen to the public
on introducing legislation involving duty of care and standard of care
obligations
4. Opportunity to use GIS to electronically inform and listen to the public
on debating legislation involving duty of care and standard of care
obligations
5. Opportunity to use GIS to electronically inform and listen to the public
on disseminating legislation involving duty of care and standard of
care obligations
6. Opportunity to use GIS to electronically inform and listen to the public
on accessing legislation involving duty of care and standard of care
obligations
7. Opportunity to use GIS to electronically inform and listen to the public
on creating legislation involving duty of care and standard of care
obligations
8. Opportunity to use GIS to electronically inform and listen to the public
on evaluating legislation involving duty of care and standard of care
obligations
CONCLUSION
Duty of care, standard of care, GIS, and e-democracy infrastructure and activities are
topics that have been discussed at numerous URISA conferences and in numerous
URISA publications over the years, but the session on Standard of Care and E-
Democracy Initiatives at the 2012 URISA GIS-PRO conference is the first time that the
topics are combined in one discussion.
The task of the initial paper in the session, “Standard of Care and E-Democracy
Initiatives: Policy and Legislative Impacts”, therefore, is to first outline the basic
connections which are in play, that is, standard of care Items and GIS applications, and
standard of care failures and executive implications. With two building blocks in place,
the paper then adds a third building block by summarizing the responsibilities of public
sector executives (elected and appointed) for building a GIS capability that meets tests
for achieving standard of care obligations.
Then, after putting the primary building blocks in place, the paper uses duty of care and
standard of care concerns and obligations as the “talking points” around which to

11. illustrate the policy and legislative impacts arising from the fusion of GIS and e-
democracy infrastructure and activities.
In closing, it is my impression that by combining duty of care and standard of care
considerations with the fusion of GIS and e-democracy infrastructure and activities, this
session is launching a significant course of thinking and action. I therefore suggest that
preparations begin now to document a story that will warrant serious consideration for
URISA’s sequel to the 2012 anniversary production, Foundations of Urban and
Regional Information Systems and Geographic Information Systems and Science.
REFERENCES
Smith, Ralph and Barry Wellar, 1992. A progress report on public policy objectives
achieved through IS/GIS/LIS. In IS/GIS/LIS in Public Policies, Plans and Programs:
Thirty Years in Perspective. Barry Wellar and Dan Parr eds. Washington. D.C.: Urban
and Regional Information Systems Association. 117-144.
Wellar, Barry, 2010a. GIS as a factor in standard of care decisions. In URISA 2010
Proceedings.
Wellar, Barry, 2010b. GIS and standard of care issues: Executive aspect. In URISA
2010 Proceedings.
Wellar, Barry, 2012. Foundations of Urban and Regional Information Systems and
Geographic Information Systems and Science. http://www.urisa.org/foundations
Wellar, Barry and Britton Harris. 1992. Information and knowledge bases for decision-
making: A progress report. In IS/GIS/LIS in Public Policies, Plans and Programs: Thirty
Years in Perspective. Barry Wellar and Dan Parr eds. Washington, D.C.: Urban and
Regional Information Systems Association. 85-105.