Update "Enforcement matters" page to link to children pages

[noahmanger]

Now that we've published pages for audits, admin fines and ADR program, we need to update the Enforcement Matters page to link to those.

Do we already have content for this @emileighoutlaw or @jenniferthibault ?

Completion criteria:

• Draft blurbs for these sections
• Update markup on page to include all new links and content

[noahmanger]

I'd like to squeeze this into this upcoming mini release so we can basically release all these pages. I have two proposals for how we can do it with essentially no content editing:

First, is to just use the existing page like we have it, but removing the coming soon status on the text, using the same copy and adding links. View option 1

Option 2 is to do all of the above, but to use the layout we use on other pages like this, which I think works better given how this page has evolved.
View option 2.

[jenniferthibault]

I like 2 better, but we lost the structure, and the order got shuffled. Order seems important because it reflects the intro paragraph.

If we returned to the original structure and order but use this layout, only the h2s would be in the side nav. (That works for me.) @emileighoutlaw what's your take on the ideal structure?

(h1) Enforcement matters:

• (h2) Overview
  • (h3) Audit reports
  • (h3) Complaints
• (h2) Enforcement programs
  • (h3) Matters Under Review
  • (h3) Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • (h3) Administrative Fines
• (h2) Legal citations

[emileighoutlaw]

The hierarchy of this page is really tricky. I have some thoughts, but I'm going to take it to content workshop today to get some feedback. Will post an update this afternoon.

[emileighoutlaw]

Scratch waiting on critique group. I think Jen is 100% right about her outline, and so I've taken a stab at reworking the content to (hopefully) clarify this really tricky arm of FEC.

Edited to remove content for a future task

[emileighoutlaw]

My previous post was too much content to look at in a GitHub issues— I got swept up in the site-flip frenzy and started writing microcopy before we were ready. So I'm pulling that out for later.

Right now, I think the content structure is the important thing to get agreement on (and then the fine print will come next).

Jen's structure outlines what I think we need to clarify for readers (and in the order we need to clarify it):

1. What is FEC enforcement?
2. How do enforcement cases come about?
3. After they come about, how are enforcement cases are handled?

For newbies, that hierarchical and chronological clarity seems important, because this is a complicated, tricky thing.

For experience users, easy access to enforcement research is important, and this content structure should help with that too. (Headers + content chunking = fast scanning)

So here's what I think the outline should look like:

(h1) Enforcing federal campaign finance law

• (h2) Uncovering possible election law violations

  • (h3) Audits of political committees

  • (h3) Complaints

• (h2) Programs for handling enforcement cases

  • (h3) Matters Under Review

  • (h3) Alternative Dispute Resolution Program

  • (h3) Administrative Fine Program

• (h2) Enforcement statistics and internal process documents

• (h2) Legal citations

@jenniferthibault @noahmanger @AmyKort, what do y'all think?

[AmyKort]

@emileighoutlaw Generally, this looks great to me!

Uncovering possible violations might be broader than a two step process (I'm the reason you feel like you always need the microcopy) depending on how that's worded. From the current site:

The FEC has exclusive jurisdiction over the civil enforcement of the federal campaign finance law. In exercising that authority, the Commission uses a variety of methods to uncover possible election law violations:

The agency’s monitoring process may detect potential violations through a review of a committee’s reports or through a Commission audit.
Potential violations may be brought to the Commission’s attention through the complaint process. This process enables anyone to file a sworn complaint alleging violations and explaining the basis for the allegations.
The referral process enables other government agencies to refer possible violations to the FEC.
Any person or entity who believes it has committed a violation may bring the matter sua sponte to the Commission’s attention.

cc @amypike

[jenniferthibault]

👍 to your outline @emileighoutlaw. The plain language changes in the section titles are really helpful too!

[emileighoutlaw]

Chatted with Amy, and we're both enthusiastic about making clear that possible violations come from referrals and sua sponte submissions as well as audits and complaints. :)

So we're both feeling good about that outline.

[noahmanger]

Excellent. Is there fresh copy to come, or just re-arrange existing copy into this outline with these headings?

[emileighoutlaw]

I think we need some fresh copy.

@AmyKort, ready to start collaborating on this with me? Here's a draft Google Doc 🔒

[AmyKort]

I'll take a look!

[emileighoutlaw]

Made a couple notes in the doc for you @AmyKort :)

[noahmanger]

FYI we just merged in a change that will now allow this page to be edited in Wagtail.

[rhoughfec]

Updated audit section language in google doc.

[emileighoutlaw]

I believe the only things left to close out this issue are:

• Build new Wagtail page 🔒 for enforcement landing (Emileigh)
• Implement MURs search box (and an alert that also links to the old search) on Wagtail enforcement landing page (Noah)
• Publish

If I'm missing anything, please feel free to jump in. But linking to all the other legacy legal searches is happening on other pages and being tracked in https://github.com/18F/fec-cms/issues/840

[noahmanger]

@emileighoutlaw a couple more things to do:

• Move the pages that are currently children of "Enforcement" to be children of the new one
• Make sure the slug is correct (should be "enforcement")

[noahmanger]

All done!