Now we're getting somewhere ...

"The bill will require the City to create a centralized online repository of all publicly available information that is either produced or retained by the City. Furthermore, data published under this legislation will be done so in a format that will be readable by any computer device, whether that is a laptop or a phone. Not only will this collection of information be invaluable to elected officials, other government agencies and public advocates, but it can also be used by private citizens who could use the information in ingenious and unforeseen ways."

I was wondering why I was getting all those NYC hits on the site over the past couple of years ... mmmmmmm.....

A suggestion ...

"State law currently does not allow counties to abolish governments. The new law allows a county executive and county legislature to create a master plan, subject to a referendum, that could merge or dissolve local governments."

"The most dysfunctional city on the planet is going to tell us how to streamline government?" Southampton Village Mayor Mark Epley said of the bill signed into law Thursday by Gov. David A. Paterson. "What drives the tax bill on Long Island is the cost of education. That's what the state should be focusing on."

A suggestion.

Nassau and Suffolk are already in the process of doing a master plan for Long Island through the Long Island Regional Planning Council. My understanding, through discussions with those involved in the process, is that it will be collaborative, comprehensive, thorough and perhaps even dynamic.

Do we really need another master plan for one particular purpose?

Can't we yet see that most things we do on Long Island are interrelated?

Can't we yet base our decisions on a rational, deliberative approach such as (but not exclusively obviously) we suggest in the "One Long Island" series of concepts?

The truth is that no one has the information we need in a format that is usable for the intended purposes on Long Island or in New York State.

Until we make that a priority, we will continually be subject to "chasing our own tail" stuck in a cycle of stagnation.

One Long Island creates an "open system" for collaborative development.

Adapting the One Long Island Concept to New York State: Part One

New York State Dynamic Constitutional Convention: Part One

The has been quite a bit of discussion lately about a New York State Constitutional Convention.

This has been motivated primarily by the "breakdown" in Albany and the impact it has had on New York citizens.

I would respectfully submit for consideration the concept of a "dynamic" constitutional convention based, in part, upon the preceding 300 posts (One Long Island/Long Island Constitutional Convention).

Why?

Because as history has repeatedly demonstrated, a "static" approach to major issues in inherently limited by its lack of flexibility and lack of "normalized" information and analysis.

More in Part Two.

Plug n' Play ...

Here is yet another good idea and worthwhile program to benefit those citizens with Alzheimer’s.

Here's the question. What similar types of programs are currently available and how are they run? What programs currently exist not directly on point but similar (Amber Alert etc) that might be used as a model?

We've previously opined on the need for a flexible "common language" for Long Island (and indeed New York State and maybe the federal government as well). Without this "common language" there is minimal coordination and much wasted effort.

If, for example, the Alzheimer's program (legislation) described above could be "plugged in" to an existing technical framework, it would be much easier to establish connections with "complimentary" programs and legislation.

One Long Island offers, among other concepts, ideas on how to create this "framework" for the rapid and collaborative implementation of public policy.

A "unified theory"of sorts for public policy.

Funny ... sad ...

Funny bit from The Daily Show on Long Island as the 51st state.

Funny, but illustrative of the way we are currently viewed.

"One Long Island" is a way to change this perception.

Yes we have no bananas ...

“I think we’re seeing a meltdown,” said Edward I. Koch, the former New York mayor. He added, “I believe it’s not only disgraceful, but it makes New York look like a banana republic.”

The natural tendency in times of crisis is to look for a strong "leader" to solve our problems.

I believe that the problems New York is experiencing are systemic and that they essentially require a reworking of how we govern ourselves.

The One Long Island series of ideas are an attempt to create an "environment" where ideas can be discussed and analyzed on a level playing field apart from the "political game" utilizing "normalized data. "

The problems we have are too large for "games."

Elected officials are certainly in the middle of all this, but so too are the many organizations and advocacy groups that have been created over the years in reaction to the "game." Certainly this "game within a game" will need to be reformed as well.

One Long Island attempts to return the large policy decisions of the day back into the hands of the general public.

This trust in the "collective will" has met with suspicion in the past. But in the past we have not had the technical tools at our disposal to engage in the type of collaborative meta-planning as we do today.

What will require "meta-leadership" is the will, strength and vision to give the public the tools we need to govern ourselves.

This is not difficult to do from a technical point of view, but it will require sacrifice by those who currently hold power and those who earn a living interacting with those in power.

LI Business News Editorial ...

Editorial: In the dark

by the Editors
Published: June 5, 2009
Tags: Andrew Cuomo, consolidation, taxing districts

In case you missed it, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo – yes, we’re also wondering why the governor wasn’t at the command – is pushing a bill that could lead to eliminating or consolidating local governments.

The N.Y. Government Reorganization and Citizen Empowerment Act, Cuomo’s baby, would make it easier for voters to erase special taxing districts, including entire governments.

And, understandably, the proposed bill received a resounding endorsement from business leaders and elected officials in county and state governments.

The argument: The extra taxing jurisdictions are placing an unnecessary burden on Long Island taxpayers, many of whom are already choked by the cost of living here.

Of course taxes on Long Island are extreme and, yes, the layers of government make it difficult to figure out which government entity is supposed to clear which street during a snowstorm.

This bill, which has bipartisan support, would help streamline government responsibilities.

But would it really lead to lower taxes? For many Islanders, school district charges make up more than 80 percent of their property tax bill.

Also, if we’re going to consider the removal of government layers, who is to say that the model used in smaller villages such as Patchogue and Babylon isn’t more productive than the town model, where garbage is often not picked up along highways?

Be careful what you wish for, lawmakers, the voters might be best served by eliminating you.

But generally speaking, Cuomo is right about what has crippled the New York economy. The state, and Long Island in particular, can’t survive without consolidation of some sort.

New York has 10,000 layers of government imposing taxes and fees.

That includes water, sewer and lighting districts.

Lighting districts? If something isn’t done soon, there won’t be any lights left to turn on.

My response:

You have identified a key point. Currently there is no adequate method of assessing the quality of services and the cost of similar services. In fact as Mr. Cuomo has said, he is not even 100% sure how many taxing jurisdictions there are.

That is unacceptable. How can you know how to solve a problem unless you have identified the problem in detail and explored all viable options?

This not the fault of Mr. Cuomo who I’m sure is doing the best he can within the existing structure, but it is a problem that needs to be addressed so that the public can feel reasonably secure that the changes being considered are viable and well thought out and that all informed opinions are heard (most importantly the public) on a level playing field.

This is because, in part, we have data and methods of analysis that are disjointed and not “normalized” on Long Island and New York generally. Also the information is generally if not always presented in a “static format” rather than a “dynamic format” making it difficult to compare and analyze the different options and to react to sudden changes in the “decision making environment.”

Consolidation is one method for change. “Dynamic collaboration” is another (explained here http://www.onelongisland.com) with some proposals on how to construct this new “dynamic environment.”

Good article ...

Here is an well written article "A Wealth of Municipalities, and an Era of Hard Time" that raises a number of interesting points.

It does serve to prove our point however, that when it comes to rational decision making about the best method(s) for providing services, we are not all singing from the "same hymnal" with regard to data and analysis.

The first step in coming to a reasonable, collaborative resolution is the normalization of the data and the creation of "dynamic" system rather than the "static" system that currently exists.

Part of the One Long Island series of ideas is an attempt to remedy this problem.

Dynamic Action vs Unintended Consequences:Part I

Unintended consequences are outcomes that are not (or not limited to) the results originally intended in a particular situation. The unintended results may be foreseen or unforeseen, but they should be the logical or likely results of the action. For example, historians have speculated that if the Treaty of Versailles had not imposed such harsh conditions on Germany, World War II would not have occurred. From this perspective, one might consider the war an unintended consequence of the treaty.

Unintended consequences can be grouped into roughly three types:

• a positive unexpected benefit, usually referred to as serendipity or a windfall
• a negative or perverse effect, that may be contrary to what was originally intended
• a potential source of problems, such as described by Murphy's law

Discussions of unintended consequences usually refer to the situation of perverse results. This situation can arise when a policy has a perverse incentive and causes actions contrary to what is desired.

The law of unintended consequences

The "law of unintended consequences" (also called the "law of unforeseen consequences") states that any purposeful action will produce some unintended consequences. A classic example is a bypass — a road built to relieve traffic congestion on a congested road — that attracts new development and with it more traffic, resulting in two congested streets instead of one.

This maxim is not a scientific law; it is more in line with Murphy's law as a warning against the hubristic belief that humans can fully control the world around them. Stated in other words, each cause has more than one effect, and these effects will invariably include at least one unforeseen side effect. The unintended side effect can potentially be more significant than any of the intended effects.

History

The idea of unintended consequences dates back at least to Adam Smith, the Scottish Enlightenment, and consequentialism (judging by results). However, it was the sociologist Robert K. Merton who popularized this concept in the twentieth century.

In his 1936 paper, "The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action", Merton tried to apply a systematic analysis to the problem of "unanticipated consequences" of "purposive social action". He emphasized that his term "purposive action… [is exclusively] concerned with 'conduct' as distinct from 'behavior.' That is, with action that involves motives and consequently a choice between various alternatives".^[1] Merton also stated that "no blanket statement categorically affirming or denying the practical feasibility of all social planning is warranted."^[2]

Causes

Possible causes of unintended consequences include the world's inherent complexity (parts of a system responding to changes in the environment), perverse incentives, human stupidity, self-deception or other cognitive or emotional biases. As a sub-component of complexity (in the scientific sense), the chaotic nature of the universe – and especially its quality of having small, apparently insignificant changes with far-reaching effects (e.g., the Butterfly Effect) – applies.

Robert K. Merton listed five possible causes of unanticipated consequences:^[3]

1. Ignorance (It is impossible to anticipate everything, thereby leading to incomplete analysis)
2. Error (Incorrect analysis of the problem or following habits that worked in the past but may not apply to the current situation)
3. Immediate interest, which may override long-term interests
4. Basic values may require or prohibit certain actions even if the long-term result might be unfavorable (these long-term consequences may eventually cause changes in basic values)
5. Self-defeating prophecy (Fear of some consequence drives people to find solutions before the problem occurs, thus the non-occurrence of the problem is unanticipated)

We will attempt to explore over the next few posts how our concept of "Dynamic Action (or Dynamic Planning, Dynamic Legislation etc)" may potentially serve as a hedge against the unintended consequences of what appears to be the "correct" decision at a particular moment in time.

The County of Long Island: Part One

With all the talk of statehood for Long Island and the recent push for consolidation of various forms of government, it just stuck me.

Why not combine the two?

Why not reform all of Long Island into a powerful "semi independent" region capable of having its own constitution and rethinking and reinventing how all services are provided and how we leverage our educational organizations and business for maximum opportunity for all its citizens?

After all, couldn't we use almost all the ideas we've been promoting in "One Long Island" in the "reformation" of Long Island?

Sure we'd probably need fewer elected officials, but I mean, what the heck. Let's do it for the good of the citizens. Besides, a unified County of Long Island would have much greater political power in Albany because it would be less about traditional political affiliations and more about the citizens of Long Island. The "labyrinth" of divisions would truly be mended.

Why take half measures? Fix the problem across the board. In fact let's have a referendum on the idea. You know people are serious about real reform when the proposers actually have to sacrifice something themselves. And the only way to do that is through a "meta reformation."

We can have the newly constituted Long Island Regional Planning Council as the vehicle to craft the proposal. After all they are in the midst of a new "master plan" for Long Island anyway. Let's have a truly coordinated effort to solve our shared problems.

Also is it time for a New York Constitutional Convention? Do we have so many difficult issues to address that is is time for a New York reformation? Is this the best method for fundamentally restructuring government and addressing other important social issues?

Certainly we have the brainpower here on Long Island to figure it out. Perhaps One County first, statehood later after we've proven ourselves?

More in Part II

Comments ...

Some good ideas in the proposal. More needs to be done however to determine the actual savings of the plan and the impact it will have on the structural governance of the service providers and the delivery of services. Also the legislation should include all governing bodies, not just those cited.

They did well with the information they had available, but Long Island (and New York) needs a more formal plan to normalize and analyze data and otherwise engage in “meta-planning” and “meta education.”

We should also use “collaborative technology” in a “dynamic” way so that the results of any report or proposal including the present “static” one, have broad support from the public based upon actual knowledge and input.

Congratulations on a good job however in “moving the ball forward” and engaging the public in an important issue. More here http://www.onelongisland.com

Review: Part One

I thought it was time to start a review (and possibly expand) on some of the 300 or so previous posts.

“Simply stated, ‘One Long Island’ is a series of interrelated projects designed to foster productive collaboration on Long Island through the utilization of common technology, interdisciplinary education, public participation and a shared Long Island philosophy. In short it is a way to change the way we solve problems on Long Island in a sustainable manner.”

Dynamic Ethics Commission?

"How emblematic is it of Albany's challenges that the latest scandal involves the commission that's supposed to oversee ethics and lobbying? It's over the Troopergate matter again, the scandal that doesn't seem to die. State officials must recast this commission into one the public can trust."

Can the public trust itself?

Perhaps the new "Commission" should be akin to a rotating jury process, although not quite as "open ended." After all there are laws to be followed and facts to be applied.

The idea is that if there is a large pool of individuals involved, from diverse backgrounds, it is more likely it is that the result will be fair.

Can any "commission" appointed by powerful people ever be truly independent? Perhaps. But usually elected officials appoint folks who generally think as they do, so there will always be some sort of bias, whether overt or unintentional involved on the selection process I would suspect. The current political culture is too strong to really avoid this result.

So how to select these folks? How do we provide them with accurate, unbiased information upon which to render an fair judgment?

First we have to reform how information is made available (as we have been talking about for the past 15 years or so).

Perhaps the ethics laws themselves should be reformed. Are they too stringent so as to stifle creative work and restrict attracting quality public servants in the state or are they not restrictive enough?

What levels of investigation are there? Perhaps certain categories can be handled by a smaller appointed "commission." Perhaps larger cases should have "regional" directors elected by the public. Elected members may have no political affiliation. Perhaps all cases should be handled by this larger commission.

After all if you wish to "regain" the public trust shouldn't you allow the public to be part of the process?

As with any reform, it is important to understand how the change will affect not only the area contemplated, buy any ancillary issue as well.

This why we advocate the "meta" approach for comprehensive change and the direct engagement of the public and additionally, providing the public with the tools they need to assist in their own governance.

Solution or Distracter?

Is this partial solution helpful or what we have referred to before as a "distracter?"

10,500 sounds like a lot of government, but is it really going to save money if you consolidate certain parts of government without first understanding how services are provided in New York and, more importantly, what the best alternatives are (see Best Practices Wiki, Virtual Constitution, Meta-Data Project etc in previous posts.)?

Once again we have a static report on which we purport to make sweeping legislative changes.

I personally believe it is a good thing to allow the public an easier route to modify their government through referenda. I would have regularly scheduled "cycles of referenda" in fact to keep the public engaged in a "dynamic process" rather than require the public to get signatures. I would also give the public broader powers to reform how they are governed generally.


Here I'm afraid is a partial solution which at the end of the day will not lead to significant cost reductions (especially on Long Island) because it does not include school districts and other large forms of government, where the bulk of the tax dollars go.

It also does not provide a clear methodology for determining cost savings based upon empirical data gathered neutrally and analyzed by collaborative means. How do I know this? Because it doesn't presently exist. But it should and it can with a reasonable effort.

Put simply. No one knows with any reasonable certainty the outcomes of their actions or legislation.

Again we have a lot of effort going for a partial solution when we can be putting more effort into crafting a broader framework for more sustainable progress in New York State.

The intent of the individuals involved, I'm sure, is noble and for the right reasons. But do we really need a another partial solution?

The problem may seem to be insurmountable, but it is not. It just takes a little organization and a little collaboration to unleash the immense talent of the individuals and organizations in our state.

Meta-analysis continued ...

"Last year, DiNapoli launched www.OpenBookNewYork.com, a website containing searchable databases of spending by more than 100 state agencies and more than 60,000 state contracts. It also includes school districts.

And there are other groups shining sunlight through the clouds on school districts as well. The Empire Center for New York State Policy, an Albany-based think tank and project of the nonprofit Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, provides an easily accessible, easily searchable database for government payrolls, labor contracts and expenditures across the state—including school districts’ teachers and superintendents—through its SeeThroughNY Web portal (www.SeeThroughNY.net). "

All of the above projects (and others of a similar nature) are good and worthwhile. But, yet again, we see similar projects executed without "normalization" or a "common language."

Can they be converted to become part of the "whole" and thus more productive and useful elements? Of course.

Will they?

No, unless we (as Long Islanders and New Yorkers in this case) demand that they do.

This data, while useful, still does not allow us to engage in the "meta-analysis" we require to come to rational and collaborative decisions about our future.

At best this information is a beginning. At worst it allows advocacy groups of all stripes to pick and choose only the data they want from the data source(s) they wish to use to perpetuate their already established beliefs.

We can, and must do better.

Dynamic Legislation continued ...

"A proposal for political accountability: add up all the costs imposed on localities by New York State through its actions, then deduct all the benefits localities get from the state.

We’re unsure what the answer would be, but there is some anecdotal evidence that the cost to localities has been moving upward in recent months."

A good example of what we've been talking about. No one really knows the impact of their legislative actions.

To be fair, this is a longstanding problem and not just in New York State

However it is knowable.

As we've discussed here among other posts, we require a new methodology for coming to rational solutions.

More later ...

Piercing the Haze: Part I

What is a "distracter?" A "distracter" is technology which is employed to make it appear that the provider is interested in your input or that the information you provide will be used for a constructive purpose.

The less cynical view is that the provider doesn't know any better and is using the technology because they feel they have to to look current. The more cynical view is that they do know what they are doing and are using the technology to promote a specific agenda while using the technology as a sort of "Trojan horse" to gain your trust.

Filters are those elements which prevent the public form getting accurate information.

So what we are attempting to do, in part, with the One Long Island series of ideas is to "pierce" the haze of filters and distracters toward a more unified "language." Yes there will still be disagreements on policy, but at least we'll all be "singing from the same hymnal" so to speak.

More in Part II.

Dynamic Legislation: Part II

We've posted previously about a dynamic legislative process and the need for a flexible "standard or normalized language" to be established in order to better coordinate policies and programs.

Generally we've restrained ourselves to the issues on Long Island and New York State (although the general principles we promote are applicable in many, if not all regions).

So the trick is to lessen the "gamesmanship" of policy making and promote a clear, rational model instead. Although some might say that the "gamesmanship" is what makes politics exciting and fun as well as giving the media and endless source of content. Nevertheless, we will go forward with our somewhat boring version of how to restructure our environment in order to be more productive.

Yes, but aren't you engaging in "social engineering" one might ask. Well, no unless you believe the public is incapable of creating a better model for itself than the one that currently exists.

No, I'm not talking about a "revolutionary idea" here. We are just taking elements of what currently exists and reconfiguring them in a way to be more productive and to create an dynamic environment (one that can quickly react and adapt to changes in the environment).

So how to create this "meta-democracy" with a minimum of disruption but with an eye towards the future?

Tough, but not impossible.

Let's not get hung up over issues like "term limits" because in reality the system dictates how people react not how long they've been in office. Yes the longer you're there the better you get at the "game" but we are suggesting that the game no longer works.

First, standardize or normalize in a dynamic and flexible manner "technical language" whether legislative, Internet or other. Language (in the broadest sense of the word) utilized by government should not look or behave differently whether it is at the local, state or federal level. A key element in public participation is the use of plain language and procedures to help coordinate and foster collaboration across the real and sometimes artificial boundaries we've established over the years. No, I'm not talking about "dumbing down" the language, but as it stands now it is getting in the way of active, real debate.

Out of time today .. more in Part III.

Organizational M Theory: Part II

Just an idea that continues to interest (puzzle) me.

That is applying M Theory to organizational theory and somehow incorporating it in to our "One Long Island" series of concepts.

What interests me currently is the fact that there are multiple "dimensions of spacetime" and that the same set of circumstances may have different outcomes in each of these dimensions.

It reminds me of Long Island, where we have multiple organizations/individuals and groups of organizations/individuals working on the same or similar problems in their own "membranes" and coming up with different results.

That isn't necessarily a bad thing if there is someway to "string" these membranes together to come up with the most effective outcome.

Just something I'm exploring, may or may not lead to anything.

As usual.

Almost there ...

Yet another indication that Long Island can create its own news and information portal apart from traditional media.

"The news business “is in a difficult time period right now, between what was and what will be,” said Gary Kebbel, the journalism program director for the Knight Foundation, which has backed 35 local Web experiments. “Our democracy is based upon geography, and we believe local information is such a core need for our democracy to survive.”

So the idea, in part, is to take many of these "hyper local" sources (and traditional sources) and through collaborative technology (see many previous posts) create a verifiable and dynamic source of information and analysis for Long Islanders.

It is really closer to reality than one might think.

It is also a fundamental requirement for Long Island if we are to create an environment for comprehensive, collaborative, dynamic, sustainable, positive change.

To Tweet or Not to Tweet ...

OK. I admit it. I don't tweet.

I just must not be cool enough yet.

Or I don't have enough hours in the day to conduct a "stream of consciousness" seminar about all my daily activities.

Not that anyone would care anyway.

I do think Twitter has has a usefulness beyond the current "hip" factor however.

Random and seemingly inconsequential as most of the information may be, it is information that may point to a "collective sense" about certain issues.

This could be useful as one of many information source on Long Island and elsewhere if harnessed properly and integrated into other forms of information.

This is one of the applications of the Stony Brook "Lydia" program and its Web 3.0 view (please see previous posts).

Twitter, if collected and analyzed properly could actually be a useful tool in helping to form public policy and to be a part of the independent media collaboration we've spoken about among other applications.

So even apparently benign sources of information can be integrated into the "One Long Island" process and be put to work for the common good.

Reversing the Cycle: Part One

"In a true democracy, legislation becomes law after vigorous debate by well-informed parties who reach agreement for the betterment of the public.
In Albany, it’s different. "

"Detailing the projects after the fact doesn't help," said Blair Horner of the New York Public Interest Research Group. "The public deserves to know how their money is being spent before the vote."

"The head of the region’s most powerful business group is calling the budget deal struck in Albany over the weekend a disaster for Long Island."

Seems that we have quite a few folks unhappy with the new New York State budget. Maybe more than usual this year.

This shouldn't come as a surprise as there is greater competition for dwindling resources (at least for the time being). Those in power do what those in power always do (with rare exceptions). Take care of the folks who put them in power.

So what are we poor New Yorkers to do? Accept the inevitable?

Just as with the federal budget, there doesn't seem to be a clear understanding of how "all the various parts" work together to form a just and productive society with maximum liberty and minimal governmental intervention.

Unfortunately, the more "passive" we are the more liberty we lose. Liberty is a "dynamic" active process which requires a good deal of public involvement.

It isn't entirely our fault that we have become "passive." We send "reformers" to Albany and to Washington don't we?

We do, and for the most part they try their best until they are crushed by the status quo and give up or conform.

So, again, what are we to do?

Probably the only way to effect substantive change is with an overhaul of the way we currently do business. Not an easy thing to accomplish when those controlling the purse strings and the legislative process are not prone to change.

It doesn't pay to get angry and accusatory, the situation is what it is and it will take time to change. Progressive, positive change is generally a slow, deliberate process.

The first thing we should require is "normalized" information and analysis across the board that is widely available and in user friendly formats (see previous posts). This will allow everyone to see what is before us in the cold hard light of reason.

The second thing we need to do is shed "organizational labels"and preconceived notions of what is before us. You may believe you are 100% correct on the issues, and indeed you may be. However, your ideas must be subjected to the same intellectual rigor as all other ideas.

The third thing we must do is create an open "dynamic" legislative process (see previous posts). We should use our public and private universities and others to design a "better" system. The "system" will ultimately assist the public in forming fair and impartial public policy.

To change, we must "think" differently and give the public the tools to change.

More in Part Two.

"One Long Island" Metachart 3.25.09

Select for larger image.

No Change Without Knowledge: Part I

President Obama correctly assessed the public mood for "change" and indeed has tapped into something broader than that.

Significant change is upon us. It just may not be the change the President anticipates, or for that matter the change any of us anticipate.

Maybe it comes around on or about the beginning of a new century and is somewhat psychological in nature as much as real (we feel we must change because its a new century) or perhaps based on new economic, environmental and political realities. That is for smarter folks than me to debate.

Whether it is technological, scientific, generational, organizational or any other category we may mention, there is a thirst for "something different and presumably better."

So while the president and others have clearly seen that change is imminent and is doing his best to assess what this change means and to "lead" the country is a productive direction, it may not be completely possible unless we "empower" the public with the tools we need rather than stay mired in the politics of division.

Its one thing to say we want a unified and collaborative United States, it is quite another to give the public an easier route to accomplishing this task.

So, whether it is the current debate over executive bonuses at AIG, or how to fix the state budget or how to reform local government or schools or any number of important issues, the public feels somewhat left out of the process and angry and frustrated as a result.

Who do we blame? Who is in charge? Who knows how to fix the problem?

No one. Everyone.

You can not make significant, sustainable progress without an educated and engaged public.

You can not say you want public participation with a straight face and then not give the public the tools (please see the 300 or so preceding posts) to help govern themselves.

People must know the true cost of services or the true outcomes of certain actions.

Knowledge is key to sustainable, positive change.

We now have the technology to "tell the truth."

Do we have the strength to make real change and allow the "truth" to be told?

"Of course, it is not uncommon for complicated legislation to go through Congress with sections that escape detailed initial scrutiny."

Yes, but shouldn't it be?

More in Part II

The future of news on Long Island?

The site has recruited some current and former government officials to write columns, and it will keep some of the popular columnists and bloggers who already work there, in addition to the large number of unpaid local bloggers whose work appears on the site. Hearst also plans to repackage material from its large stable of magazines for the site.

Is this the future of news on Long Island?

It looks a lot like the Long Island Meta-News and Information service we've been promoting on this site.

We would (of course) take it further to include a rotating editorial board and more advanced Web 3.0 features among other features. All detailed in previous posts.

Citizens informing citizens with verifiable information. Interesting concept.

New York Dublin Core Project? One New York Project?

"New York's state government has a sprawling, information-laden empire on the Internet that dwarfs all local government Web operations in the state.With about 400 separate Web sites registered for use by departments, agencies, commissions, authorities and other governmental entities, the state's empire offers a staggering array of information — some aimed at citizens, some at government employees, some at companies doing business in New York. The contents range from simple explanatory guidebooks to hundreds of databases that track everything from liquor-license holders to prison inmates."

It's good that the state is taking steps to "normalize" the operation of all its websites.

But isn't time also to "normalize" the data as well?

Presenting a uniform "look" and functionality to the state website are useful, but creating and platform for allowing the citizens to actually use and analyze the data would be even more helpful.

All of the ideas we have been promoting for "One Long Island" would certainly be applicable to New York State as well.

Green Accelerator progress ...

Nice to see my Long Island Green Business Accelerator idea start to take shape.

Dynamic Legislative Process: Part Two

Additionally, part of the success of any legislation and especially an "economic stimulus" is to see how the general pubic will react and the level of understanding of the legislative impact.

If public confident then x outcome ...
If public somewhat confident then y outcome ...
If public skeptical then z outcome ...

Stony Brook University has a program called the Lydia Project which can do this quite well.

More in Part Three.

Dynamic Legislative Process: Part One

OK, so with all the commotion about the new stimulus package, I got to thinking.

How can we take some of the "One Long Island" concepts and apply them to a "dynamic" legislative process?

Not only for the federal government, but for state and local entities as well.

The above diagram is just a quick first draft.

More in Part Two.

When do we become embarrassed?

"Reid, Pelosi: Bad jobs on transparency
There's still no comprehensive list of components of the $789 billion stimulus that actually adds up to $789 billion. Which is not a great job by Pelosi and Reid. Here is something that was leaked, but even on this one we can't make it add up to $789 billion."

This just happened to be the story of the day, but it really is emblematic of the greater problem. It certainly is not the exclusive domain of Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid.

At what point do we the public and our elected representatives, become embarrassed at not knowing relevant information? At not understanding the consequences of our actions?

When do we become embarrassed enough to do something about breaking the cycle of stagnation we are in?

Do we enjoy being ignorant?

Of course not.

Can we make better more informed decisions?

Of course.

This is one of the main premises of the One Long Island Program (which could be the One (you-fill-in- the blank) Program).

We want to be better. We want to be more informed. We want to work collaboratively and directly, not through surrogates.

We just need the tools to do so.

Good start to an idea ...

Here is an idea by the New York State Attorney General's office that is gaining some notoriety lately.

It approaches the idea of lowering taxes by eliminating some government and giving the taxpayers an easier route to the referendum process (or it seems to give the county executive the power to call for a mandatory referendum, because allowing the county executive to unilaterally consolidate would run contrary to the idea of the referendum process. Additionally allowing "the entire county" to vote on the fate of particular villages, towns or districts or to have a sort of "general vote" on the idea of consolidation would also not allow enough specificity as to the structural requirements of consolidation and all of its consequences but would instead lend itself to demagoguery and political grandstanding).

First, the idea has merit, if only as a starting place for a real, comprehensive discussion.

If we eliminate some forms government, the work still must get done (unless we are willing to reduce services), so what will be the cost of the new entity doing the same work and what will be the short term and long term savings if any?

What are the best practices of existing forms of government (in New York or elsewhere) and how do we implement them state-wide?

What forms of government are involved? Counties, towns, school districts or just special districts and villages? How do we reform the larger entities where presumably the new duties will be going and where most of the tax dollars go presently?

Why not have regularly scheduled referenda (see Referendum Cycles on this site)? Every 3 to 5 years. Why make taxpayers have to gather signatures at all?

How does the Attorney General's idea mesh with past or current studies on the same, similar or interrelated subjects?

To us the idea of 10,000 governmental entities sounds like a big number, and perhaps it is. But in reality it is not a big technical job to catalog and analyze this "group." In fact that should be our first step prior to any legislation.

As we've said previously, a big problem in New York and elsewhere is the lack of a "common language." I won't bore you with the details as I've bored some of you in excruciating detail on this very subject over the 300 or so posts.

How can we make intelligent choices without trusted, verified and dynamic information?

Maybe the Attorney General already has it 100% correct.

The sad part is that we'll never know.

We should know.

We should demand to know.

Cycle of Stagnation Redux

Part of the current problem, as I see it anyway, with the current fiscal "crisis" on both the national (international) scene and the local scene is that the "public" does not have the "tools" it needs to help prevent crisis situations and therefore feels powerless, confused, frustrated and angry when then presented with a take it or else solution.

It may even be said that those who we elect to govern us do not have the proper tools at their disposal either. Blaming others is easy. Fixing problems is hard work.

We will assume for the moment that "those in power" actually want the tools to see what reality looks like.

Now a cynic may say that this is all part of the grand design. After all what fun would there be legislating if the general public had access to the same information and analytical tools as those who were elected. What fun would there be in the media losing its place and power as the "fourth estate" if the public could inform itself.

To be even more cynical, there are those who would suggest that the public doesn't really want the ability to govern itself, because it is too much work and we like to have people to blame when things go wrong.

I don't subscribe to that way of thinking.

So the current "fiscal" crisis in just the latest manifestation of the "cycle of stagnation" we've spoken about earlier on this site.

Is there too much government or is the government we have just ineffective? Isn't having a lot of well run local government (home rule) accountable to the public and working in a collaborative manner better than less government, but larger more ineffectual government? Can you even have large effective government?

Here on Long Island, as elsewhere, we a experiencing the pain of "change" and here, like elsewhere, we have not, for the most part, prepared properly for what needs to be done.

The greatest tragedy of the current dilemma is not that we have to go through it and make, perhaps, bad decisions based on the lack of a clear understanding of the "meta-dimensional" aspects of our very existence.

No, the greatest tragedy would be repeat this "cycle of stagnation" and not take comprehensive steps to change the way we govern ourselves and thus condemn future generations to this "old and outdated thinking."

One Long Island is an attempt at this "re-ordering."

"The universe is transformation; our life is what our thoughts make it."

Back to the future ...

Two interesting stories in the Long Island Business News today. One on schools and one on making progress changing Long Island's future.

Both make good observations and all involved are well intentioned, bright people.

What is lacking is a methodology for bringing this about.

This is one of the central points of this site since its inception and the impetus behind the One Long Island design which is over 300 pages of ideas and counting.

One Long Island is a methodology for collaborative, sustainable positive change. Furthermore it is dynamic, allowing for the exchange and analysis of diverse views and a way to reach common ground.

Needless to say, I left comments on both sites directing them here.

Maybe someone will call.

New Buckram Road website ....

Here's the new Buckram Road website with streaming, full length music.

I hope to have Buckram Road II finished by the spring but will post new music as I complete it here first, prior to releasing the new CD.

Thanks to those of you who listened to the first CD and sent in the kind words.

Music helps keep me somewhat sane.

Dynamic Diversity: Part I

We've spoke previously about the need to have a "dynamic" rather than "static" structure in place with regard to the implementation of sustainable change.

We've also visited the idea of "recycling" in the context of keeping programs, organizations, information and ideas current.

Additionally, we've promoted the diversity of ideas as the key component in a health democracy.

These ideas are obviously related as are many of the ideas of "One Long Island." But One Long Island can also be seen as a "universal" concept, applicable to almost any community or region.

The new administration in Washington appears to want to utilize the prodigious web based organization it developed during the campaign to help keep folks informed, to exchange information and to promote volunteer activities in the various communities. Both are good ideas.

What is equally important, and what is the basis of One Long Island, is the ability of the citizens to govern themselves. If the new administration is going to assist the citizens in governing themselves for productive purposes then that is a good and worthwhile endeavor.

If however, the purpose is to allow the citizens to govern themselves only in certain ways and not others, then this is a non-productive approach.

The goal must be diversity. A dynamic diversity.

If the idea is to "plant the seeds" of collaborative self governance and to create many interlocking "micro-meta" environments, then this is a positive development.

Dynamic diversity, collaborative self governance, these are some of the principles that will lead to a national renewal. They may take a little longer to establish, but in the long run we'll all be better off for it.

More in Part II.

Think big for 2009 ...

Happy New Year.

Let's think big for 2009.

More Long Island Idea Factory ideas coming soon, although we're well over 300 pages or so of ideas right now. Maybe its time to turn it into a book ... mmmmmmmm?

Also working on Buckram Road II scheduled for an April/May 2009 release. Thanks to all of you who have sent me kind word on Buckram Road I.

So much to do, so little time.

We'll try to get at least few "One Long Island" projects done in 2009.

Thanks again for all your help and support.

Getting some of the basics done ...

More well deserved good press on the new Long Island Index mapping project.

I tried to get this done about 15 years ago with my Oyster Bay 2000 concept with varying degrees of success.

Now we need to take this basic concept and expand it to include all the advanced features of our One Long Island project, most specifically the concept of "normalized" meta-data, meta-land use planning map, advanced analytic features (example - Stony Brook Lydia), and the ability to "think" and communicate in more complete, collaborative ways among other proposals.

Hopefully it won't take another 15 years for it to happen.

Outcome Based Meta Action: Part One

Part of the current dilemma on Long Island, and elsewhere, is the lack of clarity an action or actions will have on the status quo.

Will it solve the problem? Will it create additional problems?

The above simple graphic is an attempt to illustrate a small part the rational, collaborative approach we are advocating with One Long Island.

More in Part Two.

Interesting proposal ...

Here is a another proposal for the consolidation of governmental entities in New York State.

It will be interesting to see the details. On first blush the referendum reform seems well thought out. Yes there should be uniform, more simple rules for public referendum (as we've advocated in our Referendum Cycles, Virtual Constitution, Best Practices Wiki sections among many others). Allowing counties to "forcibly" consolidate districts however seems counter to the idea of a streamlined referendum process, although I may be misreading the intent of the proposal.

Less clear on the press release is the methodology for determining the validity and the efficiency of districts, towns, villages etc although I'm sure that will be forthcoming.

Just because there are a lot of districts doesn't necessarily mean they are a bad thing or not well managed. Well coordinated small units can be as effective or more effective than larger units and "corruption" and "inefficiency" is part of the human condition against which we must always be vigilant, it is not the sole domain of one form of government (or any organization for that matter) over another. Increased collaboration and coordination among all branches of government should always be our goal.

Lastly, it would be interesting to see this current proposal integrated into all of the other ideas for comprehensive change in New York, from all quarters and to take the best parts of each so that we may move forward in unison and with a common purpose.

I'm afraid however, that until we have the access to information and fair and complete analysis of the type we've been proposing (for the last 15 years or so and more vigorously for the past couple of years) large scale sustainable change may be rather difficult since there will always be a trust issue to overcome.

Is what we are being told true and are we getting all the information we need to make a rational judgment?

Climate Change initiatives ...

I read with interest the ongoing "Climate Communities" project of which Nassau County is a part and on Monday had the pleasure of hearing the Governor of New York address a gathering of the Long Island association.

Once again I was struck at how many good things people are doing and saying in all of the various disciplines, and also sadly, how truly disorganized we are.

The Governor spoke of the need to "reorganize" New York State for greater efficiency. This is certainly a good approach. He also spoke of the difficulty of getting everyone on the "same page" so to speak and the urgency of doing so. Also good.

SO above we have an partial example of a symbiotic relationship between one of the things the Governor wishes to do, that is allow SUNY and other universites the freedom to become a larger part of the economic engine of New York and to help drive innovation and job creation and the worthwhile Climate Communities project.

Free SUNY and make it easier for them to engage in business arrangements with local government. Streamline the ability of SUNY and local government to do joint projects and make application to the Federal Government for real world projects. Integrate what they are doing with the new Long Island Master Plan. Establish Green Accelerators across the state. Innovate with programs like "Better Place."

Where is the money you may ask? There is more than ample money in the system if it is organized properly and allocated effectively to at least get the ball rolling. More important is the need to free SUNY and others to be entrepreneurial and to cut the red tape.

We can not be so afraid of potential "corruption" that we paralyze our ability to be successful.

Apparently New York State is close to 15 Billion in the hole according to the Governor. Now is the time for bold new thinking and yes, some risk taking.

Playing it safe has only lead to stagnation in New York.

If "change" and reform is on the menu, we should leave no stone unturned in making comprehensive sustainable progress in addressing New York's and Long Island's future.

It is time for collaborative meta-leadership.

Making decisions with incomplete data ...

We've spoken ad nauseum about the need for accurate meta-data and a methodology for analyzing and implementing good public policy based upon same.

Bad public policy is created often in times of crisis (as now with the world financial crisis) when everyone is under pressure to just "do something." Worse, there are folks who use this time to push through pet projects or create legislation out of the existing fear in the populous.

But what effect do our actions have? How does one action affect another in the harsh light of reason?

Do we know? Do we want to know?

No, we don't currently know and yes, I believe most folks want to know so they can make a reasoned judgment.

Can we know? Of course. Certainly on Long Island and in New York we can.

All of the One Long Island series of "modular" proposals are based in real and workable solutions to our problems. They just require a little creative, analytical thought rather than the sometimes "knee jerk" reaction we have to addressing the issues of the day.

Good public policy requires most of all, an accurately informed, engaged public.

One Long Island is an attempt to create a platform to do just that.

Long Island Organizational M - Theory: Part One

"In theoretical physics, M-theory is a new limit of string theory in which 11 dimensions of spacetime may be identified. Because the dimensionality exceeds the dimensionality of five superstring theories in 10 dimensions, it was originally believed that the 11-dimensional theory is more fundamental and unifies all string theories (and supersedes them). However, in a more modern understanding, it is another, sixth possible description of physics of the full theory that is still called "string theory." Though a full description of the theory is not yet known, the low-entropy dynamics are known to be supergravity interacting with 2- and 5-dimensional membranes."

I was watching a show last night on "M-Theory" and for some reason I found the subject both fascinating and useful for "One Long Island."

Will elaborate later as time permits...

Current events ...

"The significance of the report, however, is debatable right now.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a cap would help, regional consolidation would help, and taming the power of the unions would help. But even now, with the state in a fiscal crisis, Albany can't come to grips with cutting some money out of school aid -- and so great is the power of the status quo that reforms of the underlying causes haven't even been put on the table.

So, Suozzi ends up with a report that identifies the problem, but doesn't really identify a legislative strategy for achieving change against the opposition of NYSUT and the other special interests. And without a strategy, it's all just paper."

"Taking a page from The Great Depression’s playbook, Nassau County on Tuesday unveiled its “New Deal for Nassau,” a program designed to boost government efficiency by cutting down on delays caused by bureaucracy and red tape.

The program, which is in its preliminary, fact-finding stages, is a mission by Legislature Presiding Officer Diane Yatauro and Legis. David Mejias to make it easier for businesses to operate in the county, stimulate the economy and attract new companies, development and jobs."

The two most recent well intentioned acts only serve to point out the continuing difficulty we are having on Long Island coordinating our actions for the "greater good."

There are many fine ideas on Long Island, or in many cases programs and activities in various stages of completion. What is lacking is dynamic collaboration of the type we have been advocating.

Rather than start a "new" program or report, perhaps we should take stock of what we currently have and what has been issued before. Perhaps this information should be "converted" into a dynamic format we've been talking about and analyzed prior to starting a "new mission."

The problem with "new" programs which cover existing problems is that they very rarely take into account the work and information that is available. This is generally not the fault of the proposers of a new project since the information must be made available to them (and us) in the "meta" format we have also been promoting.

The danger with new programs which don't take into account the fine work that has come before it is that we then contribute to the "cycle of stagnation" by never moving beyond the "new, bright and shiny" phase where everyone is excited by the expectation of something new and better. This is the allure of "change." Everyone defines it in their own way because we have no "common language" to help us define what it is we are actually talking about so therefore we never truly make progress on solving our problems.

This is one of the issues the One Long Island series of ideas attempts to address.

An emerging Long Island Philosophy: Part One

Buckram Road CD released ...

Available on CD Baby.

Change is here ...

The results of the current New York State elections have brought into clearer focus the need for a different approach to problem solving and organization on Long Island.

The old adage "to the victor belong the spoils" is one Long Islanders must be more acutely aware of more than ever. In a time of diminishing resources and a political power shift towards New York City and its boroughs, Long Island stands to lose whatever power it currently holds.

Elected officials generally will take the course of least resistance, and for New York elected officials, its easier to help their own constituents than to worry about the "big picture" and Long Island in particular.

Shouldn't then Long Island elected officials (in this particular case the NYS Senate) be looking to form a coalition (political and/or otherwise) on Long Island and with upstate officials so that the balance of power between urban, suburban and rural interests in maintained? Is the model of the NYS Assembly and the accumulation of power in the boroughs of New York City a harbinger of the future?

Maybe, maybe not. But why risk the future of Long Island's interests until we are certain of a fair and balanced approach to governance in New York State? It is simply illogical to give away power and influence when you don't have to and before you have a verifiable scheme in place to replace the one you have, as imperfect as it may be. That would be simply like "re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic."

Take a comprehensive approach to solving the problems and the inequities in the current system, don't just shift power so that some problems get solved and others become more pronounced, perhaps to devastating effect on large numbers of Long Island, suburban and rural residents. Yes NYC is vitally important to the economic well being of our state. But we should not put all our efforts into NYC to the exclusion of other existing and potential economic engines across the state.

Because of Long Island's fragmented nature, it is somewhat easy to pit one constituency against another whether using political means or other devices. Long Island is ripe for a divide and conquer strategy.

By withholding (intentionally or unintentionally) information from the public or otherwise making it difficulty for the public to get a "clear picture" of the reality of our circumstances and leads to extreme partisanship and demagoguery, neither of which is healthy for Long Island's long term health and well being.

It is also clear that until there is a "unified"approach to solving state-wide issues (and national issues for that matter) Long Island will need to fortify itself against the coming storm. We must create an environment that will inoculate ourselves from extreme changes to our environment and give us the flexibility to adjust quickly and naturally based upon logic and reason within a dynamic environment.

The "One Long Island" series of ideas, while appearing to be only an abstraction are, in fact, based in reality and on concepts we can accomplish immediately.

As we've stated before trust is the key and there can not be trust without verifiable information and objective analysis within a collaborative, dynamic environment.

It will take time, but the the results will promote real change based upon a "bottom up" collaborative approach to problem solving.

No one leader can "save us." No "one idea" can solve all our issues. No "one group" can or should determine our future.

We must change the dynamic on Long Island and subscribe to a shared Long Island Philosophy which is based in a pragmatic approach wit in a flexible, dynamic environment if do not wish to fall prey to other regions in the state or the nation.

A strong Long Island can be a model for the nation on how to create a new regional dynamic that can work with other regions yet allow independent, creative dynamism within our own region to continually reshape and reorganize how we operate and how we address any new challenge we may encounter.

“What seems different and noteworthy about the I.B.M. approach is its sweeping comprehensiveness and message,” said Rosabeth Moss Kanter, a professor at the Harvard Business School. “Putting the pieces together under one inclusive and rather bold label can stimulate discussion and innovation.”

"One Long Island" Metachart: 11.5.08

More "open" ideas for Long Island ...

Here is another "open platform" system that may, in addition to Dublin Core, Lydia and others we've discussed, serve as a basis for creating a rapid, collaborative Long Island communication network.

In addition to all the other One Long Island projects, this Long Island Open Code Library concept may (and as also previously discussed) offer the public an unprecedented opportunity to participate in their own "destiny."

Long Island Cloud Project: Part One

Cloud computing definition.