A golden opportunity ...

“The public’s in a bad mood...”

Yes of course the public is in a bad mood.

Why?

Many reasons, but primarily because the public, which is generally ahead of the curve in understanding the need for change, is frustrated at the inability of the current "system" to implement reasonable and ordered change for the public good.

In short, a dramatic overhaul is required in the way we "think" about government (and those organizations which interact with government in some manner) and the way we "collaborate" with one another to bring about substantive and sustainable change.

It's about process, not revolution. It's about the empowerment of the public to govern themselves. Its about dynamic, accurate information and analysis presented in an common sense and understandable way.

Public anger will not be enough to change the current reality unless those who are put in position to effect the change required empower and enable the public to be an equal partner in the process.

The "One Long Island" series of concepts is a method to channel this "anger" into a new way of creating a sustainable and dynamic Long Island (or any region for that matter).

The anger will dissipate over time. It always does. But if we have not left a better "system" in its place, we will have lost a golden opportunity to make Long Island a better place.

"One Long Island" Metachart 11.5.09

Buckram Road "Random Music" CD ...

You can download it free here

Just go to where it says "go to the music page for more" and select the downward facing arrow. To listen instead of downloading select the right facing arrow.

The first 12 songs are from the new CD. The rest is older material and material from the first Buckram Road CD. CD number three should be out next summer.

It took me away from the Long Island Idea Factory for a few weeks, but I should be back posting a bunch of new ideas soon.

I tend to go from one creative outlet to another. It helps keep me sane.

Please drop me a line and let me know what you think.

Thanks.

Some additional progress ...

"The council also unveiled their new website, developed by Karma411.com, offering an information portal for all local chambers. This new technology provides a Web 2.0 tool which empowers all the chambers of commerce members to broadcast their news and events."

I was happy to play a small part in making this happen.

The Council is on the right track by setting a foundation for their members to interact with one another and with other entities employing Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 technologies. They have much more ambitious plans ahead. Congratulations to them for having the courage to change.

This is a central tenet in the "One Long Island" series of ideas.

Sustainability on Long Island will be achieved through collaboration and shared information, analysis and philosophy rather than wholesale "consolidation" which the people of Long Island have resisted for years.

Any consolidation must come "organically" and as a logical outcome to the hard work of providing accurate information, analysis and further, to achieving the trust of the citizens without which it can not be effective and sustainable.

Details in the previous 300 plus posts .... more to come.

Interesting reading ...

"Government data is being put online to increase accountability, contribute valuable information about the world, and to enable government, the country, and the world to function more efficiently. All of these purposes are served by putting the information on the Web as Linked Data. Start with the "low-hanging fruit". Whatever else, the raw data should be made available as soon as possible. Preferably, it should be put up as Linked Data. As a third priority, it should be linked to other sources. As a lower priority, nice user interfaces should be made to it -- if interested communities outside government have not already done it. The Linked Data technology, unlike any other technology, allows any data communication to be composed of many mixed vocabularies. Each vocabulary is from a community, be it international, national, state or local; or specific to an industry sector. This optimizes the usual trade-off between the expense and difficulty of getting wide agreement, and the practicality of working in a smaller community. Effort toward interoperability can be spent where most needed, making the evolution with time smoother and more productive."

Dynamic Collaboration Required ...

“I think this shows a collaborative spirit and it shows that (Paterson) is listening to the concerns of Long Island,” Alexander said. “We have not seen this level of attention to organizations that really are working on a community level in the past. Past governors been attentive to lobbyists and business interests, but getting to the interests of small businesses, of community organizations and other not-for-profits, that shows a real commitment.”

The "collaboration" part is a good sign.

Now we need to add the "dynamic" part to the "collaboration" part and make sure all voices are heard, both individual and organizational.

Also we should be reviewing and discussing the regional issues based upon a "normalized" data set and flexible analysis standards.

Meetings are great. But if there is no mechanism for follow up and "dynamic" collaboration the meetings will never be as effective as they could or should be.

Collaboration, not more bureaucracy ....

"....that includes Empire State Development, which does try to help the Island, but also has to look out for other parts of the state (such as Westchester, where OSI is going); the two county industrial development agencies, and town IDAs that do cooperate, but also compete. Our answer: We need a new structure - preferably a single regional voice.

Getting there won't be easy. The towns that have IDAs won't want to give them up. Nor will the counties. And creating a regional entity would require Albany action, which is as hopeless as it is oxymoronic."

The first step in creating a "regional entity" or a collaborative structure which has the same effect as a regional entity, is the creation of a dynamic "meta-zoning map" or land use map of Long Island and the normalization of the data and analysis we all use.

As it stands today, we are simply not prepared to take advantage of opportunities that may be available to us.

We do not need another level of bureaucracy. We need a dynamic system of collaboration that allows us the freedom to work collaboratively and rapidly.

Certainly changes in the law and new or amended legislation would make it easier to move quickly. Perhaps this is another reason a constitutional convention may be in order.

The One Long Island series of inter-related concepts is an attempt to build such a system.

Survival of the fittest ...

"On April 7, Gov. David Paterson stood in the Melville office of the New York State Department of Transportation and said Long Island’s construction workers were about to get back to work, thanks to the recently approved stimulus package trumpeted by the Obama administration. Also on hand that spring day: members of New York’s congressional delegation.

The big event turned out to be little more than a photo op.

“We don’t need photo ops,” said John Durso, the president of the Long Island Federation of Labor. “We need shovels in the ground and people at work.”

That hasn’t happened.

In fact, only 15 percent of the funding allocated to New York will be used to refresh the state’s decaying infrastructure. Instead, an overwhelming portion of the money went to fill the state’s budget gap ..."

Another example of a good idea not ready for implementation due, in part, to a lack of a dynamic, collaborative system on Long Island for turning good ideas (in this case much needed public infrastructure projects) into immediate action.

In short, we are not prepared to react, adapt and take advantage of rapid changes and opportunities in our environment.

In nature and business this is usually a fatal flaw.

The One Long Island series of dynamic "inter-related" concepts is an attempt to remedy this problem and create a platform for Long Island's future success.

NYS Constitutional Convention

"A "People's Constitutional Convention" must tackle procedural challenges, restoring democracy in our government, realigning the concept of checks and balances that strengthen the division of power making certain one branch doesn't dominate another. To do this, the convention must be nonpartisan as well as demographically and geographically diverse so that every population is represented. We can achieve this, together."

Yet another call for a Constitution Convention in New York.

It's probably a good idea to "air out" democracy periodically.

However we can not have the requisite participation without first giving the public the tools to participate in a meaningful way.

The One Long Island series of dynamic ideas offer a blueprint for achieving this meaningful participation. It would make the NYS Constitutional Convention a living, breathing rethinking of how government works in collaboration with the public.

Another disconnected idea ...

"____________announced the formation of a "90/10 Coalition" that includes planners, educators, community groups, labor and others.

However, ________of the Long Island Progressive Coalition said at the presentation that she had not seen plans to make a grass-roots connection. "How do we get to my cousin, who doesn't go to these things?" Tyson said."

The One Long Island series of ideas encompasses the "grass-roots connection." This is a part of the "dynamic" concept we have been promoting.

Yet another example of potentially a good idea destined for a troubled implementation because of a lack of a "system" on Long Island for analyzing proposals and collaborating in an objective manner.

We should be able to simply "plug and play" ideas into the Long Island "dynamic grid", and get a reasonably quick and complete analysis of the pros and cons of a proposal and how to remedy any shortcomings.

Recreating New York: Part One

"A far larger force is at work. It's a wasting disease that has shriveled New York politics so badly that the futures of 18 million citizens are held hostage by the likes of ___________, so badly that powers have become afraid of their own voters. They muscled all comers from challenging in a primary and, now, for the governor's temerity of intending to stand as a candidate, they have brought the power and prestige of the President of the United States to bear on , reducing all parties in the process."

I redacted some of the above to make it a more general statement and to illustrate my point.

Some have called for a Constitutional Convention in New York. It may be the only way to establish a new "level" playing field for the average New Yorker (however defined).

We have opined here on a number of occasions of the need for a uniform, open and dynamic system of information sharing and verifiable standards of analysis that is available to all New Yorkers.

It isn't so much that the elected officials are afraid of all voters, as much as they are afraid of certain well organized constituent groups and the media generally. This is because organized constituent groups and the media have resources that the general public does not have access to in a way that allows their voice(s) to be heard effectively.

Many feel as though they must join a group to be heard.

The problem is that many groups are one dimensional in nature and in fact, are in competition with similar groups for primacy in this "one dimension."

There currently is no mechanism for comparing and contrasting public policy in an objective, non-partisan (however defined) manner.

So, presuming there is the collective public will to create a new "order" in New York, one based upon accurate verifiable data and analysis and one that allows for the full participation of the individual as well as the organization, can such a feat even be accomplished?

The answer is yes.

Utilizing some of the ideas on this site, it is relatively easy to create a system of full public participation. As we have stated, we must have the full participation of every New Yorker because the collective "mind" is more likely to come up with positive outcomes than those of a limited number of our citizens. We really don't know where the next stroke of "genius" may come from if we don't allow for the possibility that it exists and has an opportunity to be heard and vetted.

So then the individual, who may be interested in one or multiple issues may have the same power and influence as an organization or the media and as importantly, has access to other informed opinions which may moderate his own and assist in consensus building and compromise, key ingredients to a civil society.

More in part two.

Open information ...

"On Tuesday, Vivek Kundra, the federal chief information officer, unveiled Apps.Gov, a Web site where federal agencies will able to buy so-called cloud computing applications and services that have been approved by the government to replace more costly and cumbersome computing services at their own locations."

The same thing or a variant thereof, can be done on Long Island (and New York).

This is one of the ideas we are promoting with a Long Island "Open Code" Library and the Long Island "Cloud" Project, not only as a means for government to work more effectively, but for citizens to have access to the tools they require to more effectively participate in information exchange, self governance and verifiable news and information.

This idea gains even more currency with the push for a new constitutional convention in New York.

Without the "tools" required for participation, regular citizens will be effectively shut out from meaningful participation by better organized special interests and the established media.

More Citizen Alert ideas ...

"Three state senators called on Gov. David A. Paterson to sign into law a bill that would create a statewide e-mail alert program notifying people when a convicted sex offender moves into a neighborhood.

But the executive director of Parents for Megan's Law - a Stony Brook-based nonprofit group that provides the same service and allows visitors to its Web site to map where offenders are located with thumbnail sketches complete with pictures - said such a program may be redundant."

Here we have yet the latest example of a worthwhile program running into an "implementation" problem.

Putting aside the issues that the alerts should be more than email (xml etc) and as we have previously stated, ideas of this sort should be "plug and play."

That is, there should be existing, dynamic and flexible open standards in place to immediately execute the ideas of our elected officials and our concerned citizens and organizations.

"One Long Island" contains suggestions for this type of open system.

Good point ...

"The state lists eight industrial development agencies here: the two counties, five towns - Babylon, Brookhaven, Hempstead, Islip and Riverhead - and the City of Glen Cove. But we don't have a unifying force to promote and market the region as a whole, to act as Switzerland, focusing neutrally on the needs of the whole Island. Our eight IDAs do cooperate, but they also compete. They don't harmonize as one voice, repeating loudly: Think of Long Island as a great place to do business.

"If you can get a single one for both counties, you could be a very potent force in economic development circles," says Gerald Gordon, a New York City native who runs the Fairfax County Economic Development Authority in Virginia"

Good point.

What is needed however is a methodology for achieving this "unified" vision.

"One Long Island" is a suggested path for achieving these results.

Citizen Alert Network redux ...

"The Nassau County Legislature unanimously approved a bill Monday creating a Silver Alert system for reporting elderly people who wander away, similar to an Amber Alert system in place for missing children.

"It was an idea that had been percolating in my mind since last year, when an old and dear friend of mine, Hal Doliner, got the car keys and drove off and ended up killing himself in a one-car accident," Legis. Wayne Wink (D-Roslyn) said after the vote.

"We have had too many cases of older people wandering off and winding up in hospitals before they are reunited with their families," Wink said.

The bill requires Nassau County police to establish a registry into which families can put the names of adults with Alzheimer's disease or dementia. Police would send out immediate alerts to the media, hospitals and other police departments if they are reported missing."

Here is another worthwhile program disconnected from other similar (Amber Alert etc) ideas.

If the county (and government in general, Long Island in particular) could establish a "set of flexible standards" as proposed here with the "Citizen Alert Network" along with other One Long Island collaborative ideas, it would be a simple matter for the police department to have this program up immediately upon passage.

Odds and ends ...

Sorry about the sparsity of posts lately. A combination of the summer doldrums and finishing up my new CD.

There never seems to be enough hours in the day.

A couple of things though ...

Congratulations to the Nassau Council of Chambers of Commerce on their new Web 2.0/3.0 project with Karma 411 , General Sentiment and others. I was happy to play a small part in getting that off the ground.

Also, please check out the new Long Island Blog Posts site by Bruce Chamoff's company.

Also I've been formulating and expanding my "dynamic legislation" concept.

I just find it incredible that we can't "normalize" of simplify (simplify, NOT make simplistic) and construct algorithms (fixed and ad hoc) that will allow legislators and the general public to analyze and determine the reasonable outcomes of legislation as a stand alone measure and in concert with existing legislation.

The very idea that local, state and federal bodies are passing legislation without reading it or understanding its impact should frighten even the most cold hearted cynic.

Good article

"In other words, the government and its citizens have to learn—as the Obama campaign did—to see information technology less as a service to be provided, someone who fixes BlackBerries and fine-tunes spam filters, and more as a process, a sort of techno-civic game of Marco Polo. "Look at the Gallup polls—the number of people who believe the government is doing the right thing most of the time has historically fallen from about 70 percent to about 15 percent," Mechling says. "There has been a huge erosion of trust. The idea that says, ‘Government has all this data, let’s just make that available, and show them we have nothing to hide,’ that’s the big thing. [It] is potentially a game changer. The game has yet to be played"

Solution to the problem?

"The way forward

So, how do we keep what we have and bring in more? One small bit of hope: The Long Island Regional Planning Council is calling a July 29 summit of key players. Good idea: Use the still-fresh pain of the OSI loss as a catalyst for action.

That's one baby step. What we need is the will and the sense of urgency to flex our regional muscle and grow a biotech cluster that will be a world-beater. We need to be like San Diego, where Helicon fled. That city has enough biotech companies so that a scientist can feel safe in signing on with one, because if it fails (and many do), there are other jobs in the area. To grow companies and attract scientists to the Island, we need that same synergy here.

If the great science emerging from our world-class research institutions is to create companies that start and stay here, it's a lead-pipe cinch that we must speak with one voice, more loudly and persuasively than the competing regions. That's the real lesson of OSI"

The "One Long Island" series of ideas are designed to do what the above commentator proposes.

No, it's not a "bolt of lightening" that will solve out problems overnight. But then again we didn't arrive at this position overnight either.

Long Island needs to be "reorganized." Methodically, deliberately and based in real data and collaborative analysis and action.

Isn't it lucky we have the talent here on Long Island already to do this work. Give them some minor initial funding and some cooperation and let them get the job done.

You'll be amazed how quickly it can come together.

Put aside the "old ways of thinking" about the issues and dissolve old alliances where necessary.

This is a new day and age. The tools are available if the mind and heart are willing.

There's really nothing left to talk about.

There's nothing left to do, but to do it.

Spending money wisely ...

"More than $2 million in Local Government Efficiency (LGE) grants were awarded for Long Island, Gov. David Patterson announced on Tuesday. The LGE funds will support projects that consolidate local government services to cuts costs, remove waste and make operations more effective."

It's good that the state is "spending money to save money."

A better use of the money, however and one that will have long term effect, is to help develop a system along the lines of "One Long Island."

Accurate information and objective analysis is the key to long term, positive change.

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.

Why wait for a crisis?

In the end, Lincoln was proved right again: "With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed."

The current debate on the economy has illustrated perhaps the key issue in moving forward on substantive change on Long Island and an issue the One Long Island program seeks to address.

Without the public trust nothing is possible.

We can see the overwhelming reaction to the public perception that a "solution" is being foisted upon them by those who "know better."

We can see many parallels to this attitude on Long Island. There are plenty of folks who claim to have the answer. Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

It does not make the proposers "evil" or not interested acting in the public interest. In fact, ultimately they may have the correct solution.

It won't matter. The public distrust of government, large organizations and powerful individuals is so ingrained that to fight it is a fool's errand.

Lincoln was correct. Without a public buy in, change is virtually impossible. One Long Island is an attempt to re-organize how we approach problem solving on Long Island so that public sentiment may be achieved and that big issues may be addressed and solved in a civil and productive manner.

Why wait for a crisis?

"One Long Island" Metachart 9.26.08

(Please click on the image for a larger view)

Building a New Long Island Economy: Part One

Some more inter-related topics:

One on cutting "red tape."

One on regional planning.

One on the Long Island economy.

As we've posted previously it seems a fairly obvious observation that the above issues among many others, are inter-related. Often times we can not change one thing without causing change in one or more other areas.

We've also spoken about the "diversity" of organizations (some might say duplication or redundancy of organizations) on Long Island, not only in government but across many different disciplines. Never-the-less, this is the current state of affairs and changing it by reduction may take more time and effort than its worth. Many organizations exist because of something, not in spite of it and have the constituencies to prove it.

As previously stated, organizations, of all types, that are no longer necessary will become extinct naturally if there is a dynamic philosophy on Long Island, which concentrates on innovation and self-renewal.

So, what to do?

There seems to be a general consensus on the big issues. The problem is that the consensus has been reached using the only data available to organizations and that data has not been standardized or normalized (the term my friend Mark Fasciano uses and which the correct one, he's the PhD not me), also an issue we've spoke about previously with among other posts the Long Island Dublin Core Initiative idea among other concepts. Additionally the methodology utilized to reach these various conclusions is similarly not uniform, has not been vetted and is generally in a static format rather than a dynamic format making it only semi-useful.

Therefore, conclusions reached using these various data will never be "bullet proof" and as such are subject to attack, justified or unjustified.

Once the information leaves the area of verifiable fact and enters the world of opinion, then, constructive action is virtually impossible as the various competing interests jostle over who is correct.

We are not suggesting that informed opinion should not be solicited, but it can not be the sole basis for or a major component in building a new Long Island economic model or creating a Long Island Philosophy.

Without a flexible, dynamic structure in place we will continue to make only sporadic progress and remain stuck in the "cycle of stagnation" we've spoken about previously.

More in Part II.

Some updates ...

Sorry about the lack of posts lately.

It isn't that I've run out of ideas (although some might say that would be a good thing), I've just been busy on a number of other fronts.

1. Making some good progress on the "Green Accelerator" concept.

2. Even more promising developments on the whole One Long Island project and how it relates to "Meta- Planning" on Long Island.

3. My music CD project nearing completion. Not coming out too bad as far as I can tell from early reaction. Although people may just be acting politely so as not to crush my enthusiasm.

Trust: Part II

"I propose that the Internet is the truest sense of the modern-day city. There are dense populations, a social infrastructure, complex architecture, rules, and culture. I will suggest that there is transportation as well as residences. Drawing mainly on the ideas of Jane Jacobs I will present the Internet as a modern day city that is governed under what I define as "Democratic Anarchy."Emily's paper addresses an issue I've been pondering lately: The extent to which an Internet community such as Second Life is a city. Another way to put it is to ask to what extent are such communities substitutes or complements to real face-to-face communities? I use Jane Jacobs's work as the analytical foundation, of course, which is why her concepts are so prominent in Emily's discussion."

"Instead of chasing non-Long Island planning and economic development consultants, the planning board should consider keeping the economic impact here on Long Island by integrating into its plans the economic and planning expertise available at each county, most Long Island towns, the Long Island Association, Dowling College and Stony Brook University. Recommendations will emerge that the planning board can discuss, at a cost the region can afford."

"An alliance like this makes sense for Long Island. The range of interest groups already agrees that we need more affordable housing. We should get leaders from these groups together in a room, and tell them to come out when they have a concrete plan to build it.

Sure, there will be disagreements. But the power, breadth and common interest of the group would make it difficult for individuals to scuttle good proposals on the basis of narrow interests. And, as in Boston, once the unified group presented its plan, there would be no stopping it.

Many talented and well-placed people would join such an effort, if only we could get it started. That will take leaders, and importantly, leaders from the business community. A couple of individuals, determined to replace hand-wringing with action, is all it would take to get the ball rolling. Who will step up?"

Here we have three elements (of many we have been discussing on this site) which, at first, may seem not to have a lot in common.

Virtual cities? Aren't those just games?

Integrated planning? How do you accomplish that?

Common agreement on a big issue? How to get started implementing these big ideas?

OK, so as we've previously explored current web technology (2.0 and emerging 3.0) makes it reasonably easy to communicate. Among many questions we might ask are, what information do we communicate? How is it relevant? How has it been vetted? Is it dynamic or static information? How do we avoid this "democratic anarchy" explore above?

OK smart guy, if its so easy to communicate, why don't we just communicate get more done here on Long Island. Ah ha very true, but first you must be willing to communicate and have the means and opportunity to communicate.

This is actually what we've been advocating with our "One Long Island" series of proposals (and actually back to the Oyster Bay 2000 days of 1992-93).

So we have the technology to communicate effectively, there is certainly enough capital on Long Island to create/expand the "virtual infrastructure," we have plenty of smart people with great ideas here on Long Island ... sooooooooo .. what's missing?

In a word, trust.

We simply do not trust the that information we receive is complete or has been vetted and analyzed completely (whether it has or not), we do not believe we (the general public) is adequately informed or that our opinions even when heard even matter, we are generally suspicious of government and large organizations ... in short in the maze and daze of daily living we do not have the time to focus on the "larger issues" of the day in a way that will allow us to trust that the correct actions are being undertaken.

So what to do?

Well you could try to just ram things through a la Robert Moses. It won't work, but you could try.

You could try to convince everyone that you have thought of every possible angle and contingency and that your conclusions are bullet proof. It won't work, but you could try.

First we must establish trust, and more importantly a methodology to ensure that this trust is verifiable.

More in Part III.

Meta-leadership: Part V

"Transactional leaders use conventional reward and punishment to gain compliance from their followers."

"Transforming leadership... occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality. Their purposes, which might have started out as separate but related, as in the case of transactional leadership, become fused. Power bases are linked not as counterweights but as mutual support for common purpose. Various names are used for such leadership, some of them derisory: elevating, mobilizing, inspiring, exalting, uplifting, preaching, exhorting, evangelizing. The relationship can be moralistic, of course. But transforming leadership ultimately becomes moral in that it raises the level of human conduct and ethical aspiration of both leader and led, and thus it has a transforming effect on both."

The definition for "transforming leadership" can also be a definition, at least in part, for "meta-leadership."

Although I am not a huge fan of the whole "need for leadership issue" since it almost always leads to those designated as leaders accumulating and hence almost never willingly relinquishing power (thank god for George Washington), thus leading to the "cycle of stagnation" we've talked about earlier, there is a "tradition" that needs and expects some sort of leadership model.

The meta-leadership model (or transformational model) at least offers the hope of creating a "dynamic environment" that will allow us to engage in clear thinking based on real time data and analysis and collaborative organization building. Meta-leadership might also be further defined as the "absence of static leadership and organization."

This dynamism is necessary in a world with diminishing resources, a larger population, greater competition among and between geographic regions as well as a whole host of criteria that will define our immediate and long term future.

Meta-leadership can and should allow for the dynamic interaction of small, medium and larger groups and organizations. It does not demand (transactional leadership) a certain way of doing things.

Therefore, leadership is based upon need and ability in real time (or virtual real time) not just upon someone being designated as a leader.

More in Part Six.

Static planning vs dynamic planning ...

"The Town of Huntington is about to release Comprehensive Plan Update: Horizons 2020, a draft version of what will become a roadmap for future development in the town that includes Huntington Station, East Northport and Dix Hills.

The town will put copies of the plan in libraries throughout Huntington, as well as Huntington Town Hall at 100 Main Street. It will also be posted on the town’s Web site."

Good to see some long range planning going on and the Town Huntington is to be commended for the effort.

But like previous planning efforts on Long Island (and elsewhere) we still have not bridged the gap from "static planning" into "dynamic planning (as previously discussed on this site)."

Wouldn't it be productive to have this plan (and other "local" plans across Long Island) be part of a Long Island dynamic meta-plan and as generally available meta-data?

Furthermore, shouldn't the information gathered in the Huntington model be available island- wide for study and possible use in other jurisdictions?

Won't situations change over time? Wouldn't it be helpful to update and analyze all or part of what you are doing in virtual real time, rather than have to start the process from scratch each time?

As we've stated previously, if governmental entities (like the Town of Huntington) , individuals, and organizations had access to easy to use, available analytic tools, methodologies, data structures etc., when one entity creates good work, it links to the "greater entity" (Long Island) so that all may benefit.

More to come ...

Modular Long Island: Part II

Last year around this time we started talking about a "modular Long Island" concept.

In point of fact, all of the One Long Island series of ideas is "modular" in that each idea can stand on its own or easily "integrate" with other elements of One Long Island (or already existing compatible ideas, organizations, systems etc.).

A large problem on Long Island as elsewhere, and one that we've talked about ad infinitum, is the seeming inability to link similar ideas, organizations and programs and further, the seeming inability to understand (or to recognize) the impact of one or multiple actions on the immediate and long term status of Long Island.

Ah ha, you might say, it is impossible to think of everything at once.

Under current conditions, difficult yes, impossible no.

The fact is, we must learn to think differently and on multiple levels simultaneously if we are to create substantive, positive and sustainable change.

Some look at the many levels of government on Long Island as the main culprit in our apparent dysfunction. Certainly this has something to do with it. But the organization of government is merely an outgrowth of how we wish to govern ourselves and more narrowly, to "control" our geographic area and immediate environment.

If we look beyond government, you pick the discipline, not for profit, information/data services, environmental, education etc, we will see the same level of "diversity."

Some see this "diversity" governmental or otherwise as a bad thing. I say it doesn't really matter if there are systems in place to foster simple and effective collaboration. People, no matter who they are or who they are affiliated with, must come to the table willingly and must trust that the process and the information they receive (and provide) is accurate, fair and reasonable for there to be long term sustainable change.

Government and other types of organizations will only achieve their optimally effective size and structure through the type of collaborative and "dynamic" interaction we've advocated over the past year (actually since 1993 with Oyster Bay 2000).

Its almost as if we must break organizations and their respective missions down to their component parts and reassemble them in new, more dynamic and flexible shapes.

This type of thinking enhances opportunity for those currently on "the outside looking in" and additionally, actually assists those who may initially lose some clout and influence they enjoyed under the old regime(s) in having more, if a different type of, influence and opportunity as Long Island creates a greater and more expansive, dynamic environment.

It won't happen overnight, but it will not happen at all unless we try a different approach. This is some of the thinking behind the Long Island Meta-Planning, Meta-Data, Meta-Think Tank etc, etc, etc concepts.

More in Part III.

A different perspective

Interesting and potentially helpful show here.

Always nice to see different perspectives. It helps shake the cobwebs off the old grey matter.

Meta-Leadership: Part IV

If we define Meta-Leadership, in part, as the ability to facilitate a change from a "static" environment to a "dynamic" environment, then this partial chart helps illustrate this point (click on the chart for a larger view).

The Effect of Diminishing Resources on Liberty: Part One

"There can be little or no personal liberty in the midst of social chaos; and where social chaos is reduced to order by the intervention of a powerful centralized executive, there is a grave risk of totalitarianism."

Meta-Leadership: Part III

(Select image for a larger view)

Meta-Leadership: Part II

We referenced a good article on "Meta - Leadership" in an earlier post.

Although I'm not a big advocate for "leaders" being able to solve all our problems (I much prefer a broad based collaborative model, for all the reasons mentioned in the previous 250 posts), since we live in essentially a quasi-hierarchical model, leaders do have an important role in fostering collaboration and finding workable solutions.

But who do we "hire" as leaders and what should their qualifications be?

Well first, it would be an important asset to be someone who can find common attributes between concepts, ideas, organizations and people.

What makes us similar? How can Group A assist Group B? How can I make the "situation" good for everyone? How do I create a "dynamic" atmosphere for continued positive growth and sustainability.

What we don't need is, hire me I have all the answers and I'll take care of your every need. That's too easy and too dangerous.

Democracy and sustainability require hard work and accountability on all levels.

Do we even train folks to be "meta-leaders?" Do our leaders engage in "meta think" or are they victims of the expedient. Do we allow long term, broad based action to take time to develop properly? Do we give ourselves a chance to be successful?

Do we need a whole new school to teach "meta interdisciplinary thought and action."

On Long Island, as is the case elsewhere, we need leaders who can "connect the dots" across disciplines and forge collaborative partnerships divorced from competitive, political or personal issues.

Every area, whether its a state, county or any geographic region can not be the same. All have unique attributes.

With all due respect to states rights folks, if for example, state A is better suited for project Y, shouldn't we as a nation support state A be successful? Shouldn't all states support one another in maximizing what they do best? If all states are successful, isn't our nation successful?

Shouldn't a meta-leader, on any level, be able to help conceptualize and help implement a collaborative effort to achieve these goals?

The ideal in America is one of fairness and equity. A meta-leader who can inspire these ideals is worth listening to. A meta-leader who can help turn these ideals into reality is worth "hiring."

More in part III

Long Island Referendum Cycle: Part Two

We've been advocating a more "dynamic" form of organization on Long Island on this site (and since 1993) with a whole host of interconnected ideas.

So why propose a referendum cycle?

A cycle of referenda on major issues, either one per year or multiple per year, ensures that ideas, information and analysis are continually reviewed, updated and subject to public debate and modification.

This cycle requires, even forces public participation and debate on the issues that govern Long Island.

No issue can be "put on the shelf" for too long. Information is not allowed to get "stale."

"Finger pointing" and the "blame game" will subside as citizens feel more "empowered" and less "dependent" on traditional forms of organization which many believe have not been adequate to address current issues.

More in Part Three.

Please note: This is our 250th post.

Long Island Referendum Cycle: Part One

Collaborative Rationalism: Part One

Interesting article today on turning Long Island's downtowns into more interesting places to live and work.

Contained in the article is this quote:

“Everything is so interconnected, so you feel sometimes that you can’t fix anything until you fix everything,” said Mayor Ernest J. Strada of the village of Westbury, talking at one point about a zoning question, but really addressing a deeper issue — the lack of a central planning authority on Long Island, a problem that exists in many suburbs. Each of the more than 100 communities of Nassau and Suffolk Counties have zoning and planning agencies that govern development within their own borders."

Also in the paper today is Nassau County's interest in redeveloping 105 acres it owns in Bethpage. Perhaps someone will propose a "cool downtown" with "next generation" housing adjoining "21st Century" business opportunities. Time will tell.

Mayor Strada is correct in stating that "everything is interconnected." But then again, it always was. There's just more of it now.

Also true is the fact that there is no central planning authority on Long Island, but don't hold your breath waiting for one anytime soon. That would take almost an act of nature to accomplish.

What we can strive for and are attempting to strive for in the One Long Island series of idea is something akin to a new "collaborative rationalism."

If we define:

ra·tion·al·ism

n.

1. Reliance on reason as the best guide for belief and action.

2. Philosophy The theory that the exercise of reason, rather than experience, authority, or spiritual revelation, provides the primary basis for knowledge.

col·lab·o·rate

intr.v. col·lab·o·rat·ed, col·lab·o·rat·ing, col·lab·o·rates

1. To work together, especially in a joint intellectual effort.

then we may define "collaborative rationalism" as the act of working together for a common cause based on reason (facts, meta data , analysis etc) and furthermore using this "collaborative rationalism" as a basis for our Long Island Philosophy and the main driving force behind a better more sustainable future for Long Island.

So if there are 100 communities each with their own zoning map, there is no reason why we can not, as a first step create a "meta zoning map" of Long Island, using comparative mathematical formulae, algorithms to "pierce the maze" of zoning regulations and find equivalencies across Long Island.

For example a "B Zone and related regulations" in North Hempstead is equivalent what zone or zones in Smithtown?

It is a reasonable easy project to come up with a Long Island Meta Zoning map (or Long Island Comprehensive Meta-Planning Project or any one of a dozen similar names we might name this concept). It might not be perfect but is is doable and would be a useful first step.

More in part II.

Some excellent ideas ...

I just returned from New York Institute of Technology's "Sustainable Solutions for Converging Crises" conference.

While all the presenters were excellent, two presenters in particular stood out as having great relevancy and potentially effective applications for Long Island.

Project Better Place is a brilliant concept for the distribution of electric automobiles.

Daniel Lerch of the Post Carbon Institute has written a very clearly thought out book regarding the energy crisis and its impact on public policy.

Both sites are well worth your time and effort.

Long Island Next Generation Housing Referendum?

"Many LI leaders are present and accounted for here (only the first half-hour was available for preview), including Nancy Rauch Douzinas, president of the Rauch Foundation; Paul Pontieri Jr., mayor of Patchogue; Matt Crosson, Long Island Association president (and co-host of Ch. 21's "Crosson and Welles"); Wayne Hall, mayor of Hempstead, and many others. Crosson, speaking tonight, sets the table with this thought: "Long Island is losing young people at the same time the baby boomer [retirement] tsunami is beginning, [and] we will be in serious trouble. ... The Island's economy depends on the availability of young people in the workforce, and if we don't have that, the cost of living goes even higher, and [business] growth will be virtually impossible."

The consequence of this vicious cycle is a decline in housing prices."

Good show and well worth watching.

As stated previously, affordable housing for young people is perhaps the top issue facing the economic viability of Long Island.

How about this for an idea.

Long Islanders have shown that they are willing to support environmental and open space bonds by an overwhelming majority.

What if the same procedure was applied to the issue of workforce or next generation housing?

How about the "Next Generation Housing Referendum?" If the problem is as acute as many believe and many believe that the public is in favor of changes to permit higher density development, then perhaps we should provide a forum to raise the capital quickly (it can be a revolving fund, replenished as the units are sold).

The units can be constructed on existing state, local and federal property (at least in the beginning to get the process jump started) which are exempt for the most part from local zoning restrictions. If, as we've been told, Long Island needs upwards of 100,000 units of workforce housing, then swift, decisive "public supported" action needs to take place.

Another option is to use the referendum funding (presuming the referendum passes) to purchase property, convert it to municipal property for the purposes of building the housing (payment in lieu of taxes to the community), then return it to private hands via homeowners association or other device where it then returns to the taxrolls.

The referendum "board of managers" should be comprised primarily of citizens, business leaders and others who would determine and ensure a fair process.

If as strong a case can be made that a "next generation" fund is required for the long term health of Long Island as was made for open space preservation, then passage should be a relatively simple affair.

Part of the reason private sector incentives have not worked or have only had minimal impact is that there just isn't the return on investment for workforce housing as there is for traditional housing.

Additionally, there is some question in the public's mind as to the extent of the need. A full and complete debate within the context of a referendum would allow a clearer picture of the need and the solutions.

Of course I've oversimplified the issue and there are many details to be worked out, but if the retention of younger Long Islanders is a true priority, then the government, with the consent and support of the citizens must take decisive and direct action in accomplishing the task at hand.

SUNY Ideas ...

"One argument that SUNY leaders make - and it will be easier to make the case once a new permanent chancellor is finally selected - is that public higher education is never more important than in tough economic times. For one thing, people losing jobs rely on SUNY schools for retraining. For another, the campuses - like Stony Brook, Farmingdale, Old Westbury, and the community colleges in Nassau and Suffolk here on Long Island - have a huge impact on the economy. So this is a bad time to slow that economic engine."

Good editorial above on SUNY.

As important is the need to restructure the way the state allows for the commercialization of research coming out of its system in a manner similar to California and other states.

There is a treasure trove of great ideas and products available to New York coming out of the SUNY system, but there must be a rational incentive for both inventors and the taxpayers of the state.

The "Green Business Accelerator" concept we proposed for Stony Brook is just one model of what can be accomplished.

Opening up the the commercialization of intellectual property coming out of SUNY is a great way to offset SUNY budget cuts, pour money into the state economy, develop new business and new business models, create good jobs among many other benefits.

The current system provides little incentive and too many roadblocks to innovation.

For a state that prides itself on being a world leader in many areas, the current situation at SUNY is a threat to this continuing quest for excellence.

More progress ... I think ...

Some additional partially complete tunes for my new CD.

Fool for Punishment

Most Unusual Turn of Events

Average Man

Yes, I will finish all 14 of them this summer. I hope.

Then on to the next group of 14 and the boxes of unrecorded stuff as well.

May I can finish them all by the time I'm 84 or so if I don't compose anything else.

Long Island Independent Media Consortium: Part Two

So we have all these different organizations on Long Island, all with varying degrees of technical expertise and many on different seemingly incompatible systems.

What to do?

They key to making this all work is to "build bridges" using a "common language."

What do we mean by a common language? We mean giving Long Islanders the tools necessary to engage in productive, positive public discourse in a flexible, collaborative manner. These tools include all the Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 tools and concepts contained with One Long Island.

Gee. we can't get all that done right now, so what can we do?

Start simply. First get all web sites and blogs up to Web 2.0 standards. This may be as simple as adding an XML feed to your site or creating a free blog and linking it to your existing site.

Secondly, talk to your organization about how and who it would be advantageous for you to collaborate with and the subject areas of collaboration of most interest to you. Do not just limit it to organizations or individuals within your own field of expertise.

These are the starting points for high level Long Island "end user" operated media service. It also creates an environment for all types of innovative collaboration.

After all, the idea is to get things done, not just talk, write or do studies about them, isn't it?

The Long Island Independent Media Consortium idea is really just part of one larger idea of creating a Long Island Philosophy. One that will give our citizens the skills, hope and courage necessary to make the substantive change required for a positive future on Long Island.

More in Part Three.

On a separate note here is how my new CD project is progressing. A few tunes in various stages of completion ...

Did You Think I Was Surprised?

You Better Treat Me Right

Prelude 3a

Long Island Independent Media Consortium: Crowdsourcing

Excellent site for "crowdsourcing" an idea we had explored in earlier posts.

These ideas are directly on point for our "Long Island Independent Media Consortium" concept.

Prelude 3a

Just something else I've been working on here ...

http://longislandideafactory.podomatic.com/entry/2008-05-16T15_30_56-07_00

Long Island Independent Media Consortium: Part One

Another way to look at the recent Cablevision - Newsday "merger" and its effect on the diversity of content, advertising rates and a whole host of other issues, is as an opportunity to create a new business model for the delivery of media services on Long Island.

As we've stated many times previously, there are a ton of smart folks on Long Island with great ideas and relevant, informed opinions.

It's really a shame to waste the intelligence and ingenuity of our own citizens and counterproductive to the future health of Long Island not to put these folks "to work."

How about "Get the Whole Story at the Long Island Independent Media Consortium"?

There are also many fine organizations on Long Island.

There are many fine local publications, websites and blogs on Long Island.

There is plenty of capital on Long Island.

So what's missing?

Collaboration among and between autonomous bodies. Once folks get the idea that we can collaborate without losing our individual, organizational or corporate "identity" or "brand" the power of such a collaborative movement will be self-evident.

More in Part Two.

If you build it ... Part Two

So much of the news and information we receive is "bundled" and delivered from multiple sources.

Those of us who use RSS/XML readers on a regular basis know that there is a universe of information out there to be delivered in virtual real time for those willing to do a little exploration.

So if we were constructing a Long Island news and information "portal" or a series of collaborative "portals" what would we need to do?

First of all, let's be clear. The news and information is already generated by us. We may pay others for a service to distribute it and analyze it, but we are the news and information. 

This is not to diminish what media folks do or a particular expertise they may bring to a particular subject, but without us they're out of business. Much as we elect representatives from the various forms of government to work for our common interests and confer that privilege upon them, so too do we confer the same privilege upon the media.

Much of what we've discussed over the past year or so (even back to 1993 for that matter) is directly applicable to this particular product. In fact we've explored this theme with the Citizen Media and Citizen Alert posts (among many others) some time ago. I tend to see most of this as inter-related.

A good portion of information is free and one can very easily create a robust information portal and in fact can create a portal that the end user (us) can customize to their own particular viewing preferences. 

Moreover we can integrate LYDIA technology (as we are in a number of One Long Island projects already) to create a powerful news and information analysis tool.

The individual will be able to discern what is accurate and factual. How about that!

Ah ha you say, what about the hard hitting investigative reporting we all need to make sure those in high places are not up to low down and dirty deeds!

Again. Think of where most of the leads come from to expose wrong doing. That's right. You and me.

Will we always need professional investigative journalists? Of course. But they are simply an outgrowth of an investigative public, active and knowledgeable in its own affairs with access to the information and tools necessary in a representative democracy. 

We really shouldn't depend on journalists or elected officials or others to do our homework for us.

Am I advocating the dissolution of all profit based media? No. Advertising dollars pay salaries. Reporters aren't going to work for free. Someone has to gather up even the "bundled" news although over time this need may dissipate as well.

Am I advocating the fact that an organized and collaborative public can inform itself on an equal, or in some cases superior manner? Yes.

More in Part Three.

If you build it ... Part One

"Kevin Kamen, president of media appraisal firm Kamen & Co. Group Services in Baldwin, said in an email Monday morning that the deal will allow Cablevision "a clear channel opportunity to expand and cross sell advertising across multiple broad channels...and will generate great financial rewards and benefits over the years."

But, he said, while the deal will "please" shareholders, "unfortunately for the consumer, both editorially and financially, it is never a good idea to let one media conglomerate control pricing and editorial content."

OK so I don't pretend to be a media expert.

But it strikes me as a lot of doom and gloom that only "one player" will control the news and editorial content for all of Long Island.

Sure Newsday and Cablevision have great brand ID and a lot of smart folks working for them.

Why don't I worry?

Because it is very easy to create a competitor network (or collaborative networks) constructed out of the many content sources we have here on Long Island.

What news do people really want? My experience is first they want the news that most effects their immediate daily life. "Hyperlocalism" is a buzz word often used to describe the web based confluence of news, information, video etc, focused on a "finite" location or area of interest. Do folks in Sayville care about what's happening in Bayville? Maybe a little, but not a lot.

Next maybe they are interested in a regional perspective and so forth almost like expanding waves of knowledge gathering.

Most national and international news, sports, entertainment news etc is provided from a wide array of organizations and sources predominately through XML (extensible markup language) or some similar protocol which updates news almost as it happens. Most of this information is free to use for non-profit enterprises and for a nominal fee for profit oriented enterprises.

Next opinion. Look everybody has an opinion. Hopefully its an informed opinion. There are tons of blogs, podcasts, video what have you out there giving opinions on almost anything you can think of. What if, for example, you set up a rotating multiple xml feed of ten food critics? Wouldn't that be better than one? Wouldn't that give the public a better view of what's out there?

In fact, why should we be limited by any one group's point of view or control over the distribution of content?

How about (as we've explored previously) a rotating editorial board made up of regular citizens and members of various organizations of let's say 20 at a time, rotating through every 60 days on staggered shifts? It can actually be a "virtual" editorial board able to meet on a moments notice. Wouldn't this ensure that all voices are heard and that there is a true diversity of opinion made available? Why should only a few folks have all the fun!

Additionally, there is the issue of trust. Does the general public (or anyone for that matter) trust that the information they are getting is accurate and presented fairly?

My belief is that the more power (information is power) in the greater number of hands the greater the likelihood is that we will have an equal playing field for the debate of ideas that will shape our future.

Toward this end we have a number of "One Long Island" projects underway and in the planning stages that would make the creation of this "Long Island independent information and news" project a reality.

Would it replace existing news institutions? No. There would be no purpose in that as the existing institutions provide an important service and one that many folks depend upon.

But there is room for improvement and real diversity of news, opinion and thought on Long Island.

It is possible to create a reliable collaborative Long Island news and information network that is, among other things, accessible, flexible and accurate.

More in Part Two.

Putting the "public" in public media ...

The "public" as subsidizer of the news business? The "public" as a monolithic "object" in league with the media?

Or the "public" we envision in our "One Long Island" projects?

"....While it is the only business protected by the Constitution, the press isn’t shielded from the laws of supply and demand. If the current business model isn’t working, then it’s because the distribution of news has radically changed, allowing those with Internet access to dictate their news content.

Judy and Mickey are not going to be able to save Newsday, and the idea of a local media collective is dead on arrival. The future of Newsday will be decided by veteran financial professionals, seasoned media analysts, digital marketers, government regulators and, most importantly, by the market forces that are shaping how and who gets their news.

If Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp. are the front-runners in a bid that comes in at over half a billion dollars, then it’s because he understands economy of scale, the impact of digital media on traditional print and how to ensure that people still want a newspaper in their hands. Others suggest that Daily News publisher Mortimer Zuckerman, the New York Observer or Cablevision will all make a run. All of them will find a lucrative local market.

Newspapers in America have always been a business. If we prop them up with government subsidies and shotgun business models we might as well bring back the telegraph and the tintype, but the end result will still be obsolescence."

"The public is an idea, which would never have occurred to people in ancient times, for the people themselves en masse in corpore <8 took steps in any active situation, and bore responsibility for each individual among them, and each individual had to personally, without fail, present himself and submit his decision immediately to approval or disapproval. When first a clever society makes concrete reality into nothing, then the Media 9 creates that abstraction, "the public," which is filled with unreal individuals, who are never united nor can they ever unite simultaneously in a single situation or organization, yet still stick together as a whole. The public is a body, more numerous than the people which compose it, but this body can never be shown, indeed it can never have only a single representation, because it is an abstraction. Yet this public becomes larger, the more the times become passionless and reflective and destroy concrete reality; this whole, the public, soon embraces everything. . . .

The public is not a people, it is not a generation, it is not a simultaneity, it is not a community, it is not a society, it is not an association, it is not those particular men over there, because all these exist because they are concrete and real; however, no single individual who belongs to the public has any real commitment; some times during the day he belongs to the public, namely, in those times in which he is nothing; in those times that he is a particular person, he does not belong to the public. Consisting of such individuals, who as individuals are nothing, the public becomes a huge something, a nothing, an abstract desert and emptiness, which is everything and nothing. . . .

The Media is an abstraction (because a newspaper is not concrete and only in an abstract sense can be considered an individual), which in association with the passionlessness and reflection of the times creates that abstract phantom, the public, which is the actual leveller. . . . More and more individuals will, because of their indolent bloodlessness, aspire to become nothing, in order to become the public, this abstract whole, which forms in this ridiculous manner: the public comes into existence because all its participants become third parties. 10 This lazy mass, which understands nothing and does nothing, this public gallery seeks some distraction, and soon gives itself over to the idea that everything which someone does, or achieves, has been done to provide the public something to gossip about. . . . The public has a dog for its amusement. That dog is the Media. 11 If there is someone better than the public, someone who distinguishes himself, the public sets the dog on him and all the amusement begins. This biting dog tears up his coat-tails, and takes all sort of vulgar liberties with his leg—until the public bores of it all and calls the dog off. That is how the public levels."

"One Long Island" Metachart 5.8.08

(Select for larger image)

Long Island "Synthesis"

(Select for larger image)

Just another simplified way to look at what we're attempting to achieve with the One Long Island series of projects.

More interesting reading ...

"No one starting from scratch would design a local government system like New York has
now, with its overlapping governments and rigid structure. This structure makes it
difficult – but not impossible – to define efficient service areas and to levy taxes or
assessments on those who are served. It creates some duplication of services and
functions. It creates opportunity for miscommunication and lack of coordination in
30
economic development and other policy areas.
Although it is not the system we would design today, it is the system we have.
Unfortunately, changing the system structurally is extraordinarily difficult: The political
hurdles in front of eliminating a village layer or merging a city and county are
extraordinarily high. City-county mergers in upstate New York would require merging
governments whose citizens are dramatically different in terms of race, poverty,
urbanicity, educational attainment, political inclination, and preferences for government
services. That doesn’t mean it cannot or should not be done, but clearly it will not easily
be done.
The quantifiable benefits of eliminating a layer or merging a city and county appear to be
low, often because of leveling up between collective bargaining agreements. Potential
cost savings, while certainly meaningful in dollar terms, can be small relative to
government budgets – on the order of 1 to 2 percent of spending, judging by available
dissolution and merger studies. While taxpayers certainly would welcome tax reductions
of this magnitude, historically they have rarely been willing to accept the intangible costs
of dissolution or consolidation for this level of tax reduction.
Each merger and dissolution situation must stand alone. New York’s local governments
vary enormously as do their service delivery and financing arrangements. Whether a
specific merger or dissolution will make sense from fiscal or other perspectives will
depend on its facts – there is no one size fits all solution. However, even if a merger or
dissolution appears sensible on its face, how it is implemented will matter. Careless
implementation can lead to inefficiency and waste.
Consolidations and dissolutions also involve a redistribution of service benefits and tax
costs. In a positive vein, one could say they involve equity issues, but another
characterization is that they produce winners and losers."

Bottom line. If you don't build trust based upon verifiable information and analysis and give citizens a sense of common purpose and inclusion, change is almost impossible.

Two problems with a common source

"Put simply, the economic model of news gathering – of maintaining costly overseas correspondents and news bureaus, of investigative journalists – is being eviscerated," Moffett wrote. "And it is being eviscerated by the Internet."

"Just how difficult will it be to enact any of the reforms proposed last week by the Lundine commission on efficiency and competitiveness? Answer: Pretty difficult."

The above two stories illustrate pretty well the dilemma we've been exploring over the past year or so (or back to 1993 in fact) and why we've been proposing the "One Long Island" series of projects.

Information gathering and analysis is changing at a rapid rate. We need new dynamic, collaborative and flexible organizations, structures and models to address this new reality.

Accurate timely information/analysis and substantive, sustainable, positive change are virtually impossible without them.

The above two illustrations are certainly not the only areas in need of reform, but they are a large part of what needs to be changed.

The old ways just don't work anymore.

Good article ...

"The central process driving this is not globalization. It’s the skills revolution. We’re moving into a more demanding cognitive age. In order to thrive, people are compelled to become better at absorbing, processing and combining information. This is happening in localized and globalized sectors, and it would be happening even if you tore up every free trade deal ever inked."

Another static report, but with some promise ...

Some good work here (although I certainly don't agree with all of it) and well worth reading.

The establishment of an executive level "center" for government efficiency is a good idea if it is not another level of bureaucracy but instead is the type of dynamic collaborative interaction we've been preaching (since 1993!).

The immediate problem with this report is that it is, again a static document created by a limited number of individuals over a finite period of time. This was probably unavoidable given their mandate and the current state of affairs.

A good effort was made to "reach out" to as many folks as possible and the concept of "collaboration" is repeated often in the report. It also rightly acknowledges that previous efforts have failed because of a lack of follow-up.

Now, if they take this report as a first step in creating a collaborative, flexible, dynamic and inclusive state-wide project and further if they do not assume that all of their conclusions are correct and not subject to further scrutiny, then we are on to something.

These "types" of reports must also not be divorced from complimentary information (from all sources; the meta-data and analysis we always talk about) and reports.

A potential danger in this report is that some will take it (or parts of it) as the final word on the subject, when in fact it is just the beginning of what is possible.

If utilized properly this report can create an important framework for real, positive and sustainable progress in New York.


"Sustaining Local Efficiency
“The need for changes in local government, regional structure and service provision is linked to forces that continue to change. Local government’s appropriate scale and organization is influenced by changes in our economy, technology, demographics and other factors that help determine public service need, effective size and cost efficiency. . . New York needs a flexible framework and approach to facilitate and encourage important adjustments. We are not facing a one time “house cleaning” but an ongoing maintenance and improvement program to keep an effective local and regional governance system.”
Mike Hattery, “Rural Vision Project,” Cornell (2006)
While the Commission ends its deliberations with the issuance of this report, it is our strong belief that the task of local government reform must be pursued at the state level through a focused and sustained effort. State government should aggressively support and promote local efficiencies, identifying successful practices and removing barriers. Accordingly, we propose the creation of a Center for Local Government Efficiency, which could be established without new costs, in the same manner the Commission has operated, utilizing the resources of the many state agencies with missions related to local government efficiency. The reasons for this are as follows:
�� Local government reform, including a review of state programs and statutes which affect local efficiency, is an essential element of economic competitiveness and property tax relief.
�� Most of the local initiatives we have supported need continuing assistance (and we are still receiving additional initiatives). The process has proved to be an excellent way to build relationships with local leaders and bring attention to needed reforms. It also generates productive ideas for mandate relief and other advisable changes in state statutes and programs.
�� Restructuring and reform of local government operations is a complex, long-term undertaking. Previous local government commission reports have generally gone unimplemented, despite the quality of their work and recommendations. A sustained Executive commitment is needed to facilitate local efforts and to ensure that state agencies are attuned to the impact of their programs on local governments.
Following this final report, the Commission’s mission should be sustained through an Executive-level Center for Local Government Efficiency that will provide a gateway to state government for citizens and local officials pursuing this goal. It will extend the local initiatives process and work of the Interagent>nt&gt;ncy Task Force currently coordinated under the Commission. It will facilitate coordination of state agencies and resources supporting shared services and consolidation. Technical assistance for local governments would be provided with information on best practices, how-to manuals, agency referrals, and a website directing local officials and citizens to resources. This Center would also lead continuing research and policy development"