Change in the environment ...

"Time and time again, New Yorkers have demonstrated the ability to rebuild and renew - that is the promise of the Empire State. New Yorkers have recovered from economic crises and rebuilt after disasters both natural and man made. Every time our capacity for hope has been questioned, every time our faith has been tested, every time we have approached a wall that seemed too high to scale, we have proven that our fight knows no bounds. New York will rebound again."

"To solve these problems in these times will require sustained effort, seriousness of purpose, and the ability to build a coalition for change."

Fixing the problems of New York State is not and should not be the burden of one person.

While it is traditionally thought, and in some ways true, that we elect individuals to "lead" us to a better and more productive society, one person will never have the ability required to effect positive sustainable change.

What one person can do is give his or her constituents the tools necessary to create a dynamic collaborative society.

What one person can do is reach beyond the rhetoric and incorporate ideas and concepts from all sources in order to "recreate" New York.

What one person can do is challenge his or her constituents to be better and work harder for the common good.

What one person can do is create an environment of trust through verifiable information.

This does not require the accumulation of "power" by one person or a small group to complete but rather the "dissemination" of power directly to the residents of New York.

It is an "environmental" change based upon a fundamental rethinking of how we govern ourselves.

"One Long Island" is an attempt to create an environment for dynamic, collaborative, fundamental change.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 ...

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.

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.