"One Long Island" Metachart 11.5.09

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

"One Long Island" Metachart 9.26.08

(Please click on the image for a larger view)

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.

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.

"One Long Island" Metachart 5.8.08

(Select for larger image)

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>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"

Updates ...

(Photo credit: Scott Savinetti)

Sorry for the lack of posts recently. No, I haven't run out of ideas, at least not yet.

Putting the finishing touches on the first "One Long Island" real word project. Never easy when coordinating large organizations, but hopefully it will get easier as more of the "One Long Island" principles are put into place.

In the meantime, here is a new piece for piano I've been working on in my spare time.

More updates (and ideas) soon.

Long Island Internet Referendum Initiative: Part Two

OK, so in part one I gave you a logo and you thought, is that all there is? Well no, but sometimes life intervenes between my thought processes and the computer keyboard so here is a little more info for now.

In 1993 or thereabouts I proposed a Community Congress as a part of the whole Oyster Bay 2000 concept to facilitate cooperation between the various organizations.

I don't know about you, but I find it unacceptable and a bit unnerving that in this day and age accurate, dynamic public information still seems to be difficult to maneuver. How do you ever know what is true? How can you possibly make good public policy like this?

This is one of the reasons for the whole "One Long Island" series of concepts we've been promoting for the last year or so.

What if, using the great minds we have at our local universities, designed an secure, verifiable, easy to use, public referendum model for the Internet and integrated it into the "Long Island Meta Data" concept and the other One Long Island concepts we've been promoting? (It should be noted that all One Long Island projects are designed to work with all other One Long Island projects or subgroups of One Long Island projects).

At first it can be used to gauge public sentiment on public policies but eventually it can be turned into a full blown "Internet Voting" module.

Good for Long Island public policy and potentially a boon for the Long Island economy as an exportable product or service.

More in part three.

Avoiding the Suppression of Progress: Part II

Did you ever notice that the same voices are heard repeatedly?

When we say the same voices, we are primarily speaking about "institutional voices" with a built in large readership or large numbers of viewers or organizational members, not letters or comments to the editor. We are not even talking about the occasional op-ed or the blogosphere. Institutional voices control the flow of information and, as importantly, the frequency with which the information is printed or broadcast.

Whether in the regional newspapers, the local newspapers, major organizations, government, the local cable editorials, guest panelists, guest columnists what have you, we seem to hear the same or similar voices heard almost exclusively.

Why does this happen?

Well certainly, if you have a point of view and you are in control of how information and opinions are released, you are certainly within your rights to proceed in any legal manner you wish. Additionally, most media and large organizations have a financial interest (and maybe a philosophical interest) in "staying alive."

But does this really help achieve progress on Long Island (or elsewhere for that matter)?

To believe it helps achieve progress, you would have to believe in the almost absolute certainty of your opinion, the information you are dispensing and the method(s) you used to arrive at your conclusions.

I believe the suppression of information and access to "institutional media" and other major information outlets prevents long term sustainable progress because it is essentially a violation of the public trust. It contributes to the "cycle of stagnation" by insuring only certain opinions and information is given "legitimate status" based upon potentially limited methodologies.

Without the public trust, long term progress (however defined) is virtually impossible.

This is why we have proposed the Meta-Portal and Citizen Media Network ideas among many others, as part of the One Long Island project. Open communication is vital in building the public trust and creating long term, sustainable progress.

Certainly events like this one are helpful as a part of the process. But, as we stated previously, isn't it really a perpetuation of the old "static" way of doing things?

New thinking needs a new "support system." One Long Island is potentially part of that solution.

More in Part III.

Interesting viewing ...

"Sanford Levinson is a heretic in some people's eyes — he has the temerity to suggest that not only is the Constitution not written in stone but that it's actually in some ways quite undemocratic.
Among its flaws; a veto power that allows presidents to stop legislation 95% of the time; a contradiction of the "one person, one vote" principle in the Senate which gives Wyoming, with one-seventieth of the population of California, the same political power... "

Some additional Long Island Wiki ideas ...

One Long Island - Virtual Constitution Wiki

I created this One Long Island Virtual Constitution Wiki and got the ball rolling. The Password is LIIF. Put your own user name and email in.

Please feel free to join in. Please keep it positive.

We'll see if this wiki software suits our purposes.