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.

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.....

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

Creating Dynamic Commissions:Part One

We have posted many times previously about the creation of commissions that in turn create "static" reports not connected to any other report or body of knowledge on the same or related subject.

Here now is a new one. I have no doubt the parade of commissions will continue since we seem to be in love with the concept. We'll assume for the moment that the findings of the commission have not been "preordained" and that this commission (or any commission for that matter) is being convened to take an impartial, objective look at the issue(s) rather than being convened to certify an end result that an individual or individuals wish to effectuate.

It isn't as though creating commissions and issuing reports or findings is a bad thing. Quite the contrary, it can be of enormous value if done properly.

But think of what a commission is composed of. Usually it is composed of highly educated and/or experienced folks who are well thought of in their "community." They are busy people who nevertheless have consented to serve on a commission because they believe they can be helpful.

But their time is limited. As intelligent as they are, their knowledge and experience is limited. Their access to information is limited by the very nature of how information is organized in New York and elsewhere at present.

They will get the job done and issue a professional report. But it will be yet another "static" report and therefore limited in usefulness and subject to attack by dissenters. Maybe it will have an effect maybe not. At best it will solve only part of the issue.

"Dynamic Commissions" utilize the "dynamic, collaborative concepts" we've talked about on this site ad nauseum.

In Part Two we'll take a shot at constructing a "how to" manual for creating a dynamic commission.

Some thoughts on a new year ....

First of all, let me thank all of you who have made the Long Island Idea Factory site a success beyond anything I'd imagined it could be. We're off to a good start but we have a lot more work to do if any of these ideas are to become a reality.

Secondly, we're entering into an important year as we pick a new President. We'll hear a lot of talk about leadership, legacy and change.

To me, leadership is about ideas and how to work collaboratively to implement those ideas. Leadership is not about "idol worship." Idol worship only makes the population lazy in that we expect our "leaders" to do most of the work for us and, surprise, surprise, we are almost always disappointed in the results.

One of the overriding hopes for our One Long Island series of projects is that we create an environment wherein our leaders play a part in the progress of Long Island, but are not expected to shoulder the whole load. That is an unfair and impracticable burden to place upon anyone in a "representative democracy" and leads to a cycle of disappointment and stagnation.

We all have an important part to play. The key is to play the part at the right time and "in tune." If we can achieve a different and more creative dynamic here on Long Island with all its organizational diversity, there is no reason why our ideas can not be exported to other regions. As we've stated previously, Long Island has some of the best talent on the planet. We just need the tools and mindset to achieve great things.

Legacy is an overused and sometimes embarrassing word. I mean, other than family and close friends, who really cares about an individual legacy? Even then, they look at who you are and how you conduct your life rather than what you've "accomplished."

You live in the moment, plan for the future, continually seek knowledge and do the best job you know how. Metaphorically speaking, to have a pigeon use your statue as a lavatory 100 years from now is sort of irrelevant to the process of making a better life for your fellow Long Islanders. Do good work and move on.

If what you've done has helped in some way, great. That's really all you should expect out of it. Concern about individual legacy often times leads to poor decision-making based upon personal expediency rather than the long term common good.

The dust bin of history is littered with those who thought they would be immortal.

Change comes from good ideas, good organization and collaboration. It is easy to work with someone when you agree with them. It is obviously more difficult to work together when you disagree.

I always make it a point to try to find a way to build bridges with whomever I meet. Believe me, sometimes it would be much easier not to try!

But in the interest of being honest with myself and putting my words into practice, it is essential to make the effort.

So, I hope everyone out there has a happy and healthy New Year. I look forward to continuing the progress we've started and more importantly I look forward to meeting new people with new ideas who want to work collaboratively for a better Long Island and a better America.

Long Island Best Practices WIKI: Part One

As an outgrowth of the One Long Island project, We may envision a "Long Island Best Practices WIKI" which will allow collaboration between and amongst the different disciplines on Long Island.

Who has the best ideas (or partial ideas) in education? Government? Non-profits?

What works? What doesn't?

It may even allow us, over time, to create a realistic One Long Island "business plan."

We know there is a lot of good work going on out there but unfortunately it seems only the negative gets highlighted. There is a big difference between opinion and criticism, no matter how well informed, and creative thinking, hard work and collaboration.

Here is a national study from 1997 which might serve as one part of an overall structure.

New York State might want to look at this type of program as well.

More in Part Two.

Evolutionary Long Island: Part Two

Some additional Long Island Wiki ideas ...

Thanks to the LI Biz Blog ...

Long Island Idea Factory in the news

November 15, 2007 by Henry E. Powderly II

LI Biz Blog has been keeping an eye on the Long Island Idea Factory for a while, even listing it in its list of must-read blogs. Though, we have to admit, to call the ideas featured on the site dense would be an understatement.

LIIF, run by Louis G. Savinetti, is a eccentric application of scientific methods to civic responsibility, including meta-charts, wikis and plans for integrating technology into the attempt to fix the woes of Long Island.

And above all, the site wants collaboration, unity, on Long Island, evidenced by its “One Long Island” slogan.

But LI Biz Blog is not the only news organization to track the site. In fact, as of today you could say we’re one of the smaller news organizations to track the Long Island Idea Factory.

Today, The New York Times ran a feature article about Savinetti’s brain-child.

Check out the story. Here’s an excerpt:

Asked to sum up on his blog what it’s about, he wrote: “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.”

He figured he needed a reality check before he went too far. “I’m out there writing this stuff, and maybe I’m insane. You don’t know,” he said. So he sent it off to some serious people, who took it seriously.

John Murcott, a successful Long Island software entrepreneur, whose current project, 411Karma.com, is a social networking site for the nonprofit world, and Yacov Shamash, dean of the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Stony Brook University, both said the site filled a void and reflected a logical intersection of technology and public policy.

Dr. Shamash, in fact, is meeting with Mr. Savinetti to forge a partnership with Stony Brook that would build a Long Island virtual think tank with more technological sophistication than Mr. Savinetti’s homemade one. “There are great ideas here, but the question is, what kind of controls are you going to put on, and what kind of structure and organization do you put up around it?” Dr. Shamash said.

(http://libizblog.wordpress.com/2007/11/15/long-island-idea-factory-in-the-news/)

Posted in Long Island Idea Factory, Web sites, action | No Comments »

"One Long Island" Metachart 10.24.07

(Click on the image for a larger view)

Long Island Plasma Converter Project

How about a bunch of these on Long Island (and New York as well)?

Solves Long Island's garbage problem and helps with the electric rates as well.

May be a good candidate for the new  Advanced Energy Research and Technology Center in Stony Brook.

Long Island Meta Media Foundation: Part One

Long Island "Idea TV": Part One

OK, so you have this great idea (you think) burning a hole in your brain and you want, no, you need to collaborate with the "One Long Island" network of "change agents" right away. What do you do?

The answer in Part Two.

More helpful information ...

Developing a common language:

Having a common language to talk about the business can be very helpful in creating organizational alignment. “Some of the initiatives I’ve been involved with have taken three years to implement. What I’m seeing is impatience.They want to see the ROI right away and I understand that but they are not putting in the infrastructure for sustainment. So as soon as the project team walks away then the inspection goes away.” For one organization, this was achieved by putting a large number of employees through National Quality Institute training. This happened in parallel with a major change initiative led by a project team. “Now, three years later, we have health and safety consultants talking about the revenue implications of dealing with the client…. They are focused now and speaking the same language. It’s been a fairly effective combination of the formalized training through a structured program and having a pushy team …overcoming any obstacles. Because there was definitely strong resistance from certain quarters within the organization.”

"Robert Rhouda, of the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, Minnesota, provides a specific, itemized definition of large-scale interventions for organizational change, in his paper, Background and Theory for Large Scale Organizational Change. According to Rhouda, "The major features of large-scale, real-time change management process include:
the theory-base uses less action research and discrepancy theory, and focuses on application of systems theory the data base source is no longer internal to the organization, but now involves both the organization and its environment (an open-systems approach)
the data base, which formerly had limited availability, is now widely shared throughout the organization time: what was formerly a slow "waterfall" process is now a fast, quick response which results in immediate action taking place learning moves from the individual or unit to the whole organization the responsibility and accountability moves from senior management to a mixture of senior management plus the whole system
the consultant role, formerly reserved for data collection and feedback, now also includes structures and facilities for data analysis and action planning the change process moves from incremental change to fundamental, organization-wide change"

Interesting reading ...

"At a recent Wharton roundtable discussion on leadership and innovation, Wharton management professor Michael Useem, event moderator, initiated discussion by posing a general question: How are leadership and innovation linked? "How exactly do we put those two together? How do we lead in a way that generates innovation?" he asked, describing the synergy as "a kind of high-octane fuel we ought to get as much of as we can."

Read the entire article here (http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1569)

Good reading ...

"A range of organisations - with direct experience of working with diverse groups in society - has produced guidance or can offer advice on how to effectively involve different groups in decision making." (click for entire article)