"One Long Island" Meta Chart 3.15.10

Just thought I'd post the chart for review before I continue with the "expansion."

Each individual element of the chart is described in previous posts.

The design is modular in nature (as previously discussed) so that the different elements contain common features which may be linked as quickly or deliberately as desired.

This NY Times article gives somewhat of an overview of what the project is about.

Looks like an interesting gathering ...

Every year at Personal Democracy Forum, the nation's top political and technology innovators gather for two days of networking, schmoozing, intelligence-gathering, networking, skills-polishing, and did we mention networking? But we also try to look at the big picture of how technology is changing politics, and this June we're going to tackle the following big question: Can the Internet Fix Politics?

A majority of Americans thinks the country is on the wrong track. Congress is deeply divided. Legislation is often stalled by gridlock, or packed with pork. Fundraising dominates the time of politicians, while the media cycle speeds up and public attention crashes. Voters are more volatile, when they aren’t sitting out elections entirely.

It’s a troubling picture. But in recent years, a wide array of activists, academics, bloggers, hackers, politicians and visionaries have argued that the Internet can change politics and governance for the better. (With some smart dissents, to be sure.) This year at Personal Democracy Forum, the country’s premiere conference on technology and politics, we’ll explore the question: can the Internet fix politics?

Some validation of the concept ...

"Finally, Ostrom would ask, if consolidation is so compelling, why isn't it happening already? School districts and other authorities don't have to be merged into the same person, or organization or offices. There are many ways for them to cooperate - telephones, e-mail, texting - and talk to each other."

As we've been advocating with One Long Island. Metadata and meta-analysis, organizational diversity and "collaborative constituencies" among other ideas, may be more effective in the long term. (please see previous posts for details).

More than hard data ...

"Those are two measures any taxpayer could support - if _________, and others who support the idea of school consolidation, come up with hard data to support them."

Correct. Hard data is required to make any responsible decision.

But it is more than hard data. It requires accurate, dynamic meta data and analysis of the type we have been advocating.

It requires data and analysis that is beyond reproach and in which all parties, most importantly the public, have had the opportunity to participate.

First we must build the requisite system for finding the truth. The truth will then become self evident.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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 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