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).

What works?

"The new feature, to be formally introduced on Tuesday, is a tool to make it easy for YouTube users to submit clips that news media companies can choose to highlight. The site plans to sign up other media partners.

“We’re trying to connect media organizations with citizen reporters on YouTube,” said Steve Grove, the Web site’s head of news and politics."

OK so if it works for news, why wouldn't work as a collaborative tool for helping citizens connect with citizens (see IdeaTV in a previous post) on Long Island and in New York generally.

What ideas will reduce property taxes and create jobs? If there is a great idea out there (and there are) but implementation is blocked by one or more special interests, how does the "general" public overcome this obstacle?

Right now there is no effective method for the general public to "bypass" the traditional forms of governance. Part of the reason, as previously stated, is because there isn't any "normalization" of meta data. Also there isn't any method for dynamic analysis (see the 300 or so previous posts for details).

So, in essence, the public is constantly attempting to analyze a "shell game" to ascertain where the "marble" is located. In short the "game" is constructed in a way to be difficult and confusing.

Part of this may have been intentional, but most of it is the result layers of information, rules, laws etc. accumulated over the decades to the point now where it's so confusing no one really has a handle on what to do or how to do it.

Everyone may have an opinion (since admitting incompetence is never a good thing to do), but the truth remains elusive.

So can we "unwind" this mess and give the public accurate information and analysis?

Of course.

This is what we've been advocating over the past 15 years or so. A method for reform without a predetermined agenda.

Give the public the truth and let them (us) decide.

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 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.

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.

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.