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.

Organizational M Theory: Part II

Just an idea that continues to interest (puzzle) me.

That is applying M Theory to organizational theory and somehow incorporating it in to our "One Long Island" series of concepts.

What interests me currently is the fact that there are multiple "dimensions of spacetime" and that the same set of circumstances may have different outcomes in each of these dimensions.

It reminds me of Long Island, where we have multiple organizations/individuals and groups of organizations/individuals working on the same or similar problems in their own "membranes" and coming up with different results.

That isn't necessarily a bad thing if there is someway to "string" these membranes together to come up with the most effective outcome.

Just something I'm exploring, may or may not lead to anything.

As usual.

Almost there ...

Yet another indication that Long Island can create its own news and information portal apart from traditional media.

"The news business “is in a difficult time period right now, between what was and what will be,” said Gary Kebbel, the journalism program director for the Knight Foundation, which has backed 35 local Web experiments. “Our democracy is based upon geography, and we believe local information is such a core need for our democracy to survive.”

So the idea, in part, is to take many of these "hyper local" sources (and traditional sources) and through collaborative technology (see many previous posts) create a verifiable and dynamic source of information and analysis for Long Islanders.

It is really closer to reality than one might think.

It is also a fundamental requirement for Long Island if we are to create an environment for comprehensive, collaborative, dynamic, sustainable, positive change.

To Tweet or Not to Tweet ...

OK. I admit it. I don't tweet.

I just must not be cool enough yet.

Or I don't have enough hours in the day to conduct a "stream of consciousness" seminar about all my daily activities.

Not that anyone would care anyway.

I do think Twitter has has a usefulness beyond the current "hip" factor however.

Random and seemingly inconsequential as most of the information may be, it is information that may point to a "collective sense" about certain issues.

This could be useful as one of many information source on Long Island and elsewhere if harnessed properly and integrated into other forms of information.

This is one of the applications of the Stony Brook "Lydia" program and its Web 3.0 view (please see previous posts).

Twitter, if collected and analyzed properly could actually be a useful tool in helping to form public policy and to be a part of the independent media collaboration we've spoken about among other applications.

So even apparently benign sources of information can be integrated into the "One Long Island" process and be put to work for the common good.

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.

"One Long Island" Metachart 3.25.09

Select for larger image.

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

The future of news on Long Island?

The site has recruited some current and former government officials to write columns, and it will keep some of the popular columnists and bloggers who already work there, in addition to the large number of unpaid local bloggers whose work appears on the site. Hearst also plans to repackage material from its large stable of magazines for the site.

Is this the future of news on Long Island?

It looks a lot like the Long Island Meta-News and Information service we've been promoting on this site.

We would (of course) take it further to include a rotating editorial board and more advanced Web 3.0 features among other features. All detailed in previous posts.

Citizens informing citizens with verifiable information. Interesting concept.

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.

Green Accelerator progress ...

Nice to see my Long Island Green Business Accelerator idea start to take shape.

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.

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.

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.

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."

Back to the future ...

Two interesting stories in the Long Island Business News today. One on schools and one on making progress changing Long Island's future.

Both make good observations and all involved are well intentioned, bright people.

What is lacking is a methodology for bringing this about.

This is one of the central points of this site since its inception and the impetus behind the One Long Island design which is over 300 pages of ideas and counting.

One Long Island is a methodology for collaborative, sustainable positive change. Furthermore it is dynamic, allowing for the exchange and analysis of diverse views and a way to reach common ground.

Needless to say, I left comments on both sites directing them here.

Maybe someone will call.

New Buckram Road website ....

Here's the new Buckram Road website with streaming, full length music.

I hope to have Buckram Road II finished by the spring but will post new music as I complete it here first, prior to releasing the new CD.

Thanks to those of you who listened to the first CD and sent in the kind words.

Music helps keep me somewhat sane.

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.

Think big for 2009 ...

Happy New Year.

Let's think big for 2009.

More Long Island Idea Factory ideas coming soon, although we're well over 300 pages or so of ideas right now. Maybe its time to turn it into a book ... mmmmmmmm?

Also working on Buckram Road II scheduled for an April/May 2009 release. Thanks to all of you who have sent me kind word on Buckram Road I.

So much to do, so little time.

We'll try to get at least few "One Long Island" projects done in 2009.

Thanks again for all your help and support.

Getting some of the basics done ...

More well deserved good press on the new Long Island Index mapping project.

I tried to get this done about 15 years ago with my Oyster Bay 2000 concept with varying degrees of success.

Now we need to take this basic concept and expand it to include all the advanced features of our One Long Island project, most specifically the concept of "normalized" meta-data, meta-land use planning map, advanced analytic features (example - Stony Brook Lydia), and the ability to "think" and communicate in more complete, collaborative ways among other proposals.

Hopefully it won't take another 15 years for it to happen.

Outcome Based Meta Action: Part One

Part of the current dilemma on Long Island, and elsewhere, is the lack of clarity an action or actions will have on the status quo.

Will it solve the problem? Will it create additional problems?

The above simple graphic is an attempt to illustrate a small part the rational, collaborative approach we are advocating with One Long Island.

More in Part Two.

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?

Climate Change initiatives ...

I read with interest the ongoing "Climate Communities" project of which Nassau County is a part and on Monday had the pleasure of hearing the Governor of New York address a gathering of the Long Island association.

Once again I was struck at how many good things people are doing and saying in all of the various disciplines, and also sadly, how truly disorganized we are.

The Governor spoke of the need to "reorganize" New York State for greater efficiency. This is certainly a good approach. He also spoke of the difficulty of getting everyone on the "same page" so to speak and the urgency of doing so. Also good.

SO above we have an partial example of a symbiotic relationship between one of the things the Governor wishes to do, that is allow SUNY and other universites the freedom to become a larger part of the economic engine of New York and to help drive innovation and job creation and the worthwhile Climate Communities project.

Free SUNY and make it easier for them to engage in business arrangements with local government. Streamline the ability of SUNY and local government to do joint projects and make application to the Federal Government for real world projects. Integrate what they are doing with the new Long Island Master Plan. Establish Green Accelerators across the state. Innovate with programs like "Better Place."

Where is the money you may ask? There is more than ample money in the system if it is organized properly and allocated effectively to at least get the ball rolling. More important is the need to free SUNY and others to be entrepreneurial and to cut the red tape.

We can not be so afraid of potential "corruption" that we paralyze our ability to be successful.

Apparently New York State is close to 15 Billion in the hole according to the Governor. Now is the time for bold new thinking and yes, some risk taking.

Playing it safe has only lead to stagnation in New York.

If "change" and reform is on the menu, we should leave no stone unturned in making comprehensive sustainable progress in addressing New York's and Long Island's future.

It is time for collaborative meta-leadership.

Making decisions with incomplete data ...

We've spoken ad nauseum about the need for accurate meta-data and a methodology for analyzing and implementing good public policy based upon same.

Bad public policy is created often in times of crisis (as now with the world financial crisis) when everyone is under pressure to just "do something." Worse, there are folks who use this time to push through pet projects or create legislation out of the existing fear in the populous.

But what effect do our actions have? How does one action affect another in the harsh light of reason?

Do we know? Do we want to know?

No, we don't currently know and yes, I believe most folks want to know so they can make a reasoned judgment.

Can we know? Of course. Certainly on Long Island and in New York we can.

All of the One Long Island series of "modular" proposals are based in real and workable solutions to our problems. They just require a little creative, analytical thought rather than the sometimes "knee jerk" reaction we have to addressing the issues of the day.

Good public policy requires most of all, an accurately informed, engaged public.

One Long Island is an attempt to create a platform to do just that.

Long Island Organizational M - Theory: Part One

"In theoretical physics, M-theory is a new limit of string theory in which 11 dimensions of spacetime may be identified. Because the dimensionality exceeds the dimensionality of five superstring theories in 10 dimensions, it was originally believed that the 11-dimensional theory is more fundamental and unifies all string theories (and supersedes them). However, in a more modern understanding, it is another, sixth possible description of physics of the full theory that is still called "string theory." Though a full description of the theory is not yet known, the low-entropy dynamics are known to be supergravity interacting with 2- and 5-dimensional membranes."

I was watching a show last night on "M-Theory" and for some reason I found the subject both fascinating and useful for "One Long Island."

Will elaborate later as time permits...

Current events ...

"The significance of the report, however, is debatable right now.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a cap would help, regional consolidation would help, and taming the power of the unions would help. But even now, with the state in a fiscal crisis, Albany can't come to grips with cutting some money out of school aid -- and so great is the power of the status quo that reforms of the underlying causes haven't even been put on the table.

So, Suozzi ends up with a report that identifies the problem, but doesn't really identify a legislative strategy for achieving change against the opposition of NYSUT and the other special interests. And without a strategy, it's all just paper."

"Taking a page from The Great Depression’s playbook, Nassau County on Tuesday unveiled its “New Deal for Nassau,” a program designed to boost government efficiency by cutting down on delays caused by bureaucracy and red tape.

The program, which is in its preliminary, fact-finding stages, is a mission by Legislature Presiding Officer Diane Yatauro and Legis. David Mejias to make it easier for businesses to operate in the county, stimulate the economy and attract new companies, development and jobs."

The two most recent well intentioned acts only serve to point out the continuing difficulty we are having on Long Island coordinating our actions for the "greater good."

There are many fine ideas on Long Island, or in many cases programs and activities in various stages of completion. What is lacking is dynamic collaboration of the type we have been advocating.

Rather than start a "new" program or report, perhaps we should take stock of what we currently have and what has been issued before. Perhaps this information should be "converted" into a dynamic format we've been talking about and analyzed prior to starting a "new mission."

The problem with "new" programs which cover existing problems is that they very rarely take into account the work and information that is available. This is generally not the fault of the proposers of a new project since the information must be made available to them (and us) in the "meta" format we have also been promoting.

The danger with new programs which don't take into account the fine work that has come before it is that we then contribute to the "cycle of stagnation" by never moving beyond the "new, bright and shiny" phase where everyone is excited by the expectation of something new and better. This is the allure of "change." Everyone defines it in their own way because we have no "common language" to help us define what it is we are actually talking about so therefore we never truly make progress on solving our problems.

This is one of the issues the One Long Island series of ideas attempts to address.

An emerging Long Island Philosophy: Part One

Buckram Road CD released ...

Available on CD Baby.

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.”

"One Long Island" Metachart: 11.5.08

More "open" ideas for Long Island ...

Here is another "open platform" system that may, in addition to Dublin Core, Lydia and others we've discussed, serve as a basis for creating a rapid, collaborative Long Island communication network.

In addition to all the other One Long Island projects, this Long Island Open Code Library concept may (and as also previously discussed) offer the public an unprecedented opportunity to participate in their own "destiny."

Long Island Cloud Project: Part One

Cloud computing definition.

Why wait for a crisis?

In the end, Lincoln was proved right again: "With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed."

The current debate on the economy has illustrated perhaps the key issue in moving forward on substantive change on Long Island and an issue the One Long Island program seeks to address.

Without the public trust nothing is possible.

We can see the overwhelming reaction to the public perception that a "solution" is being foisted upon them by those who "know better."

We can see many parallels to this attitude on Long Island. There are plenty of folks who claim to have the answer. Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

It does not make the proposers "evil" or not interested acting in the public interest. In fact, ultimately they may have the correct solution.

It won't matter. The public distrust of government, large organizations and powerful individuals is so ingrained that to fight it is a fool's errand.

Lincoln was correct. Without a public buy in, change is virtually impossible. One Long Island is an attempt to re-organize how we approach problem solving on Long Island so that public sentiment may be achieved and that big issues may be addressed and solved in a civil and productive manner.

Why wait for a crisis?

"One Long Island" Metachart 9.26.08

(Please click on the image for a larger view)

Building a New Long Island Economy: Part One

Some more inter-related topics:

One on cutting "red tape."

One on regional planning.

One on the Long Island economy.

As we've posted previously it seems a fairly obvious observation that the above issues among many others, are inter-related. Often times we can not change one thing without causing change in one or more other areas.

We've also spoken about the "diversity" of organizations (some might say duplication or redundancy of organizations) on Long Island, not only in government but across many different disciplines. Never-the-less, this is the current state of affairs and changing it by reduction may take more time and effort than its worth. Many organizations exist because of something, not in spite of it and have the constituencies to prove it.

As previously stated, organizations, of all types, that are no longer necessary will become extinct naturally if there is a dynamic philosophy on Long Island, which concentrates on innovation and self-renewal.

So, what to do?

There seems to be a general consensus on the big issues. The problem is that the consensus has been reached using the only data available to organizations and that data has not been standardized or normalized (the term my friend Mark Fasciano uses and which the correct one, he's the PhD not me), also an issue we've spoke about previously with among other posts the Long Island Dublin Core Initiative idea among other concepts. Additionally the methodology utilized to reach these various conclusions is similarly not uniform, has not been vetted and is generally in a static format rather than a dynamic format making it only semi-useful.

Therefore, conclusions reached using these various data will never be "bullet proof" and as such are subject to attack, justified or unjustified.

Once the information leaves the area of verifiable fact and enters the world of opinion, then, constructive action is virtually impossible as the various competing interests jostle over who is correct.

We are not suggesting that informed opinion should not be solicited, but it can not be the sole basis for or a major component in building a new Long Island economic model or creating a Long Island Philosophy.

Without a flexible, dynamic structure in place we will continue to make only sporadic progress and remain stuck in the "cycle of stagnation" we've spoken about previously.

More in Part II.

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.

Trust: Part II

"I propose that the Internet is the truest sense of the modern-day city. There are dense populations, a social infrastructure, complex architecture, rules, and culture. I will suggest that there is transportation as well as residences. Drawing mainly on the ideas of Jane Jacobs I will present the Internet as a modern day city that is governed under what I define as "Democratic Anarchy."Emily's paper addresses an issue I've been pondering lately: The extent to which an Internet community such as Second Life is a city. Another way to put it is to ask to what extent are such communities substitutes or complements to real face-to-face communities? I use Jane Jacobs's work as the analytical foundation, of course, which is why her concepts are so prominent in Emily's discussion."

"Instead of chasing non-Long Island planning and economic development consultants, the planning board should consider keeping the economic impact here on Long Island by integrating into its plans the economic and planning expertise available at each county, most Long Island towns, the Long Island Association, Dowling College and Stony Brook University. Recommendations will emerge that the planning board can discuss, at a cost the region can afford."

"An alliance like this makes sense for Long Island. The range of interest groups already agrees that we need more affordable housing. We should get leaders from these groups together in a room, and tell them to come out when they have a concrete plan to build it.

Sure, there will be disagreements. But the power, breadth and common interest of the group would make it difficult for individuals to scuttle good proposals on the basis of narrow interests. And, as in Boston, once the unified group presented its plan, there would be no stopping it.

Many talented and well-placed people would join such an effort, if only we could get it started. That will take leaders, and importantly, leaders from the business community. A couple of individuals, determined to replace hand-wringing with action, is all it would take to get the ball rolling. Who will step up?"

Here we have three elements (of many we have been discussing on this site) which, at first, may seem not to have a lot in common.

Virtual cities? Aren't those just games?

Integrated planning? How do you accomplish that?

Common agreement on a big issue? How to get started implementing these big ideas?

OK, so as we've previously explored current web technology (2.0 and emerging 3.0) makes it reasonably easy to communicate. Among many questions we might ask are, what information do we communicate? How is it relevant? How has it been vetted? Is it dynamic or static information? How do we avoid this "democratic anarchy" explore above?

OK smart guy, if its so easy to communicate, why don't we just communicate get more done here on Long Island. Ah ha very true, but first you must be willing to communicate and have the means and opportunity to communicate.

This is actually what we've been advocating with our "One Long Island" series of proposals (and actually back to the Oyster Bay 2000 days of 1992-93).

So we have the technology to communicate effectively, there is certainly enough capital on Long Island to create/expand the "virtual infrastructure," we have plenty of smart people with great ideas here on Long Island ... sooooooooo .. what's missing?

In a word, trust.

We simply do not trust the that information we receive is complete or has been vetted and analyzed completely (whether it has or not), we do not believe we (the general public) is adequately informed or that our opinions even when heard even matter, we are generally suspicious of government and large organizations ... in short in the maze and daze of daily living we do not have the time to focus on the "larger issues" of the day in a way that will allow us to trust that the correct actions are being undertaken.

So what to do?

Well you could try to just ram things through a la Robert Moses. It won't work, but you could try.

You could try to convince everyone that you have thought of every possible angle and contingency and that your conclusions are bullet proof. It won't work, but you could try.

First we must establish trust, and more importantly a methodology to ensure that this trust is verifiable.

More in Part III.

Meta-leadership: Part V

"Transactional leaders use conventional reward and punishment to gain compliance from their followers."

"Transforming leadership... occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality. Their purposes, which might have started out as separate but related, as in the case of transactional leadership, become fused. Power bases are linked not as counterweights but as mutual support for common purpose. Various names are used for such leadership, some of them derisory: elevating, mobilizing, inspiring, exalting, uplifting, preaching, exhorting, evangelizing. The relationship can be moralistic, of course. But transforming leadership ultimately becomes moral in that it raises the level of human conduct and ethical aspiration of both leader and led, and thus it has a transforming effect on both."

The definition for "transforming leadership" can also be a definition, at least in part, for "meta-leadership."

Although I am not a huge fan of the whole "need for leadership issue" since it almost always leads to those designated as leaders accumulating and hence almost never willingly relinquishing power (thank god for George Washington), thus leading to the "cycle of stagnation" we've talked about earlier, there is a "tradition" that needs and expects some sort of leadership model.

The meta-leadership model (or transformational model) at least offers the hope of creating a "dynamic environment" that will allow us to engage in clear thinking based on real time data and analysis and collaborative organization building. Meta-leadership might also be further defined as the "absence of static leadership and organization."

This dynamism is necessary in a world with diminishing resources, a larger population, greater competition among and between geographic regions as well as a whole host of criteria that will define our immediate and long term future.

Meta-leadership can and should allow for the dynamic interaction of small, medium and larger groups and organizations. It does not demand (transactional leadership) a certain way of doing things.

Therefore, leadership is based upon need and ability in real time (or virtual real time) not just upon someone being designated as a leader.

More in Part Six.

Static planning vs dynamic planning ...

"The Town of Huntington is about to release Comprehensive Plan Update: Horizons 2020, a draft version of what will become a roadmap for future development in the town that includes Huntington Station, East Northport and Dix Hills.

The town will put copies of the plan in libraries throughout Huntington, as well as Huntington Town Hall at 100 Main Street. It will also be posted on the town’s Web site."

Good to see some long range planning going on and the Town Huntington is to be commended for the effort.

But like previous planning efforts on Long Island (and elsewhere) we still have not bridged the gap from "static planning" into "dynamic planning (as previously discussed on this site)."

Wouldn't it be productive to have this plan (and other "local" plans across Long Island) be part of a Long Island dynamic meta-plan and as generally available meta-data?

Furthermore, shouldn't the information gathered in the Huntington model be available island- wide for study and possible use in other jurisdictions?

Won't situations change over time? Wouldn't it be helpful to update and analyze all or part of what you are doing in virtual real time, rather than have to start the process from scratch each time?

As we've stated previously, if governmental entities (like the Town of Huntington) , individuals, and organizations had access to easy to use, available analytic tools, methodologies, data structures etc., when one entity creates good work, it links to the "greater entity" (Long Island) so that all may benefit.

More to come ...

Modular Long Island: Part II

Last year around this time we started talking about a "modular Long Island" concept.

In point of fact, all of the One Long Island series of ideas is "modular" in that each idea can stand on its own or easily "integrate" with other elements of One Long Island (or already existing compatible ideas, organizations, systems etc.).

A large problem on Long Island as elsewhere, and one that we've talked about ad infinitum, is the seeming inability to link similar ideas, organizations and programs and further, the seeming inability to understand (or to recognize) the impact of one or multiple actions on the immediate and long term status of Long Island.

Ah ha, you might say, it is impossible to think of everything at once.

Under current conditions, difficult yes, impossible no.

The fact is, we must learn to think differently and on multiple levels simultaneously if we are to create substantive, positive and sustainable change.

Some look at the many levels of government on Long Island as the main culprit in our apparent dysfunction. Certainly this has something to do with it. But the organization of government is merely an outgrowth of how we wish to govern ourselves and more narrowly, to "control" our geographic area and immediate environment.

If we look beyond government, you pick the discipline, not for profit, information/data services, environmental, education etc, we will see the same level of "diversity."

Some see this "diversity" governmental or otherwise as a bad thing. I say it doesn't really matter if there are systems in place to foster simple and effective collaboration. People, no matter who they are or who they are affiliated with, must come to the table willingly and must trust that the process and the information they receive (and provide) is accurate, fair and reasonable for there to be long term sustainable change.

Government and other types of organizations will only achieve their optimally effective size and structure through the type of collaborative and "dynamic" interaction we've advocated over the past year (actually since 1993 with Oyster Bay 2000).

Its almost as if we must break organizations and their respective missions down to their component parts and reassemble them in new, more dynamic and flexible shapes.

This type of thinking enhances opportunity for those currently on "the outside looking in" and additionally, actually assists those who may initially lose some clout and influence they enjoyed under the old regime(s) in having more, if a different type of, influence and opportunity as Long Island creates a greater and more expansive, dynamic environment.

It won't happen overnight, but it will not happen at all unless we try a different approach. This is some of the thinking behind the Long Island Meta-Planning, Meta-Data, Meta-Think Tank etc, etc, etc concepts.

More in Part III.

A different perspective

Interesting and potentially helpful show here.

Always nice to see different perspectives. It helps shake the cobwebs off the old grey matter.

Meta-Leadership: Part IV

If we define Meta-Leadership, in part, as the ability to facilitate a change from a "static" environment to a "dynamic" environment, then this partial chart helps illustrate this point (click on the chart for a larger view).

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 III

(Select image for a larger view)

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

Long Island Referendum Cycle: Part Two

We've been advocating a more "dynamic" form of organization on Long Island on this site (and since 1993) with a whole host of interconnected ideas.

So why propose a referendum cycle?

A cycle of referenda on major issues, either one per year or multiple per year, ensures that ideas, information and analysis are continually reviewed, updated and subject to public debate and modification.

This cycle requires, even forces public participation and debate on the issues that govern Long Island.

No issue can be "put on the shelf" for too long. Information is not allowed to get "stale."

"Finger pointing" and the "blame game" will subside as citizens feel more "empowered" and less "dependent" on traditional forms of organization which many believe have not been adequate to address current issues.

More in Part Three.

Please note: This is our 250th post.

Long Island Referendum Cycle: Part One

Collaborative Rationalism: Part One

Interesting article today on turning Long Island's downtowns into more interesting places to live and work.

Contained in the article is this quote:

“Everything is so interconnected, so you feel sometimes that you can’t fix anything until you fix everything,” said Mayor Ernest J. Strada of the village of Westbury, talking at one point about a zoning question, but really addressing a deeper issue — the lack of a central planning authority on Long Island, a problem that exists in many suburbs. Each of the more than 100 communities of Nassau and Suffolk Counties have zoning and planning agencies that govern development within their own borders."

Also in the paper today is Nassau County's interest in redeveloping 105 acres it owns in Bethpage. Perhaps someone will propose a "cool downtown" with "next generation" housing adjoining "21st Century" business opportunities. Time will tell.

Mayor Strada is correct in stating that "everything is interconnected." But then again, it always was. There's just more of it now.

Also true is the fact that there is no central planning authority on Long Island, but don't hold your breath waiting for one anytime soon. That would take almost an act of nature to accomplish.

What we can strive for and are attempting to strive for in the One Long Island series of idea is something akin to a new "collaborative rationalism."

If we define:

ra·tion·al·ism

n.

1. Reliance on reason as the best guide for belief and action.

2. Philosophy The theory that the exercise of reason, rather than experience, authority, or spiritual revelation, provides the primary basis for knowledge.

col·lab·o·rate

intr.v. col·lab·o·rat·ed, col·lab·o·rat·ing, col·lab·o·rates

1. To work together, especially in a joint intellectual effort.

then we may define "collaborative rationalism" as the act of working together for a common cause based on reason (facts, meta data , analysis etc) and furthermore using this "collaborative rationalism" as a basis for our Long Island Philosophy and the main driving force behind a better more sustainable future for Long Island.

So if there are 100 communities each with their own zoning map, there is no reason why we can not, as a first step create a "meta zoning map" of Long Island, using comparative mathematical formulae, algorithms to "pierce the maze" of zoning regulations and find equivalencies across Long Island.

For example a "B Zone and related regulations" in North Hempstead is equivalent what zone or zones in Smithtown?

It is a reasonable easy project to come up with a Long Island Meta Zoning map (or Long Island Comprehensive Meta-Planning Project or any one of a dozen similar names we might name this concept). It might not be perfect but is is doable and would be a useful first step.

More in part II.

Some excellent ideas ...

I just returned from New York Institute of Technology's "Sustainable Solutions for Converging Crises" conference.

While all the presenters were excellent, two presenters in particular stood out as having great relevancy and potentially effective applications for Long Island.

Project Better Place is a brilliant concept for the distribution of electric automobiles.

Daniel Lerch of the Post Carbon Institute has written a very clearly thought out book regarding the energy crisis and its impact on public policy.

Both sites are well worth your time and effort.