"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.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Solution or Distracter?
Is this partial solution helpful or what we have referred to before as a "distracter?"
10,500 sounds like a lot of government, but is it really going to save money if you consolidate certain parts of government without first understanding how services are provided in New York and, more importantly, what the best alternatives are (see Best Practices Wiki, Virtual Constitution, Meta-Data Project etc in previous posts.)?
Once again we have a static report on which we purport to make sweeping legislative changes.
I personally believe it is a good thing to allow the public an easier route to modify their government through referenda. I would have regularly scheduled "cycles of referenda" in fact to keep the public engaged in a "dynamic process" rather than require the public to get signatures. I would also give the public broader powers to reform how they are governed generally.
Here I'm afraid is a partial solution which at the end of the day will not lead to significant cost reductions (especially on Long Island) because it does not include school districts and other large forms of government, where the bulk of the tax dollars go.
It also does not provide a clear methodology for determining cost savings based upon empirical data gathered neutrally and analyzed by collaborative means. How do I know this? Because it doesn't presently exist. But it should and it can with a reasonable effort.
Put simply. No one knows with any reasonable certainty the outcomes of their actions or legislation.
Again we have a lot of effort going for a partial solution when we can be putting more effort into crafting a broader framework for more sustainable progress in New York State.
The intent of the individuals involved, I'm sure, is noble and for the right reasons. But do we really need a another partial solution?
The problem may seem to be insurmountable, but it is not. It just takes a little organization and a little collaboration to unleash the immense talent of the individuals and organizations in our state.
10,500 sounds like a lot of government, but is it really going to save money if you consolidate certain parts of government without first understanding how services are provided in New York and, more importantly, what the best alternatives are (see Best Practices Wiki, Virtual Constitution, Meta-Data Project etc in previous posts.)?
Once again we have a static report on which we purport to make sweeping legislative changes.
I personally believe it is a good thing to allow the public an easier route to modify their government through referenda. I would have regularly scheduled "cycles of referenda" in fact to keep the public engaged in a "dynamic process" rather than require the public to get signatures. I would also give the public broader powers to reform how they are governed generally.
Here I'm afraid is a partial solution which at the end of the day will not lead to significant cost reductions (especially on Long Island) because it does not include school districts and other large forms of government, where the bulk of the tax dollars go.
It also does not provide a clear methodology for determining cost savings based upon empirical data gathered neutrally and analyzed by collaborative means. How do I know this? Because it doesn't presently exist. But it should and it can with a reasonable effort.
Put simply. No one knows with any reasonable certainty the outcomes of their actions or legislation.
Again we have a lot of effort going for a partial solution when we can be putting more effort into crafting a broader framework for more sustainable progress in New York State.
The intent of the individuals involved, I'm sure, is noble and for the right reasons. But do we really need a another partial solution?
The problem may seem to be insurmountable, but it is not. It just takes a little organization and a little collaboration to unleash the immense talent of the individuals and organizations in our state.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Meta-analysis continued ...
"Last year, DiNapoli launched www.OpenBookNewYork.com, a website containing searchable databases of spending by more than 100 state agencies and more than 60,000 state contracts. It also includes school districts.
And there are other groups shining sunlight through the clouds on school districts as well. The Empire Center for New York State Policy, an Albany-based think tank and project of the nonprofit Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, provides an easily accessible, easily searchable database for government payrolls, labor contracts and expenditures across the state—including school districts’ teachers and superintendents—through its SeeThroughNY Web portal (www.SeeThroughNY.net). "
All of the above projects (and others of a similar nature) are good and worthwhile. But, yet again, we see similar projects executed without "normalization" or a "common language."
Can they be converted to become part of the "whole" and thus more productive and useful elements? Of course.
Will they?
No, unless we (as Long Islanders and New Yorkers in this case) demand that they do.
This data, while useful, still does not allow us to engage in the "meta-analysis" we require to come to rational and collaborative decisions about our future.
At best this information is a beginning. At worst it allows advocacy groups of all stripes to pick and choose only the data they want from the data source(s) they wish to use to perpetuate their already established beliefs.
We can, and must do better.
And there are other groups shining sunlight through the clouds on school districts as well. The Empire Center for New York State Policy, an Albany-based think tank and project of the nonprofit Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, provides an easily accessible, easily searchable database for government payrolls, labor contracts and expenditures across the state—including school districts’ teachers and superintendents—through its SeeThroughNY Web portal (www.SeeThroughNY.net). "
All of the above projects (and others of a similar nature) are good and worthwhile. But, yet again, we see similar projects executed without "normalization" or a "common language."
Can they be converted to become part of the "whole" and thus more productive and useful elements? Of course.
Will they?
No, unless we (as Long Islanders and New Yorkers in this case) demand that they do.
This data, while useful, still does not allow us to engage in the "meta-analysis" we require to come to rational and collaborative decisions about our future.
At best this information is a beginning. At worst it allows advocacy groups of all stripes to pick and choose only the data they want from the data source(s) they wish to use to perpetuate their already established beliefs.
We can, and must do better.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Dynamic Legislation continued ...
"A proposal for political accountability: add up all the costs imposed on localities by New York State through its actions, then deduct all the benefits localities get from the state.
A good example of what we've been talking about. No one really knows the impact of their legislative actions.
To be fair, this is a longstanding problem and not just in New York State
However it is knowable.
As we've discussed here among other posts, we require a new methodology for coming to rational solutions.
More later ...
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Piercing the Haze: Part I
What is a "distracter?" A "distracter" is technology which is employed to make it appear that the provider is interested in your input or that the information you provide will be used for a constructive purpose.
The less cynical view is that the provider doesn't know any better and is using the technology because they feel they have to to look current. The more cynical view is that they do know what they are doing and are using the technology to promote a specific agenda while using the technology as a sort of "Trojan horse" to gain your trust.
Filters are those elements which prevent the public form getting accurate information.
So what we are attempting to do, in part, with the One Long Island series of ideas is to "pierce" the haze of filters and distracters toward a more unified "language." Yes there will still be disagreements on policy, but at least we'll all be "singing from the same hymnal" so to speak.
More in Part II.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
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.
Friday, April 17, 2009
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.
Monday, April 13, 2009
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.
"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.
Monday, April 6, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
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
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
Monday, March 16, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Green Accelerator progress ...
Nice to see my Long Island Green Business Accelerator idea start to take shape.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
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.
Friday, February 13, 2009
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.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, February 9, 2009
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."
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
ABS Share
