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

New York State Dynamic Constitutional Convention: Part One

The has been quite a bit of discussion lately about a New York State Constitutional Convention.

This has been motivated primarily by the "breakdown" in Albany and the impact it has had on New York citizens.

I would respectfully submit for consideration the concept of a "dynamic" constitutional convention based, in part, upon the preceding 300 posts (One Long Island/Long Island Constitutional Convention).

Why?

Because as history has repeatedly demonstrated, a "static" approach to major issues in inherently limited by its lack of flexibility and lack of "normalized" information and analysis.

More in Part Two.

Plug n' Play ...

Here is yet another good idea and worthwhile program to benefit those citizens with Alzheimer’s.

Here's the question. What similar types of programs are currently available and how are they run? What programs currently exist not directly on point but similar (Amber Alert etc) that might be used as a model?

We've previously opined on the need for a flexible "common language" for Long Island (and indeed New York State and maybe the federal government as well). Without this "common language" there is minimal coordination and much wasted effort.

If, for example, the Alzheimer's program (legislation) described above could be "plugged in" to an existing technical framework, it would be much easier to establish connections with "complimentary" programs and legislation.

One Long Island offers, among other concepts, ideas on how to create this "framework" for the rapid and collaborative implementation of public policy.

A "unified theory"of sorts for public policy.

Funny ... sad ...

Funny bit from The Daily Show on Long Island as the 51st state.

Funny, but illustrative of the way we are currently viewed.

"One Long Island" is a way to change this perception.

Yes we have no bananas ...

“I think we’re seeing a meltdown,” said Edward I. Koch, the former New York mayor. He added, “I believe it’s not only disgraceful, but it makes New York look like a banana republic.”

The natural tendency in times of crisis is to look for a strong "leader" to solve our problems.

I believe that the problems New York is experiencing are systemic and that they essentially require a reworking of how we govern ourselves.

The One Long Island series of ideas are an attempt to create an "environment" where ideas can be discussed and analyzed on a level playing field apart from the "political game" utilizing "normalized data. "

The problems we have are too large for "games."

Elected officials are certainly in the middle of all this, but so too are the many organizations and advocacy groups that have been created over the years in reaction to the "game." Certainly this "game within a game" will need to be reformed as well.

One Long Island attempts to return the large policy decisions of the day back into the hands of the general public.

This trust in the "collective will" has met with suspicion in the past. But in the past we have not had the technical tools at our disposal to engage in the type of collaborative meta-planning as we do today.

What will require "meta-leadership" is the will, strength and vision to give the public the tools we need to govern ourselves.

This is not difficult to do from a technical point of view, but it will require sacrifice by those who currently hold power and those who earn a living interacting with those in power.

LI Business News Editorial ...

Editorial: In the dark

by the Editors
Published: June 5, 2009
Tags: Andrew Cuomo, consolidation, taxing districts

In case you missed it, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo – yes, we’re also wondering why the governor wasn’t at the command – is pushing a bill that could lead to eliminating or consolidating local governments.

The N.Y. Government Reorganization and Citizen Empowerment Act, Cuomo’s baby, would make it easier for voters to erase special taxing districts, including entire governments.

And, understandably, the proposed bill received a resounding endorsement from business leaders and elected officials in county and state governments.

The argument: The extra taxing jurisdictions are placing an unnecessary burden on Long Island taxpayers, many of whom are already choked by the cost of living here.

Of course taxes on Long Island are extreme and, yes, the layers of government make it difficult to figure out which government entity is supposed to clear which street during a snowstorm.

This bill, which has bipartisan support, would help streamline government responsibilities.

But would it really lead to lower taxes? For many Islanders, school district charges make up more than 80 percent of their property tax bill.

Also, if we’re going to consider the removal of government layers, who is to say that the model used in smaller villages such as Patchogue and Babylon isn’t more productive than the town model, where garbage is often not picked up along highways?

Be careful what you wish for, lawmakers, the voters might be best served by eliminating you.

But generally speaking, Cuomo is right about what has crippled the New York economy. The state, and Long Island in particular, can’t survive without consolidation of some sort.

New York has 10,000 layers of government imposing taxes and fees.

That includes water, sewer and lighting districts.

Lighting districts? If something isn’t done soon, there won’t be any lights left to turn on.

My response:

You have identified a key point. Currently there is no adequate method of assessing the quality of services and the cost of similar services. In fact as Mr. Cuomo has said, he is not even 100% sure how many taxing jurisdictions there are.

That is unacceptable. How can you know how to solve a problem unless you have identified the problem in detail and explored all viable options?

This not the fault of Mr. Cuomo who I’m sure is doing the best he can within the existing structure, but it is a problem that needs to be addressed so that the public can feel reasonably secure that the changes being considered are viable and well thought out and that all informed opinions are heard (most importantly the public) on a level playing field.

This is because, in part, we have data and methods of analysis that are disjointed and not “normalized” on Long Island and New York generally. Also the information is generally if not always presented in a “static format” rather than a “dynamic format” making it difficult to compare and analyze the different options and to react to sudden changes in the “decision making environment.”

Consolidation is one method for change. “Dynamic collaboration” is another (explained here http://www.onelongisland.com) with some proposals on how to construct this new “dynamic environment.”

Good article ...

Here is an well written article "A Wealth of Municipalities, and an Era of Hard Time" that raises a number of interesting points.

It does serve to prove our point however, that when it comes to rational decision making about the best method(s) for providing services, we are not all singing from the "same hymnal" with regard to data and analysis.

The first step in coming to a reasonable, collaborative resolution is the normalization of the data and the creation of "dynamic" system rather than the "static" system that currently exists.

Part of the One Long Island series of ideas is an attempt to remedy this problem.

Dynamic Action vs Unintended Consequences:Part I

Unintended consequences are outcomes that are not (or not limited to) the results originally intended in a particular situation. The unintended results may be foreseen or unforeseen, but they should be the logical or likely results of the action. For example, historians have speculated that if the Treaty of Versailles had not imposed such harsh conditions on Germany, World War II would not have occurred. From this perspective, one might consider the war an unintended consequence of the treaty.

Unintended consequences can be grouped into roughly three types:

• a positive unexpected benefit, usually referred to as serendipity or a windfall
• a negative or perverse effect, that may be contrary to what was originally intended
• a potential source of problems, such as described by Murphy's law

Discussions of unintended consequences usually refer to the situation of perverse results. This situation can arise when a policy has a perverse incentive and causes actions contrary to what is desired.

The law of unintended consequences

The "law of unintended consequences" (also called the "law of unforeseen consequences") states that any purposeful action will produce some unintended consequences. A classic example is a bypass — a road built to relieve traffic congestion on a congested road — that attracts new development and with it more traffic, resulting in two congested streets instead of one.

This maxim is not a scientific law; it is more in line with Murphy's law as a warning against the hubristic belief that humans can fully control the world around them. Stated in other words, each cause has more than one effect, and these effects will invariably include at least one unforeseen side effect. The unintended side effect can potentially be more significant than any of the intended effects.

History

The idea of unintended consequences dates back at least to Adam Smith, the Scottish Enlightenment, and consequentialism (judging by results). However, it was the sociologist Robert K. Merton who popularized this concept in the twentieth century.

In his 1936 paper, "The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action", Merton tried to apply a systematic analysis to the problem of "unanticipated consequences" of "purposive social action". He emphasized that his term "purposive action… [is exclusively] concerned with 'conduct' as distinct from 'behavior.' That is, with action that involves motives and consequently a choice between various alternatives".^[1] Merton also stated that "no blanket statement categorically affirming or denying the practical feasibility of all social planning is warranted."^[2]

Causes

Possible causes of unintended consequences include the world's inherent complexity (parts of a system responding to changes in the environment), perverse incentives, human stupidity, self-deception or other cognitive or emotional biases. As a sub-component of complexity (in the scientific sense), the chaotic nature of the universe – and especially its quality of having small, apparently insignificant changes with far-reaching effects (e.g., the Butterfly Effect) – applies.

Robert K. Merton listed five possible causes of unanticipated consequences:^[3]

1. Ignorance (It is impossible to anticipate everything, thereby leading to incomplete analysis)
2. Error (Incorrect analysis of the problem or following habits that worked in the past but may not apply to the current situation)
3. Immediate interest, which may override long-term interests
4. Basic values may require or prohibit certain actions even if the long-term result might be unfavorable (these long-term consequences may eventually cause changes in basic values)
5. Self-defeating prophecy (Fear of some consequence drives people to find solutions before the problem occurs, thus the non-occurrence of the problem is unanticipated)

We will attempt to explore over the next few posts how our concept of "Dynamic Action (or Dynamic Planning, Dynamic Legislation etc)" may potentially serve as a hedge against the unintended consequences of what appears to be the "correct" decision at a particular moment in time.

The County of Long Island: Part One

With all the talk of statehood for Long Island and the recent push for consolidation of various forms of government, it just stuck me.

Why not combine the two?

Why not reform all of Long Island into a powerful "semi independent" region capable of having its own constitution and rethinking and reinventing how all services are provided and how we leverage our educational organizations and business for maximum opportunity for all its citizens?

After all, couldn't we use almost all the ideas we've been promoting in "One Long Island" in the "reformation" of Long Island?

Sure we'd probably need fewer elected officials, but I mean, what the heck. Let's do it for the good of the citizens. Besides, a unified County of Long Island would have much greater political power in Albany because it would be less about traditional political affiliations and more about the citizens of Long Island. The "labyrinth" of divisions would truly be mended.

Why take half measures? Fix the problem across the board. In fact let's have a referendum on the idea. You know people are serious about real reform when the proposers actually have to sacrifice something themselves. And the only way to do that is through a "meta reformation."

We can have the newly constituted Long Island Regional Planning Council as the vehicle to craft the proposal. After all they are in the midst of a new "master plan" for Long Island anyway. Let's have a truly coordinated effort to solve our shared problems.

Also is it time for a New York Constitutional Convention? Do we have so many difficult issues to address that is is time for a New York reformation? Is this the best method for fundamentally restructuring government and addressing other important social issues?

Certainly we have the brainpower here on Long Island to figure it out. Perhaps One County first, statehood later after we've proven ourselves?

More in Part II

Comments ...

Some good ideas in the proposal. More needs to be done however to determine the actual savings of the plan and the impact it will have on the structural governance of the service providers and the delivery of services. Also the legislation should include all governing bodies, not just those cited.

They did well with the information they had available, but Long Island (and New York) needs a more formal plan to normalize and analyze data and otherwise engage in “meta-planning” and “meta education.”

We should also use “collaborative technology” in a “dynamic” way so that the results of any report or proposal including the present “static” one, have broad support from the public based upon actual knowledge and input.

Congratulations on a good job however in “moving the ball forward” and engaging the public in an important issue. More here http://www.onelongisland.com

Review: Part One

I thought it was time to start a review (and possibly expand) on some of the 300 or so previous posts.

“Simply stated, ‘One Long Island’ is a series of interrelated projects designed to foster productive collaboration on Long Island through the utilization of common technology, interdisciplinary education, public participation and a shared Long Island philosophy. In short it is a way to change the way we solve problems on Long Island in a sustainable manner.”

Dynamic Ethics Commission?

"How emblematic is it of Albany's challenges that the latest scandal involves the commission that's supposed to oversee ethics and lobbying? It's over the Troopergate matter again, the scandal that doesn't seem to die. State officials must recast this commission into one the public can trust."

Can the public trust itself?

Perhaps the new "Commission" should be akin to a rotating jury process, although not quite as "open ended." After all there are laws to be followed and facts to be applied.

The idea is that if there is a large pool of individuals involved, from diverse backgrounds, it is more likely it is that the result will be fair.

Can any "commission" appointed by powerful people ever be truly independent? Perhaps. But usually elected officials appoint folks who generally think as they do, so there will always be some sort of bias, whether overt or unintentional involved on the selection process I would suspect. The current political culture is too strong to really avoid this result.

So how to select these folks? How do we provide them with accurate, unbiased information upon which to render an fair judgment?

First we have to reform how information is made available (as we have been talking about for the past 15 years or so).

Perhaps the ethics laws themselves should be reformed. Are they too stringent so as to stifle creative work and restrict attracting quality public servants in the state or are they not restrictive enough?

What levels of investigation are there? Perhaps certain categories can be handled by a smaller appointed "commission." Perhaps larger cases should have "regional" directors elected by the public. Elected members may have no political affiliation. Perhaps all cases should be handled by this larger commission.

After all if you wish to "regain" the public trust shouldn't you allow the public to be part of the process?

As with any reform, it is important to understand how the change will affect not only the area contemplated, buy any ancillary issue as well.

This why we advocate the "meta" approach for comprehensive change and the direct engagement of the public and additionally, providing the public with the tools they need to assist in their own governance.

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.

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.

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.

We’re unsure what the answer would be, but there is some anecdotal evidence that the cost to localities has been moving upward in recent months."

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 ...

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.

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.