World's first "crowd sourced" public policy initiative
Monday 11 February 2013
Instead of a Senate, lets Stand the Idea on its Head - What a Reverse Senate Might Do Manitoba United is in favour of a reverse senate located below the level of the legislature to generate innovation, encourage new ideas and create improved governance.
Way back in the 1800’s when our founding fathers were ruminating on good governance they were somewhat concerned about the potential for young upstarts in the Federal Legislative Assembly of the brand new country making laws that did not make sense. They designed an un-elected upper chamber of sober second thought called the Senate which would have the authority to pass reject or comment on laws approved by the lower Legislature. A similar structure was created in the United States except over there they elect the Senate. Some people would argue that in both cases, because it creates a slowing down of government, the body has outlived its usefulness. In the US they have something which has evolved to fill the void for independent public policy thought. Although you get no complete guarantee of objectivity, they all have a myriad of Foundations working on both service delivery and on policy initiatives for issues of public good. Each seems to have its own field of expertise but they do make a difference. In Canada these types of institutions are mostly money funnellers for soft causes while activist foundations are nowhere near as common. l
Here in Manitoba there is no such thing as a Senate at either the Provincial or Municipal level and as a potential political party Manitoba United would never want to consider imposing one on a Civic and Provincial system that are barely functional at the best of times. What we don’t need is a dour, nay-saying structure that slows things down and makes them cumbersome. We also do not have time to create a lot of expert active foundations. We do need a structure that brings some of the freshness and innovation of entrepreneurial behaviour to a stodgy old institution. In part the underlying thinking for this topic originated in the previous one talking about access and encouragement to bring forth more participation from elected members by revamping the EPC. But this practical solution deserved to stand on its own.
You might want to think for a minute where ideas actually come from in our current Provincial and Civic systems. Generally they originate in the biased little minds of endlessly groveling communication officers and assistants to the assistants. These low level and inexperienced folks devise Machiavellian ideas laden with the worst possible philosophical bias and the bad part is that their unthinking bosses end up approving the ideas simply because they like the bias.
Someone recently counted up all the government communication officers both within the party, the government and the non profits. The number was something like 900. What Manitoba United is proposing is that we take about half of those and eliminate the positions entirely. Let their bosses and those that should be accountable actually be accountable without all the insulation. If we stopped right there it would be a decent idea but lets go a bit further. Take less than 10% of the budget money saved and lets make a small un-elected group of policy initiators. It would probably only need about a dozen with a small amount of secretarial help and a small budget to bring on contract expertise as need. These non- partisan people should be appointed on the basis of merit for a once renewable three year term. They would work something like the Frazier institute or the Manitoba Labour Federation but without the inherent bias.
What kind of people would do this? Generally people who take the time to be thoughtful curious and unfettered by political correctness. Most Manitobans following government could probably name a cupola of bloggers that would do a marvelous job. There is at least one reporter that might fit the bill – how areya James? There could be an up and coming academic. There could be a digital person or two as that is an exciting area full of “out of the box” thinking. There could be the odd health education or social care worker who wants to see their system get better. l
What would they do? Initiate rather than ruminate, that’s what this group should do. From companies to countries, the strength of innovation, the speed of adapting to change and the ability to see & seize opportunities makes the difference between winners and losers. When it comes to companies, countries, institutions or individuals you have to get smarter before you can get better. Our current governance structures actually ratchet us down preventing this more and more powerfully with each turn of the tool..
This group should analyze with open eyes without an accountant’s or forensic auditor’s pickiness. They don’t vote on anything except as to what degree of consensus something moves forward with. They could recommend a range of possible areas of attention along with the weighing of relative importance of the issue., to the economic environment or even to the delivery of service. This is the complete reverse of a senate that is put there to inhibit change and the emphasis would now shift to occur prior to the elected body to stimulate freshness or change. They could also get out into the community and explain what other jurisdictions are doing thereby soliciting ideas for change
They should be appointed not by politics but by merit. Political affiliation would be strike against a potential candidate. This is all about change. The most innovate thinkers that can work collectively should prevail.
It is not even fair to call it a reverse Senate. A better title might be (AC) or Agents of Change. There was one suggestion that it should (CPC) Cattle Prods of Change.
Way back in the 1800’s when our founding fathers were ruminating on good governance they were somewhat concerned about the potential for young upstarts in the Federal Legislative Assembly of the brand new country making laws that did not make sense. They designed an un-elected upper chamber of sober second thought called the Senate which would have the authority to pass reject or comment on laws approved by the lower Legislature. A similar structure was created in the United States except over there they elect the Senate. Some people would argue that in both cases, because it creates a slowing down of government, the body has outlived its usefulness. In the US they have something which has evolved to fill the void for independent public policy thought. Although you get no complete guarantee of objectivity, they all have a myriad of Foundations working on both service delivery and on policy initiatives for issues of public good. Each seems to have its own field of expertise but they do make a difference. In Canada these types of institutions are mostly money funnellers for soft causes while activist foundations are nowhere near as common. l
ReplyDeleteHere in Manitoba there is no such thing as a Senate at either the Provincial or Municipal level and as a potential political party Manitoba United would never want to consider imposing one on a Civic and Provincial system that are barely functional at the best of times. What we don’t need is a dour, nay-saying structure that slows things down and makes them cumbersome. We also do not have time to create a lot of expert active foundations. We do need a structure that brings some of the freshness and innovation of entrepreneurial behaviour to a stodgy old institution. In part the underlying thinking for this topic originated in the previous one talking about access
and encouragement to bring forth more participation from elected members by revamping the EPC. But this practical solution deserved to stand on its own.
You might want to think for a minute where ideas actually come from in our current Provincial and Civic systems. Generally they originate in the biased little minds of endlessly groveling communication officers and assistants to the assistants. These low level and inexperienced folks devise Machiavellian ideas laden with the worst possible philosophical bias and the bad part is that their unthinking bosses end up approving the ideas simply because they like the bias.
Someone recently counted up all the government communication officers both within the party, the government and the non profits. The number was something like 900. What Manitoba United is proposing is that we take about half of those and eliminate the positions entirely. Let their bosses and those that should be accountable actually be accountable without all the insulation. If we stopped right there it would be a decent idea but lets go a bit further. Take less than 10% of the budget money saved and lets make a small un-elected group of policy initiators. It would probably only need about a dozen with a small amount of secretarial help and a small budget to bring on contract expertise as need. These non- partisan people should be appointed on the basis of merit for a once renewable three year term. They would work something like the Frazier institute or the Manitoba Labour Federation but without the inherent bias.
What kind of people would do this? Generally people who take the time to be thoughtful curious and unfettered by political correctness. Most Manitobans following government could probably name a cupola of bloggers that would do a marvelous job.
ReplyDeleteThere is at least one reporter that might fit the bill – how areya James? There could be an up and coming academic. There could be a digital person or two as that is an exciting area full of “out of the box” thinking. There could be the odd health education or social care worker who wants to see their system get better. l
What would they do? Initiate rather than ruminate, that’s what this group should do. From companies to countries, the strength of innovation, the speed of adapting to change and the ability to see & seize opportunities makes the difference between winners and losers. When it comes to companies, countries, institutions or individuals you have to get smarter before you can get better. Our current governance structures actually ratchet us down preventing this more and more powerfully with each turn of the tool..
This group should analyze with open eyes without an accountant’s or forensic auditor’s pickiness. They don’t vote on anything except as to what degree of consensus something moves forward with. They could recommend a range of possible areas of attention along with the weighing of relative importance of the issue., to the economic environment or even to the delivery of service. This is the complete reverse of a senate that is put there to inhibit change and the emphasis would now shift to occur prior to the elected body to stimulate freshness or change. They could also get out into the community and explain what other jurisdictions are doing thereby soliciting ideas for change
They should be appointed not by politics but by merit. Political affiliation would be strike against a potential candidate. This is all about change. The most innovate thinkers that can work collectively should prevail.
It is not even fair to call it a reverse Senate. A better title might be (AC) or Agents of Change. There was one suggestion that it should (CPC) Cattle Prods of Change.