Williston, ND Active Issues

Sue Evans · Senior Member

RE: The role of government

Sigma · Veteran Member

Sigma wrote:

Sue Evans wrote:

I have been thinking. Our government as a business model. Can we opt out? I don't want to invest anymore. The board of directors are nuts.

file:///C:/Users/Owner/Desktop/Senate%2520Bill%2520S510%2520Makes%2520it%2520illegal%2520to%2520Grow,%2520Share,%2520Trade%2520or%2520Sell%2520Homegrown%2520Food%2520-%2520Patriotic%2520Resistance.mht
I hope this link works. I haven't done a lot of research into this bill. Sounds rather insane to me.

It is S510

-- Edited by Sue Evans on Friday 14th of May 2010 03:17:39 PM

I think some people tried to opt out in the past. It caused a war, and generally speaking, wars are bad. I'm pretty sure one can't opt out now. I suppose a person could move away and renounce their citizenship, though, which would be the same as opting out.

It looks like the analogy, good as it may be, has its limits.

Apparently sarcasm can't be identified without some sort of accompanying smile

or

. I blame myself for ignoring the limitations of text communication.

Sue Evans · Senior Member

The last time I experienced anyone taking a statement so concrete was when my son was 4 or 5. He was in T-ball.

The coach, not used to such a young group, began clapping his hands and yelling, "Look alive out there!"

All the small children began breathing heavily to demonstrate their chests were indeed moving so the coach could see they looked alive.

I laughed as I watched a coach shaking his head and muttering.

Sue Evans · Senior Member

Sue Evans wrote:

I have been thinking. Our government as a business model. Can we opt out? I don't want to invest anymore. The board of directors are nuts.

http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/blogs/senate-bill-s510-makes-it

I hope this link works. I haven't done a lot of research into this bill. Sounds rather insane to me.

It is S510

-- Edited by Sue Evans on Friday 14th of May 2010 03:17:39 PM

-- Edited by Sue Evans on Friday 14th of May 2010 03:24:42 PM

I finally got the link to work, now, I do know we can not opt out. It was a joke. If our gov't was a business, we would have that option. So we can not compare it to a business plan. A business that can rule you with the threat of a gun is usually considered thugs. A mob maybe. We need to redirect those we chose to represent us back to the roots of a republic and rule by law.

-- Edited by Sue Evans on Friday 14th of May 2010 03:38:42 PM

Sigma · Veteran Member

Sue Evans wrote:

I have been thinking. Our government as a business model. Can we opt out? I don't want to invest anymore. The board of directors are nuts.

file:///C:/Users/Owner/Desktop/Senate%2520Bill%2520S510%2520Makes%2520it%2520illegal%2520to%2520Grow,%2520Share,%2520Trade%2520or%2520Sell%2520Homegrown%2520Food%2520-%2520Patriotic%2520Resistance.mht
I hope this link works. I haven't done a lot of research into this bill. Sounds rather insane to me.

It is S510

-- Edited by Sue Evans on Friday 14th of May 2010 03:17:39 PM

I think some people tried to opt out in the past. It caused a war, and generally speaking, wars are bad. I'm pretty sure one can't opt out now. I suppose a person could move away and renounce their citizenship, though, which would be the same as opting out.

It looks like the analogy, good as it may be, has its limits.

Sue Evans · Senior Member

I have been thinking. Our government as a business model. Can we opt out? I don't want to invest anymore. The board of directors are nuts.

http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/blogs/senate-bill-s510-makes-it

I hope this link works. I haven't done a lot of research into this bill. Sounds rather insane to me.

It is S510

-- Edited by Sue Evans on Friday 14th of May 2010 03:17:39 PM

-- Edited by Sue Evans on Friday 14th of May 2010 03:24:42 PM

Sigma · Veteran Member

Steve Powell wrote:

Even if it's this one there aren't 31 pages.

I'm struggling to find this mandate as well.

You just said "By the way, this is our dime..via - tax dollars". Collectively, all the data that is to be input can, in no way, be cost effective unless they are asking the Chinese to help. I thought those expenses were what the Tea Party were against?

Sue, I've discussed this with my Ebel Geek-mates and we all agree, there's a ton of hardware costs as well as labor time to enter all this information.

Would this mandate somehow allow the state/local government to save money down the road? I understand the accountability point but is this really going to make that big of a difference?

Steve,

Ms. Evans is talking about page 31 in the Pork Report, which references SB 2018. She wasn't refering to the bill itself.

Apparently I was looking at the wrong version of the legislation in my previous post. The one that Steve links shows, on page three, $400,000 in ARRA funds have been given to ND for the purposes of establishing a searchable database. So the database will cost a signifiant amount of money, but to be fair we're talking about a searchable database on a statewide level. So that's very costly given the scope of the project.

-- Edited by Sigma on Thursday 13th of May 2010 08:33:31 AM

Steve Powell · Guru

Even if it's this one there aren't 31 pages.

I'm struggling to find this mandate as well.

You just said "By the way, this is our dime..via - tax dollars". Collectively, all the data that is to be input can, in no way, be cost effective unless they are asking the Chinese to help. biggrin

I thought those expenses were what the Tea Party were against?

Sue, I've discussed this with my Ebel Geek-mates and we all agree, there's a ton of hardware costs as well as labor time to enter all this information.

Would this mandate somehow allow the state/local government to save money down the road? I understand the accountability point but is this really going to make that big of a difference?

Sigma · Veteran Member

Sue Evans wrote:

I'll help you out, SB 2018, pages 30 and 31.

-- Edited by Sue Evans on Wednesday 12th of May 2010 04:08:59 PM

-- Edited by Sue Evans on Wednesday 12th of May 2010 04:14:05 PM

Sue,

I think I'm looking at the right piece of legislation, but I'm honestly having difficulty finding where the a searchable database is mandated. Would you please help me out?

Sue Evans · Senior Member

Did you read? There is a proposal in the pdf file. A searchable data base. User friendly...Cost effective.

By the way, this is our dime..via - tax dollars.

I'll help you out, SB 2018, pages 30 and 31.

-- Edited by Sue Evans on Wednesday 12th of May 2010 04:08:59 PM

-- Edited by Sue Evans on Wednesday 12th of May 2010 04:14:05 PM

Steve Powell · Guru

Awesome! So your point is we, as individuals, can create the transparency on our own individual dimes?

Sue Evans · Senior Member

http://www.policynd.org/images/uploads/PR_for_Website.pdf

Here you go. Some of that expensive transparency. Where oh where did my tax dollars go?

Steve Powell · Guru

Sue, I like the thought of transparency as well. But in my mind, if you're wanting to be "inexpensive" you have to limit the amount of time and resources you put towards this.

As you know government is complex whether it's city, county, state, etc... If you were to make everything transparent there is boatloads of data that would have to be stored and indexed in a data wharehouse that would probably resemble a datacenter. I can tell you that datacenters are anything but inexpensive.

On that note, maybe I should be running for city commission to see if I could get Ebels the datacenter contract. biggrin

OH C'MON PEOPLE!! It was a joke!!!!

Sue Evans · Senior Member

http://www.transparent-gov.com/Pages/default.aspx

user friendly data base.

-- Edited by Sue Evans on Tuesday 11th of May 2010 05:39:24 PM

Steve Powell · Guru

Sue Evans wrote:

I did not point out you were hiding behind your keyboard. My, did you read into that one. I wrote it in that manner due to past individuals who felt those who use forums such as this just hide behind their keyboards. I also demonstrated other expenditures that were costly to the tax payer. Transparency is not. I am glad I got your attention with the other article. Understanding on how this evolved is one thing, insight into what may come of it will be another.

Now, soon many of you will understand another reason posting even the credit card statements on line is relevant. Transparency in this venue does prevent issues. I did call for this to be done.

Sue, I need to ask, because for the life of me I don't remember, what steps need to be taken in order for "transparecy" to happen. In other words, what does transparency look like? confuse OK, bad question. aww I mean, how is government going to be transparent to me? How do I find information?

Sue Evans · Senior Member

I did not point out you were hiding behind your keyboard. My, did you read into that one. I wrote it in that manner due to past individuals who felt those who use forums such as this just hide behind their keyboards. I also demonstrated other expenditures that were costly to the tax payer. Transparency is not. I am glad I got your attention with the other article. Understanding on how this evolved is one thing, insight into what may come of it will be another.

Now, soon many of you will understand another reason posting even the credit card statements on line is relevant. Transparency in this venue does prevent issues. I did call for this to be done.

Sigma · Veteran Member

Sue Evans wrote:

http://www.cityofwilliston.com/usrfiles/AUD/Docs/Resolution0953.pdf

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704370704575228152292941636.html
More of that dry reading I do..

-- Edited by Sue Evans on Tuesday 11th of May 2010 01:05:24 PM

That’s a very interesting Wall Street Journal blog entry. It is more interesting to me than the budget, which emphasizes my weakness when it comes to really understanding the problems inherent with budgetary concerns. I suppose that is one reason why I remain behind my keyboard, as Ms. Evans so kindly points out. I’m more of an idea guy, and not one to find lasting solutions. I leave that up to the elected officials.

As for the WSJ article, once the silly title is removed and the charged language is deciphered, a reasonable move by the government is seen. There is some background to this action that must be considered before judgment can be passed.

Comcast was selectively slowing downloads from Bittorrent, a popular program that is commonly used to download pirated media. The FCC punished Comcast for the slowing down the downloads and Comcast brought the matter to court. Last month, the court ruled in favor of Comcast. Comcast’s primary argument was that it had the right to slow down traffic from sites such as Bittorrent in order to deliver it’s own content faster.

The effects of this ruling are widespread. The court is stating that internet providers can regulate what content can be delivered. Under this ruling, Comcast could choose to slow down traffic from You Tube in order to deliver its own content. Midcontinent, to use a local example, could slow down traffic from Hulu in favor of alternative content that could give Midcontinent more revenue. In other words, the court ruling is a blow to Net Neutrality. I’ve provided the Wikipedia link so that those unfamilar with the concept of Net Neutrality can bone up on the subject.

What the FCC is looking to do is reclassify broadband delivery as a telecommunication service. Flash back to 1913 and AT&T. In 1913, AT&T came to an agreement with the FCC to become a regulated monoply so long as they allowed competing local companies to connect to their network. Even with that, it wasn’t until the divesture of Ma Bell in 1984 that real competition entered the market. So AT&T was forced to allow local companies access to its long distance network. In other words, AT&T could not restrict other companies from entering the local markets. In 1984, other long distance companies were finally allowed access to the long distance markets.

This brings us to Net Neutrality. Who among us would want our Internet Service Provider to be able to decide which web sites we could visit? What if you had to pay higher fees for access to sites not initially approved by your provider? In other words, should we allow the same unlimited monopoly on interenet transmission lines today that AT&T enjoyed for long distance lines prior to 1913? The FCC is looking to bring the transmission lines for the Internet under the same umbrella as long distance. In other words, companies would be unable to restrict or regulate access to the internet.

This creates, in my estimation, a much more free environment in which internet content is made available to all, and not blocked for reasons of revenue or morality. It goes to show that not all government regulation is a bad thing. Even though it is like a broadsword in it’s usefulness, sometimes a broadsword is what is needed.

For some further reading, take a look at this FAQ that explains things more clearly than I can

Sue Evans · Senior Member

http://www.cityofwilliston.com/usrfiles/AUD/Docs/Resolution0953.pdf

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704370704575228152292941636.html
More of that dry reading I do..

-- Edited by Sue Evans on Tuesday 11th of May 2010 01:05:24 PM

Sue Evans · Senior Member

Transparency does not mean there are negative back door issues. It is just easy access to all information. It does not mean people hide behind the keyboard either. It is not expensive. NOTHING to fear. Transparency is needed. INFORM all. Our community set aside $315'000 for visitor promotions in 2010. Where do visitors stay while here? We also have $985'000 set aside for a Jobs creation fund in 2010. We have $4'000 set aside for band. Costly transparency? We can run the transparency for just over a hundred a month. I'll donate towards that.

Sigma · Veteran Member

Of course they didn’t mean to run a corporation style government. The very concept of a corporation, in the modern sense, was in its infancy. Corporations at that time were, in fact, government chartered entities such as the Dutch East India Company and the Hudson Bay Company. The point being that the two entities, that is, the United States government and corporations developed relatively uninfluenced by each other. That does not weaken my analogy. It merely points out that the Founding Fathers created a system that is coincidently similar to modern corporate structures. In fact, I would argue that all forms of government have an analogous business-world twin. Democracies are like C or S Corporations, Monarchies are like Limited Liabilities Companies, and Despots are like Sold Proprietorships. Admittedly, the analogy becomes strained at a few points, but its basic integrity is intact.

Addressing voter apathy is a laudable goal. It is good to have choices in elections and for people to want to get involved with their government. That alone is enough; a call to public interest and public service. Why then must weird allegations be pulled into the mix? Why must there be a push for unnecessary and expensive transparency when there is no indication of wrong doing by current elected officials? Why create an environment of suspicion when none is required? Is the call for public interest and public service so insufficient that a crisis of conscious must be manufactured?

Maybe it is necessary. Perhaps we’ve become too desensitized and selfish to understand our own moral obligations to self-determination. I had hoped that my generation (that is, the later Generation X) would be a solution, but I fear that the nihilism of the 90’s ruined us as a whole. I don’t know if Gen Y is the solution…I guess I need to teach my kids to act in ways my generation isn’t capable.

Steve Powell · Guru

Really? Don't run government like a business? Maybe that's why the country is in the shape it's in. wink

Sue Evans · Senior Member

Just an observation only in our local corporation of government. No opposition in many of the elected positions. Candidate profiles, one individual stated waiting for one to retire prior to running for that spot out of respect? .. No real options for the share holders. Most don't feel they have enough information to be able to act in the board room so they remain in the voting booth, unsure of how to participate beyond the pen. The language used in the board room is meant to fly far above the head of the vast majority and is intimidating.

No need to quote the founders on this. I doubt they meant for us to run a corporation style government.

Steve Powell · Guru

Sigma, outstanding.

This one is easy for me as you'll see by my signature line...most of what Thomas Jefferson said, I agree. biggrin

I did find a couple, well, ok, more than a couple of lines very interesting in this title.

1. One residency...where does Dorgan really live? I know, hashed that one out several years ago. Still questionable.

2. Knowingly vote when not qualified. I realize this Title was written for ND but I can't help but think about ACORN and illegals when I read this.

3. They were very thorough throughout the entire statement of intent. I would question number 8 though. Can't this be established via the Census? I know it was once a conspiracy theory that Rham fricking Emanuel (sorry, that's not quite how he would say it biggrin

) was supposedly manipulating the Census to make the redistricting work in the Democrats favor.

4. Number 10 in the statement of intent does seem a bit silly. Perhaps someone was bitter at the time this was written that a particular incumbent had occupied an elected position longer than necessary?

But I digress, I do see your analogy. What you are about to read is pure rambling. Unadulterated, pure, unfiltered thought. But then again, why would anyone expect anything different from me than what I usually write. biggrin

We pay the salary of those not elected, ultimately. We have no choice to pay the taxes thus they get paid. The unelected are "chosen" by those who we elect (board of directors) example being but not limited to the Parks and Rec Director.

Here's where I throw out the "I'm the boss" scenario. Let's say I don't like how the City Auditor (just an example) is doing his job. If I were the boss in a normal situation, I would flat out tell him his services were no longer needed. But we all know where that would get me. However, all taxpayers as a whole, can do this by letting our elected officials know our feelings. If the current elected officials don't take action, we elect those that will.

Sure sounds like shareholders to me. Man, this was much easier than the property tax debate. biggrin

Sigma · Veteran Member

I’m just throwing this one out there to get some conversation going. I’m curious to know alternative takes on my viewpoint. I’m couching this as an opinion, meaning I’m not saying it’s absolutely right. I feel it is correct, true, but not true in the “St. Thomas Aquinas" sense of the word.. While you read this, I’ll go wash off the dirty feeling I have using Wikipedia as a primary source for my two previous links

You know, I was thinking about this today, the statement that WE are the BOSS” of government employees. It makes sense on some level. We pay taxes, those taxes go to pay government employee salaries on all levels, from the secretary at the city office to the governor. Since we are the revenue source used to pay for the business (ie: governments) operations, we are in effect the employer. And what employer does not hold their employees accountable?

But it is far too simplistic to use an “Employee/Employer” paradigm when discussing the public’s relationship to its government. There is an alternative way to understand this relationship. Let’s continue on the business model train of thought, as it is as good of an analogy for government as any. I would argue that we are not the direct employer. Rather, we are akin to shareholders in a publicly traded company. We own the company, but we have voted in a Board of Directors to manage the company for us. We trust that the Board of Directors will operate the company in an appropriate and profitable manner. This is called “fiduciary duty” in the business world, and I’d argue that elected officials have a similar duty to their constituents. This duty not only extends to the policies and legislation they support, but to the overall management of all public offices for the greater good of the shareholders. Just like a Board of Directors puts in place a management structure so that the company can operate effectively. Ultimately, the Board of Directors answers to the shareholders, who have the choice at least annually to vote new members in if the current ones are not meeting their fiduciary expectations.

So it is with government. We are shareholders in our great enterprise, but we are not a pure democracy. A pure democracy in the classic Grecian style would require the vote of every citizen for every decision, and would be paralyzed by the process. We are a Republic, a representative democracy. We must never lose sight of that fact. We elect people to represent our interests in the public sector. These are our Board of Directors. And if we choose, we can remove those people. That is our right as shareholders.

Thomas Jefferson wrote about the need for a government to fear those it governs, and I firmly hold to this belief. The people have power, and we exercise it regularly. Some of us do it through voting, and others do it by actually getting their hands dirty and running for office. One good thing Ms. Evans is doing with her campaign; the best thing in my opinion, is forcing people to take a look at their public officials in a more critical light. I don’t always agree with what she says or how she says it, but I can respect the fact that she is out there bringing attention to issues and getting people involved. Before we get too excited, however, we need to remember that incumbency is not a synonym for evil, nor does “new blood” always equal virtue. What is required is a critical assessment of the issues and the candidates stance , no matter what
silliness the Century Code states. (Specifically, Chapter 16-1-01-14. Item number 10)

-- Edited by Sigma on Tuesday 11th of May 2010 03:03:09 PM