Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive
 

Government accountability in systemically sustainable community developmentsNo law shall be made that shall not impact each and every person exactly the same without prejudice or exceptioni. Government accountability is imperative in any modern society. There are many particular laws that will be used as examples here, not to discriminate against anyone, but merely due to the personal knowledge and experience of the author. They do however, indicate the problem and how it must be avoided. These subjects regard politics, laws and regulations within the Republic of the United States of America, primarily due to the personal experience and knowledge of the author of this document. Given the history of humanity, it is believed to be a necessity to write down the limitations and restrictions of and for the governing body in addition to what they can and should do. This is in part due to the insistence of Congress on establishing legislation which applies to the people but not to members of congress and the tenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Insider trading is only one of many such similar instances where this occurs on a regular basis. Add in egregious abuses by government agents including things like Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws which in 2014 for the very first time, allowed governments to steal more wealth from the people than the criminal class did, and the need for such constraints should be blatantly obvious. 

The American Affordable Care Act or ACA is one such example. The ACA is around twenty-three hundred pages of legislation that “has to be passed” before the people will be allowed to see what is in it. It is further supported by more than twenty thousand pages of wholly un-legislated regulations. This means that nearly ten times more law than the original law was written with absolutely no input from anyone that was directly elected or accountable in any way to the people this law would impact directly. As if that is not bad enough, numerous exceptions were granted to this law and the subsequent regulations. Not least notable among these was an exception for the very people who had ... ostensibly at least, written this monstrous and voluminous law as well as for the people who had regulated ... implemented by fiat, the (rest of the) law ... through regulation that would hold the people accountable. Whether the reader loves or hates the law and ensuing regulation, the fact remains that each and every person should be held accountable to the same laws in the same fashion. There is absolutely no cause or reason that one person may be held accountable under the law while another is not for whatever the reason may be.

The ability of members of the House and Senate to lawfully participate in insider trading when such an action is wholly illegal for any “normal” citizen to employ in any fashion is just one example of abuse and arbitrary law. The government made a great big public display of making this practice illegal for the establishment the same as it was for the people ... only to quietly ... and quickly renounce that law, making it lawful for them once again to line their pockets with methods that are illegal for anybody and everybody elseii.

There is a relatively simple solution for this; primarily through the establishment of “blind trustsiii for the investments of anyone and everyone who seeks public office. In this fashion, each and every politician will still be able to retain any personal investments that they have undertaken but will not be able to make informed financial decisions regarding their personal (or corporate) investment accounts until such a time as any legislation and/or contract awards that were proposed during their time in office have come to fruitioniv. Furthermore, their finances should be subject to review for a period not to be less than ten years from the time that they leave public office.

Government Benefits and Government Pensions are also a constant source of irritation and dreams depending on whether you are paying the piper or reaping the rewards. It is important to remember here that the governing bodies within the Community Development will be just as unique and new as the Community Developments themselves. There is no reason that employees of the people, the members of the governing body, should not be eligible for the same granted housing benefits as other people. Civil Servants should receive an adequate financial remuneration for their services but this amount should not be allowed to be supplemented either directly or indirectly from any sources that may be reasonably be construed to present the potential for a conflict of interestv.

Likewise, Civil Servants should receive the same benefits for housing as any other Grantee would as a regular citizen. However, some due consideration must be given for the purposes of security for some the Civil Servants as shall be decided. Pension Plans should be based solely upon that salary as is deemed to be appropriate for the Civil Servants given the nature of their job and should be comparable to similar job positions in the private sector. In such a fashion, just as with any citizen who is gainfully employed, the base “dividends” will be received by the civil servant in addition to their regular pay, the same as any other citizen would benefit in similar circumstances. The idea that someone should serve for a single two year term and be rewarded for the rest of their life at taxpayer expense is beyond merely offensive.

There should be no special “perks” or “benefits” given to any of the Civil Servants above and beyond what are deemed to be socially acceptable norms within the Community Development. The Civil Servants must be held accountable for any and all such actions just the same as any and every citizen would, without exception other than in such cases whereby the Citizen Review Board(s) and/or the Ombudsman Program have found otherwise in favor of the individual and/or organization and/or corporate body. In some cases, it would seem more than just prudent that Civil Servants actually be held to higher standards than the average citizen regarding any behaviour(s) that are deemed to be socially unacceptable.

Sympathyvi and Empathyvii are extremely important constructs within any social environment and especially relevant in larger, more urban areas that tend to be more densely populated ... and often times, substantially less friendly to the individual. Remembering however, that justice should remain blind to the status of the individual, it is still relevant and important to understand that in some matters, the Civil Servants themselves will prove to be the exception to this rule, but not because of perks or benefits, but due to their accountability to the general population. Can anyone be said to want someone who has a debilitating addiction to alcohol or drugs policing the alcoholics or drug addicts or the general population as a whole? Can someone who has a history of violence hold others to account for being violent? The system of Law and Order as shall be established within the Community Developments depends greatly on what manner of governing body will ultimately be establishedviii.

Regardless of the type of governance, the people who would govern over others must be kept in check so as to prevent them from doing anything other than their designated role to protect and to serve the people, ideally to ensure the economic and social freedom of the people within the community developments. As such, such people really must be beyond reproach in any meaningful fashion. To allow for anything less would be hypocritical at best and dangerous and subject to abuse and oppression at worst. One possible solution for this may be term limits in addition to the ability of the people to recall the official of the governing body but exactly how such a system and its structure will be put in place remains to be seen.

Any law as shall be passed and any statute, regulation, code or other writing with legal ramifications and more specifically, that threatens the freedom and liberty of the individual via the rule and/or force of law, shall be subject to review by the people. Each and every law or other writing enforced as by the rule of law shall be required to have a notation of intent written as part of that law, regulation, statute, code and/or other such writing as carries the weight and/or force of law. All of the legal documentation as shall be put forth and as shall have the impact of law shall be subject to review by the Ombudsman Program, Citizen Review Boards and an impartial panel of related experts when such is deemed to be necessary and/or beneficial based on industry standards, verbiage and in cases wherein such industry shall be unduly affected by the law.

Any and all documents as shall have the full force, effect and/or weight of the law shall be subject to nullification by the Ombudsman Program subject to review and recommendations as shall be duly submitted in writing by the members of the Ombudsman Program, such experts as shall have been recommended for the nullification of said law and/or any other such evidence as may be deemed to be beneficial to defend the nullification of said lawix. Furthermore, each citizen shall have the right to contest said law with review by a Citizen Review Board and/or the Ombudsman Program at such a time as they have been directly affected by said law and as they may believe there are extenuating circumstances that were not given due consideration in such a venue as has found and pronounced them to be guilty.

In terms of elections things get a bit more complicated if the issues with people buying their way into office these days are any indication. While such major investments may be beneficial to certain elements of the economy, it has certainly not proven to be any benefit in getting viable political leadership for the people. What is currently underway is a means to rid the capitols not only of lobbyist influence, but also that of Political Committees or other groups organized for the sole purpose of supporting politically ambitious individuals attain office. As such, it is likely that public funds will pay for the same amount of advertising and the same programs for all candidates in any electionx.

Some of the options under consideration are to disallow any and all personal contributions and some only to disallow any corporate entities from being able to donate while any individual would be allowed. Further consideration has been given to a limited use solely of public funding to provide an equal platform for each and every candidate for any election. Thus, each would receive the same amount of air time to provide their stance on the issues they believe are important. Each would receive the same amount of press. Each would have the opportunity to post the same information regarding their stance on the issues within any form of press, all on an equal level. If a newspaper or television or radio station wanted to grant an interview to one, they would grant the same interview with the same questions to all of the candidates. Again, these matters are mere recommendations at this point in time and there are numerous additional factors that must be determined before any of this can be finalized.

i If there is any exception to this rule, as is indicated here may be a possibility, it is that Government and/or Public Servants ... any servants of the people, will be held to higher standards. The law may require that anyone holding public office shall have their investments placed in a blind trust throughout whatever period of time they may be serving as a Public Servant in the interest of the public good. There shall be no law put in place that allows for the “ruling class” or “elite” to be exempted from the same repercussions as each and every member of the general population.

ii If the purpose of going into “Public Service” or government jobs is ever actively sought is because of an excessively optimistic benefit package, the will of the people will be lost in the rush. It is imperative that public servants not be entering public service for personal gain or potential rewards.

iii The Blind Trust can be entered into the Hedge Fund owned by the foundation and/or other third-party investment firm as may be selected, but still under the jurisdiction of the Community Development(s). It should, by necessity and design, become part of a larger portfolio package so as to avoid even the potential for corruption or insider trading that would grant an unequal advantage to the politician in question.

iv Upon such a time as they may leave office, they shall have the right to petition through the same Citizen Review Boards and/or Ombudsman program that any other citizen would have should they believe that there are mitigating circumstances requiring them to make personal decisions regarding the allocation of their investment funds. Foreseeable cases as may be allowed would include investments in land or other real and tangible properties that had not been in any fashion politically influenced during their time in office.

v This same practice will be put in place for certain other professions as well. As a primary example, in the case of Doctors and/or Psychiatrists who often receive special “favors” and/or financial contributions and/or benefits directly from drug manufacturers for excessive distribution of their products.

vi sym·pa·thy ˈsimpəTHē/ noun: 1. feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune. 2.understanding between people; common feeling.

vii Em·pa·thy ˈempəTHē/ noun: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

viii There are currently many considerations being given to the exact type of governing body (or bodies) that will be established in and for the Community Developments. Some of these depend on current negotiations already underway with existing governments. Some forms are under discussion by experts in many different fields. It is very likely that the community developments may in fact have unique types and/or styles of governance based on far too many factors as have not been settled at the time of this writing. Thus, while all of the projected types of governing bodies have been touched on here, this should not be considered to be in any way a decisive and final decision on the governance within the community developments.

ix Nullification of the law should not be a matter taken lightly. Any and all such instances wherein a law (or any writing that carries the full force and impact of a law) is to be questioned for consideration of nullification, should also utilize experts from related fields. A law should not be nullified merely because a single exception has been discovered within that rule of law, but nor should cases where mitigating factors do exist be prosecuted in the same fashion as those where the circumstances are more obvious and decided. In cases where the law is deemed to be overly complex and/or convoluted, it may be subject to rewriting by the lawmakers without the need to be nullified or repealed. In some cases, the laws may be so arbitrary and/or unenforceable on an individual basis that there is no alternative option other than complete nullification.

x This is another area that cannot ultimately be decided until such a time as it is known exactly what form of governing body will be established within each and every unique Community Development. The underlying purpose is the removal of funding that grants unfair and unreasonable advantages for any individual candidate over the others.

Return to the Table of Contents for Whole System Sustainable Development

Follow Us on F6

Follow Poverty Eradication Project on F6S

Let us know what you think please!