"I think we need to talk..." Part Three

'Preventing mysteries, controversies and scandals.'

Hmm... Well, I can't say that I believe that the potential success rates with all three of these elected officials 'problems' would be identical, assuming we had a better level of engagement in local governance. 

Mostly because I don't think there's any sure-fire way to predict who's most likely to do something that's scandalous. Even with the best candidate vetting system imaginable. People are- Well, they're people, and therefore they're flawed, they're subject to the most ridiculous whims, prone to base indulgences, no matter what their apparent grounding. Yes, the more candidates are vetted, the more scrupulous the 'interviewing' is by the voters (ie, the 'employer'), then the better the chance is that those candidates who have peculiar tendencies will get weeded out. Still, there's no guarantee. But considering how little a role the average person currently plays in the process, don't you think there's massive room for improvement?

'Controversies'? Well, this is where I tend to think we can produce better local governance. Given how little communication, how little actual dialogue there currently is between the average resident and the average Councillor, if this were changed, if there was a hellova lot more contact, if there were regular town halls, if Councillors and citizens were online and genuine back-and-forth dialogues were taking place, I believe that a lot of the perceptions about say, the PanAm Games Stadium Site Selection Process would never have gotten traction. 

'Employees' need guidance. From their 'Employer'. And currently, I'm not convinced that there is. A vote every four years might be 'a message' to elected officials (but even this isn't reflective of much, not really...or is it...?), but it's not enough. I don't believe it's reasonable to simply hand over the keys and let your 'Employees' carry on without regular and protracted input. That may be 'the way we've done it', but objectively, from within any other arena in our world? Just plain silly.

As for 'mysteries'... This is where 'increasing the relationship of engagement between residents and their Councillors' would pay off the most. There should be no 'mysteries'. There may be disagreements, there may be instances where some of the residents disagree with the way their Councillor is proceeding with an issue, but there's absolutely no reason for 'mysteries'. Clarity should be the order of the day. 

Fifty years ago? Sure. With contact and back-and-forth limited to phone calls and mailed letters and knocking on the Councillor's City Hall door, I'm sure the opportunities for 'mysteries' were myriad. But in today's world? More importantly, in today's interconnected world with a potentially far more involved citizenry and Councillors who accept that using all that the Internet has to offer is part of their job, as is actually collaborating with their residents, their constituents, their 'Employers'? Nope. 

Nein. 

Nyet. 

Notonyourfarcquinglife.

By all rights, if we had the migration of paradigm I yammer-on about, if both partners in this dance performed as they should, given the possibilities of this new construct, 'mysteries' should become things of the past. 

To a great extent, ditto for 'controversies'. 

'Scandals'? Harrumph; as I've said, until we're electing robots, fuggettaboutit.