Updates

The ombudsman, as it stands, is a shark without teeth. It cannot even smell a scandal if it was bleeding before their eyes — can’t sense, can’t bite, can’t act, can’t fix. It’s a watchdog with no jaws. So let’s give it an upgrade or even better give the government such an upgrade that Ombudsman loses the necessity for their entire existence.

This isn’t some grand ideological revolution. It’s just a silly idea for a public ticket system. Silly, but powerful.

Imagine a civic ticket system — not buried in obscure forms, not locked in back-office email chains. Just like an internal help-desk, but for governance. Public, structured, traceable. And smart.

This is what it looks like.

Core Idea
Citizens should be able to report issues publicly — not buried in anonymous inboxes, not hidden behind “ongoing investigation” seals. People already talk about public issues. If people can talk about public issues with their friends, why can’t they track them together too?

A government ticket system could work just like internal systems in IT or customer service — but with a civic twist.

This is not a place for endless debate. It’s a structure to frame problem → proposal → response, cleanly and traceable.

This system proposes a transparent, iterative problem-solving interface where AI is used not to obscure, but to clarify.

The System: Public, AI-Structured, and Transparent

The system is made up of 4 stages — and yes, it uses AI — but only as a tool to help people sharpen what they’re already saying.

Every issue goes through this cycle:

1. Problem Description
a) Citizens submit an issue. b) The AI cleans up the language, consolidates overlapping inputs, and upgrades the coherence of the report. c) A public change-log shows the input that evolved the description — all steps visible, all input attributable.

2. Proposed Solution
a) Based on the refined problem description, the AI drafts a solution or possible action path. b) This is visible to the public as a formal response — no magic, just structured reasoning. c) This is not a decision. It’s a draft — structured logic, not authority. Only advice.

3. Critique Layer
a) Citizens respond to the proposed solution — a structured challenge to the proposal.. b) Their remarks are also structured by AI — not censored, but upgraded for clarity and grouped by theme or angle. c) Again, change-logs and input trails are visible. No anonymous edits. No hidden manipulations. d) in a sense this is the same as step 1 (problem description)

4. Upgraded Solution
a) The AI integrates valid critiques and proposes a refined version of the solution. b) This is the “feedback-reinforced” stage, where the system attempts synthesis, not endless argument loops.

All stages remain visible — including abandoned tickets, failed resolutions, and ongoing ones. This creates a living public record of issues and proposed governance responses.

This is the synthesis. 1 = 2 + 3 = 4.

Why This Matters

• It forces clarity and traceability. No more vague complaints floating in chaos.
• It turns public input into a collaborative upgrade process.
• It shows which tickets are being handled, stalled, ignored — in plain sight.
• It makes every AI edit accountable, not mysterious.
• It doesn’t replace the ombudsman — it arms them.

Business Model? Sure — But Keep It Public

Yes, this is a product. But no, it shouldn’t be commercialized. This is civic infrastructure. It belongs to the commons.

It could be sold to municipalities, NGOs, or transparency coalitions — but that defeats the purpose.

Build it, release it, and let it run at zero cost. The public has already paid for enough systems that don’t work. This one should.

The value lies not in monetization — but in legitimacy.

Expanded Use: From Complaint Board to Administrative Operating System

What starts as a feedback tool can evolve into a complete civic engine. The system can scale:

1. Reported Issue
2. Processed Issue (by a public servant or automated filter)
   • AI-generated remark on process adequacy (4-stages again)
3. Re-open option if resolution was insufficient (4-stages again)
4. Cross-department visibility and workflow mapping
   • The ticket can go through different departments and the work of each department remains visible.

Each issue flows like a case file, but it’s public-facing and structurally transparent. Departments can adopt the system internally. Citizens and officials see the same state of the case. Updates are traceable.

With enough refinement, this system could even approach pre-judicial arbitration or replace lower-level administrative courts — especially for predictable, repeatable types of disputes (benefits, housing, permit denials, etc.).

At some point a judge and lawyer can then bend over the case after it went through these 3 steps.

Design Philosophy

• Public by default.
• AI-enhanced, not AI-obscured.
• Built around iteration, not resolution-hiding.
• Input is traceable. Reasoning is legible. Logic is public.
• Not built to silence citizens with forms — but to cohere chaos into clarity.

Potential Impact:

If deployed at scale, this would:

• Reduce performative complaint culture (“I ranted online!”) in favor of traceable input.
• Provide oversight journalists and watchdogs with live case data.
• Offer civil servants a way to separate noise from signal.
• Create longitudinal accountability: we’d know what failed, what improved, and why.
• We can track government efficiency through details such as backlog and amount of re-opened cases

Final Thought

Let’s stop treating public concern like noise.

Let’s give it a ticket.

Let’s give the ombudsman jaws.

Give people a way to speak clearly. Let the problems stay visible. Let the fixes be criticized. Let the system evolve in full view.

Democracy doesn’t die in darkness — it suffocates in forms. We’ve normalized arbitrary bureaucracy and opaque complaint systems. But the technology to upgrade them exists. All we’re missing is the will — and the will can be crowd-sourced.

Written by Artorius Magnus

https://tinyurl.com/laconic-utopia World-Peace suggestions @250 articles highschool dropout-autodidact (unofficially 5+ PhD's).

's Ochtends op 20 augustus heb ik mijn bezwaarschrift en de petitie met 540 handtekeningen afgegeven bij de receptie in het gemeentehuis van Hardenberg.

Graag had ik dit met wat meer tamtam aan willen bieden in een raadsvergadering, maar helaas is de gemeenteraad op zomerreces en ook de gemeentelijke griffie is wegens vakantie niet bereikbaar.

Aangezien de periode van 6 weken om te reageren 21 augustus is afgelopen op deze manier dus.

Ik wil u allen danken voor uw handtekening op de petitie en de mondelinge reacties van velen van u.

Ik weet mij verder gesteund middels steunbetuigingen/bezwaarschriften gericht aan de gemeente Hardenberg door de Bond Heemschut, Genootschap Industrieel Archeologisch Geïnteresseerden (GIAG) en Historische Vereniging Hardenberg e.o.

De Partij van de Arbeid stelt schriftelijke vragen aan Burgemeester en Wethouder en 50 Plus Hardenberg ook.

Het is nu aan het gemeentebestuur om een beslissing te nemen aangaande integratie van de gevel in nieuwbouw.

Ik hoop dat ons gezamenlijk protest het historisch besef heeft wakker geschud en dat in de te verlenen bouwvergunning alleen toestemming wordt verleend tot nieuwbouw als de gevel wordt hergebruikt en gerestaureerd.

Vriendelijke groet,

P. van Weerden.

Gesproken met een vertegenwoordiger van Milieudienst Rijnmond die het volledig eens was over het feit dat de stof GenX in zijn geheel niet thuishoort in ons milieu.

Ook veel geleerd van twee gesprekken die ik voerde met experts van waterbedrijf Oasen. Een onderzoeker sprak de zorg uit dat, zodra GenX verboden zou worden, de fabriek met een stof zou komen die erop lijkt (want ze willen toch blijven produceren), waarna het weer enige tijd duurt voordat de stof geidentificeerd wordt in het water.

Het plan van vdVorm is van de baan en een nieuwe participatie proces is door de gemeente opgezet. Binnenkort komen er aankodigingen hoe U als bewoner van de Merenwijk in Leiden uw mening kan geven over hoe het centrum van de Merenwijk vorm kan krijgen.

Wie nu nog niet er van overtuigd is dat we in Groningen een "status aparte" hebben is het na het lezen van dit artikel wel..

Je kunt je afvragen of de nieuwe wet in strijd met de grondwet is wordt gesteld in dit blog .

We wachten nog even op goedkeuring van de moderater voordat u kan tekenen. Wanneer dit is stuur ik het nogmaals uit!.

Op 18 augustus 2018 is de 400e ondertekening gezet onder de petitie. De opening van de Noord/zuidlijn heeft geholpen om de petitie populair te maken.

5 juli j.l. is n.a.v.