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).

De gemeenteraad gaat op 21 maart verder in debat over het betaald parkeren in de hele gemeente Utrecht. Hét moment om voor die tijd weer van ons te laten horen.

We hebben nav de petitie een vergadering mogen bijwonen met de gemeenteraad en burgemeester, maar helaas hebben zij om allerlei redenen niet ingestemd en zijn standaard lantaarnpalen geplaatst..

De petitionaris van de petitie Een voldoende gebleken uiterste wil moet, ook zonder testament, worden gevolgd vraagt u de petitie te ondertekenen:

"Straatfotograaf Theo Niekus dacht serieus na over de bestemming van zijn werk & huis na zijn dood. Theo was bezig zijn wensen in een notarieel document vast te leggen.

Deze week maakten de Landgraafse coalitiepartijen GBBL, CDA en OPL bekend dat ze constateren dat er geen draagvlak is voor deze afgravingsplannen. Vermoedelijk wordt aan de hand van een motie aan de gemeenteraad van Landgraaf op 21 maart gevraagd dit standpunt over te nemen.

Het is ons allen gelukt, de vaartijden van het veerpontje Charlois-Katendrecht zijn sinds kort uitgebreid! Doordeweeks vaart het pontje ’s middags al vanaf 13.45 uur en de fiets mag mee.

Van maandag t/m vrijdag zijn de vaartijden nu: -Ochtend: 07:00 – 10:00 uur -Middag: 13:45 – 18:30 uur

Dankzij uw steun en ondertekening van de petitie hebben we meer dan 850 handtekeningen opgehaald om dit te kunnen realiseren. Onze hartelijke dank.

Maar we gaan door.

Inmiddels hebben meer dan 600 buurtbewoners en andere vrienden van GOOS de petitie al ondertekend! Wat een ongelofelijk warm bad, dank jullie wel!!

Hierdoor gesterkt hebben we eind maart een gesprek met de gemeente. Om dit gesprek nog meer kracht bij te zetten, houden we de petitie open tot eind maart.

Bij het referendum heeft maar liefst 81% van de Haarlemmers TEGEN de Nota parkeren gestemd! Daarmee hebben de bewoners hetzelfde duidelijke signaal afgegeven als de ondertekenaars van de petitie: Haarlem is in (overgrote) meerderheid tégen de uitbreiding van betaald parkeren! De petitie is daarmee uitermate succesvol gebleken. Ik wil iedereen nogmaals danken voor het ondertekenen en hoop dat we samen een goede balans kunnen blijven vinden tussen groen in de stad én voldoende parkeerruimte!

https://m.haarlemsdagblad.nl/cnt/dmf20240306_39012383 .

hier kunt u de vragen vinden.