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).

tip: Op 20 juni 19-21u inloopbijeenkomst fietsroute de Run - HTCE, in wijkcentrum de Dommel, Bennekelstraat 131, Eindhoven

Dat staat in de WIJKINFO, niet niet verpreid is in de wijk Bennekel.

(de starter van de petitie kan die dag niet aanwezig zijn, jij wel?).

Op maandag 30 mei is op de Grote Markt van Schiedam de petitie aangeboden aan de burgemeester. De burgemeester, wethouders en gemeentearchivaris gaan zich buigen over de uitwerking van de petitie.

Dit was niet mogelijk geweest zonder jullie ondertekeningen. Mijn dank is groot..

Burgerinitiatief Een burgerinitiatief is een voorstel dat een kiesgerechtigde, met ondersteuning van 40.000 handtekeningen, kan indienen om een bepaald onderwerp op de agenda van de Tweede Kamer te laten plaatsen. Als het voorstel aan de vereisten voldoet, komt het onderwerp op de agenda van de Kamer.

Ondertekenen en delen zou ik zggen Persoonlijke contacten en peilingen tonen aan dat verreweg de meeste professionals dit voorstel ondersteunen.

Artsen en Apothekers verzamelen handtekeningen om het vernietigen van bruikbare medicijnen te stoppen. Het is een noodzaak binnen ons democratisch bestel: NU https://m.facebook.com/watch/?v=2124231834265188&_rdr het kost even moeite, maar het filmpje is deze moeite waard!.

Met BOOMM hebben we al veel bereikt: draagvlak onder onze burgers, veel publiciteit, politiek-maatschappelijke invloed. Maar we zijn er nog niet!

Het verkeersonderzoek is in volle gang.

Als vervolg op het aanbieden van de petitie komt raadslid Gert Dijkstra (Een Utrecht) en misschien nog enkele raadsleden bij ons in de buurt kijken en praten met buurtbewoners over de parkeerproblemen (en de gebrekkige inspraak in de plannen door de buurt).

13 juni om 20.00 verzamelen in de Spaaklaan ter hoogte van nummer 101.

.

Donderdag 2 juni is de petitie bij het stadhuis aangeboden aan een aantal gemeenteraadsleden van verschillende partijen, waaronder de voorzitter van de raadscommissie mobiliteit. groen en openbare ruimte Gertjan te Hoonte (VVD).

Gaarne u erop te attenderen. Dat elke maker van een petitie op het petities.nl platform inzage heeft op de anonieme Data.

de emails zijn wel beschermt

Dus om uw anonimiteit te beschermen.

Om het maatschappelijk belang en recht op eerlijke informatie over uw anonimiteit op petities.nl te waarborgen moet ik u erop attenderen dat uw anonieme gegevens dus door petities.nl aangeboden service op het moment niet gewaarborgd zijn!

Gelet op dit gegeven uw naam gelieve met

A.A. (Anonieme Afzender)

Te ondertekenen.

Wij hebben dit gemeld voor uw veiligheid bij petities.nl

Hopend hierbij u voldoende te hebben geïnformeerd.

S.Beeks.