Nieuws

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).

Vanavond mogen wij aansluiten bij een rondetafelgesprek van de gemeente.

Doel van de avond: De politie en andere deskundigen aan het woord te laten om ervaringen en kennis te delen wat in hun optiek de oplossingen zijn om tot veiligere verkeerssituaties te komen..

In de meest recente cijfers is terug te lezen dat de hondenbezitters in 2023 maar liefst 400.000euro belasting hebben betaald aan hondenbelasting in onze gemeente.

Er wonen 50.000 mensen in deze gemeente.

Graag zouden hij het besluit van de gemeente inzake het sluiten van studentenwoningen en arbeidsmigranten in woonwijken getoetst zien aan het non-discriminatiebeginsel.

In basis mag een verhuurder, dus ook een overheid niet discrimineren, naar geslacht, geloof of samenlevingsvorm.

De gemeente Dronten begeeft zich mogelijk op zeer glad ijs met het expliciet sluiten van woningen voor eerder genoemde bevolkingsgroepen in woonwijken.

Zie dossier met de volledige brief aan de fractie..

Beste allemaal,

Hierbij informeren wij u over onze reactie op de raadsinformatiebrief en de second opinion van de gemeente die wij vandaag verstuurd hebben naar het college en de raad. Ook hebben wij hen de zienswijze van de Fietsersbond en ons voorstel voor een mogelijke oplossing doen toekomen.

De petitie Behoud het landschap en de leefbaarheid in Kakert-Bousberg en Palemig is maar liefst 830 keer ondertekend. Op donderdag 21 maart 2024 wordt deze overhandigd aan de burgemeester van de gemeente Landgraaf. Op die zelfde avond zullen naar alle waarschijnlijkheid bijna alle politieke partijen het college met een motie oproepen af te zien van verdere plannen om in landgraaf te ontgronden.

Kortom: Dit burgerinitiatief werpt haar vruchten af.

Op 24 januari 2024 heeft de Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State het complete Bestemmingsplan Landgoed Paleis Soestdijk vernietigd. De MeyerBergman Erfgoed Groep liet daarop op 15 maart 2024 weten vooralsnog af te zien van het aanvragen van een nieuw omgevingsplan.

Bron: Baarnsche Courant, 15 maart 2024 en Gooi en Eemlander, 16 maart 2024

REACTIE VAN PETITIONARIS

De stichting Behoud het Borrebos is verheugd te kunnen melden, dat de eigenaren van het Landgoed Paleis Soestdijk hebben besloten af te zien van alle nieuwbouwplannen voor het binnen het Natuurwerk Nederland gelegen landgoed.

Een jaar nadat Navalny Beste Documentaire won is er opnieuw een documentaire met een politiek thema de winnaar: 20 days in Mariupol, over de Russische belegering van de Oekraïense stad. "Dit is de eerste Oscar voor Oekraïne", merkt regisseur Mstyslav Tsjernov op. https://www.2doc.nl/documentaires/2024/02/20-days-in-mariupol.html.

Beste ondertekenaars van de petitie, Beste natuurliefhebbers en liefhebbers van het Henschotermeer,

inmiddels is het twee jaar geleden sinds de start van deze petitie tegen bouw en meer recreatie bij het Henschotermeer. In die tijd is er veel gebeurd.