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).

CDA Halderberge, VDG Halderberge en D'66 Halderberge hebben een motie ingediend om te onderzoeken welke mogelijkheden er zijn om alsnog de Lindeboom op de huidige locatie te laten staan. Helaas is deze motie door de gemeenteraad niet aangenomen.

Letter signed by 170 cultural figures seeks a ‘unilateral and open offer’ to rejoin EU ahead of Holyrood elections (...) read on.

Het wordt weer drukker ‘s avonds. Men trekt er weer op uit, dus meer verkeer, dus gevaarlijker. Iets meer handtekeningen zou mooi zijn.

"NOC*NSF zou graag zien dat afgezien van de sporters ook de betrokken trainers en overige stafleden voorafgaand aan de Olympische Spelen van Tokio worden gevaccineerd. ,,Sporters wel en de coaches niet, dat is wel een beetje typisch Hollands”, zei Anneke van Zanen-Nieberg, voorzitter van de sportkoepel."

Citaat uit De Gelderlander

Weet je wat typisch Hollands is? Een groep mensen die al lang op hun beurt wacht en al lang gevaccineerd met Pfizer had moeten zijn overslaan! Dat is typisch Hollands! Als al die anderen niet voorgegaan waren hadden we dit probleem nu niet gehad en was IEDERE 60 PLUSSER al lang gevaccineerd.

Vanavond werd helaas het plan van de mega molens op de Haringvlietdam zonder enig probleem door de gemeenteraad vergadering geloodst.

Helaas waren er maar 3 partijen op tegen, 1 stem PvdA, 2 stemmen van Groen Links. De rest van alle partijen VVD, IBH, CDA , D66 hebben voor gestemd..

Hun vinden het belang dat de mega molens er komen, belangrijker dan de welzijn dan hun inwoners, ondernemers, toeristen en de natuur.

Ik betreur deze beslissing, maar ik roep op iedereen om deze petitie te tekenen, verspreiden en bezwaarschriften in de dienen bij de gemeente..

Laat je stem horen en samen staan we sterk...

In het Tweede Kamerdebat van 24 februari werd een motie om de TOZO-partnertoets af te schaffen helaas met een stem meerderheid verworpen.

REACTIE PETITIONARIS

Door de verworpen motie heeft deze petitie in feite zijn doel, helaas, niet bereikt. Aanbieden heeft dan ook geen zin.

Veel zelfstandigen zijn nu dus op de TONK aangewezen die in de praktijk echter zo beperkt blijkt dat hij nauwelijks wordt aangevraagd.

Wat dom om zestigplussers achteraan te zetten als ze geen AstraZeneca willen dat is de titel van een heel goed opiniestuk van Han van der Horst.

Als je je niet teveel wilt ergeren dan moet je niet alle reacties eronder lezen, wat een verschrikkelijke idiote egoïsten heb je er bij zitten. Dat geeft ook gelijk het probleem aan dat we als groep 1956-1960 hebben.

Het 'fieldlab' van 538 Oranjedag op 24 april op het Chasséveld gaat niet door. Door oplopende maatschappelijke onrust kan het evenement niet meer veilig en verantwoord in het kader van de openbare orde plaatsvinden.

Bron: Breda.nl.