I tend to agree with one comment in these replies which looks at this question in terms of the model in use. I do not propose to try to influence government policies or procedures regarding responses to meltdowns in my reply to this article, or even specifically challenge them. Whichever government group is involved in the discussion of a meltdown and responses to it, be it when the response is to be made, or why would the response be made at the time it is, or more basically, why would they respond at all, is dependent on the model in use, I propose.
A meltdown, however we chose to define it, is essentially recognized as a situation of grave significance to people and groups, in one way or another. And any public sector model is already designed to address such a situation, whereby some perform better in this area than others, as will happen considering the variety of models and their application to the areas they govern.
However the failure of some models to effectively respond to situations with grave impacts has brought us to ask the questions posed by this article. As far as questioning the government's role in a meltdown situation, I think that somewhere, in the vastness of policies and procedures of governing, be they called mandates, programs, or by some other vernacular appropriate to government models, it will already be stated what that role is -- which leaves the matter to be one which questions execution of the model. After the private sector, or public in general, answer the question of when the public sector should intervene, we will see the public sector's reply which will likely make reference in some way to their model. I am not here to tell our public sector, which is laden with resources and budgets, what they should be doing, they should already know that. Perhaps it is better to reply to the questions of this article by reminding the public sector that they are failing in areas of the execution of their model, which the information of the article supports, and that they are accountable to those failures.
Another example of these failures is when the public sector expects the private sector, or more specifically within the general public; the people reading and replying to this article, to provide solutions to the failures of the model. This comment represents those of us who are looked to for solutions by those who are failing in providing them themselves, when they have been charged with that responsibility. Has not enough been asked of the general public already in their losses for the meltdowns which have occurred?
Going back to David Physick's rewording of the question posed, I would add the consideration that another issue be highlighted and asked, and that is how to make the public sector realize the shortcomings of their models and get them to improve them. The article's responses offer a plethora of ideas which can be offered to a government if they are not able to address their model effectively on their own. But this should be recognized as what it is, another failure of the model.
It is a selfserving compliment to ask the private sector and general public for solutions, when the request is covering up a basic failure of the public sector.
In more layman’s terms for anyone reading this, opportunism has grown to new heights such that the ideas presented here have a good chance of being taken and used, for real, by a public sector group, with no recognition extended to the originator of the idea — that’s all the people who have commented to the article. But it will not include my ideas, as I have explained.
No comments:
Post a Comment