“Where no wise direction is, a people falleth; but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.”
Book of Proverbs
In Chapter 3, I proposed the TDG system, where representatives are elected by a series of tiered elections. In Chapter 4, I proposed an important check-and-balance, the consultative culture. The TDG cannot work without this culture. In this chapter, I will discuss another check-and-balance: the advisory board to the TDG.
Advisory board members are appointed for a specific term of several years. I recommend three years.
The main function of the advisory board is to give advice to the elected tiers and the citizenry. More will be discussed about this later.
The Advisory Board Structure
The highest tier of the TDG will appoint the members of highest tier of the advisory board.
As the TDG evolves, it will likely create at least two tiers in the advisory board. The lower advisory tier will be appointed by the higher advisory tier.
At this point, I’m going to bring back the diagram of the TDG of the fictitious city I created in Chapter 3—and add in the advisory board.
Let me explain this diagram a little better. You have already seen the TDG elected tiers (the boxes on the left) and the indirect elections (the solid arrows pointing upwards) in Chapter 3. What I have added are two levels of the advisory board (the boxes on the right). The highest advisory level is appointed by highest tier of the TDG (signified by the arrows pointing downwards). The higher advisory board will appoint members to the lower advisory board, looking for current and former veterans of the elected TDG to fill these positions.
When a vacancy in the highest advisory tier happens, the highest elected tier will find citizens from four likely sources. First, the highest tier can appoint one of its own members to the advisory board. Second, it can appoint elected representatives from a lower tier. Third, it can appoint a lower advisory board member to the highest advisory tier. And fourth, it can appoint citizens who have garnered some great experience in the TDG but currently not occupying any official role in the TDG.
What are perhaps more interesting are the interactions between the two appointed tiers, the four elected tiers, and the general citizenry (the dashed arrows). These channels show where the major relationships are going to develop for this TDG.
The Circle Goes Around
With the addition of the advisory board, the TDG now takes on a circular nature that completes a citizen’s annual vote. The citizens vote for the neighborhood representatives. These representatives then select the district representatives, who then select the quadrant representatives, who then select the highest tier representatives.
The highest tier then appoints the highest advisory board members. This board then appoints members to the lower advisory tier. These lower level board members, without the burden of being a decision-maker, will be in a position to influence the citizenry at the local level. Because of this influence, citizens may start casting wiser votes in the upcoming years about who should be the neighborhood representative. And several years later, a better quality of local advisory board member may be appointed to serve them.
In essence, a citizen’s vote effectively travels up the elected tiers to the highest tier—to the appointment of highest advisory board members—down the tiers of advisory board—and back to the citizen. I find in this circle a great sense of completeness—even though the citizen does not vote directly for most of the people within a TDG.
Another TDG Design
Below is another way the fictitious TDG city can be designed:
Here I have reversed the number of elected tiers(2) and advisory tiers (4). Is this new example better than the previous example? I really can’t say if one system is better than the other. It would all depend on how the relationships between the various elected and appointed tiers are working with each other. And as two similar jurisdictions evolve and sort out their own challenges, one could have four tiers of elected members and two tiers of appointed board members and the other jurisdiction could be exactly opposite. Both systems could work very well because of their own unique evolution. And even after both jurisdictions mature, both could be able to add or remove tiers if these changes would potentially be an improvement.
The two previous diagrams show the communication links between the advisory boards to the elected tiers and citizens. Please note that there will also be such links between citizens and elected tiers, the elected tiers among themselves (both in geography and of hierarchy), and the advisory board tiers among themselves (again in both geography and hierarchy). So when a societal issue needs to be dealt with by the TDG, it actually has many ways to enter the TDG, plus it can go in many different directions as it moves around the elected and appointed tiers. The final decision emanating from the elected tier responsible for making this decision will actually be a very organic decision, influenced from different parts of the TDG and the citizenry.
Elected or Appointed, but not Both
No citizen can serve both as an elected representative and an advisory board member. This is because the elected positions and advisory positions will require two different mindsets to function well. Trying to use both mindsets at the same time will be confusing both to the individual in both positions—and the people working around that individual.
If an elected representative is appointed to the advisory board, he or she will have to choose which position he or she wants to serve in. If the representative decides to remain on the elected side, another citizen will have to be approached to be appointed to the advisory board. If the representative accepts the appointment, he or she must resign the elected position—and the TDG constitution should have some provision to replace this member.
Advisors(and I shall continue to use this term to mean “advisory board member” from hereon) are eligible to vote and be voted for in the neighborhood where they reside. If an advisor is elected as the neighborhood representative, he or she will choose whether to serve as the neighborhood representative or continue serving as an advisor. If the advisor chooses to remain as such, the local TDG constitution should have a provision to determine a different neighborhood representative. If the advisor chooses the elected position, another citizen will need to be appointed to the advisory position.
Advisors may be eligible to be voted for at a higher representative tier, as long as they are resident in that tier’s boundaries. But they cannot vote in these elections for they are not true representatives. If an advisor is elected to a higher representative tier, he or she will choose in which position he or she wants to serve. If the advisor accepts the elected position, another citizen will be appointed to fill that vacant advisory position. If the advisor decides to remain as an advisor, there should be a provision in the TDG constitution to fill that elected position.
While a citizen can move between the elected and appointed side (as elections and appointments happen), he or she cannot serve in both positions at any level, at any time.
Functions of the Advisory Board Members
Now it is time to give more details about the advisory board functions. Remember that each TDG will be designing itself, so functions will vary from TDG to TDG. Each time something new is tried in defining the advisory roles or the structure of the advisory board, other TDGs can learn from that experiment.
To briefly describe the differences, the advisory board mostly deals with the process of governance, while the elected bodies deal with governance of the society itself.
Advice for Elected Tiers
In principle, advisory board members should be allowed to attend any elected tier’s meeting within their jurisdiction. The advisor can be an active participant in the discussion, even taking a particular side on an issue.
The first function is to offer advice to the elected tiers. However the elected tiers are not obligated to take the advice. And the advisors have no vote or veto in any elected tier’s decision.
On the surface, the advisory board, with no vote or veto, seemingly has no power to affect any decision. Yet because of the source of the advisor’s appointment (directly or indirectly from the highest tier of the TDG) and the years of TDG experience the advisor brings to the process of governance—the elected TDG representatives under the advisor’s jurisdiction will have great respect for this individual’s position and seriously consider most things he or she has to say.
But the final decision always belongs to the elected tier of the TDG.
Assistance in Building Consensus
Perhaps more importantly than advice on issues, the advisor will be in a position to assist the consultative culture of an elected tier. For example, an elected tier may be wrestling with a contentious issue and cannot come to some kind of consensus. Rather than put the issue to a vote, the elected tier can call in its advisor to hear the various sides of the issue. The advisor may simply have some interesting perspectives and insights that will allow that elected tier to come to consensus.
Providing a respected outside perspective is an important function of the advisor.
Advocacy for Citizens
Likewise a citizen can appeal to an advisor whenever he or she feels an elected representative or elected tier seems not be listening to the citizen’s concerns. The advisor will interview the citizen to determine the validity of the claim. The advisor could consult with elected representatives to see how the concerns were addressed. The advisor may consult with other advisors who might have received similar concerns from citizens in their jurisdiction. If there is sufficient reason, the advisor(s) could force the elected tier to review its decision. The advisors will ensure that the citizen’s concerns have been addressed during the review. And because of the advisors’ respected position, the review process will be taken seriously by the elected tier. While not exactly taking the citizen’s side, the advisor is an important source of appeal for the citizenry.
Citizen Polling
While the advisors are holding their own internal meetings, they may sense a certain discontent among citizens in more than a few neighborhoods or districts. This sense will be an important signal that the TDG needs to give a higher priority to certain social issues. The advisory board will make a formal report for the elected tiers, who should deal with the issue in a timely manner.
This function of the advisory board, in essence, replaces the polling process of western democracies.
Education
The advisory board can play important educational roles in the TDG. Advisors could be in frequent communication with the citizenry about the importance of the TDG elections and the roles citizens play in selecting their neighborhood representative. Advisors could be teaching newly elected representatives how to function better within the elected structure of the TDG.
Advisors can also be ambassadors for the elected tiers’ decisions. They will assure the citizenry that many different perspectives and considerable wisdom went into making the final decision. They will encourage citizens to let the decision play out its natural course and assure them that if the decision does not work out, changes will be made.
Connecting the Process of Governance
Advisors can help elected tiers connect with each other.
An advisor might be assigned to serve several elected tiers. Let’s say an advisor is assigned to District ABC and District XYZ. District ABC is working through a contentious issue, but District XYZ had worked through that issue two years ago. The advisor can relay the success or failure of XYZ’s initiative to ABC. ABC would have this knowledge and experience before it has to make its own decision.
Or consider this example. An advisor from the highest advisory tier is assigned to the highest elected tier and one of the quadrant tiers below it. The highest elected tier is about to make a decision that could affect that quadrant. Because that advisor has knowledge of the quadrant, he or she could remind the highest tier that it probably should consult with the lower tiers before making the decision.
There are many more connections the advisors can make between the elected and advisory tiers, both in hierarchy and geography.
Supervising Elections
Advisors could have a supervisory role in the elections, maintaining membership lists and counting votes. They could monitor the electoral processes from the annual neighborhood elections up to the highest tier. If the advisor sees some electoral issues, he or she may make a formal recommendation to the appropriate elected tier or may set up an education program to rectify the problem.
Let’s consider the previous TDG example of the two elected tiers with four advisory tiers. This TDG might assign the responsibility of the neighborhood elections to the lowest advisory tier: there is one low-level advisor per neighborhood. Once a year, theseadvisors will be the formal officialswho ensure the elections are conducted properly and with the TDG spirit. If all goes well, that is great. If some things are a little out of order in a particular neighborhood, the advisors therewill report to a higher advisory tier or an elected tier. With this information coming from that local advisor, decisions will be made to better the election in that neighborhood the next year.
Engineering the TDG Constitution
In the early stages of the TDG evolution, TDG constitutions will be designed and written by ordinary TDG members and their early elected committees. But as the TDG evolves, the elected members may become too busy to deal with improving constitutions. The elected tiers might assign this responsibility to the advisory board.
Being an observer of the decision-making process, the advisory board will have a more neutral perspective on what is working well and what needs changing in the constitution. Any constitutional recommendations from the advisory board should be seriously considered by both the elected committees and the citizenry.
Qualifications
Because advisors are appointed, we could say they need only be worthy of appointment. Ideally, advisors should be experienced TDG veterans, having had at least several years of experience as elected TDG representatives. Automatically coupled with their elected experience is the proven record of good character and competence. Hence advisory board members will be carefully listened to by the elected tiers and the citizenry. Like the elected representative, the position of advisor brings a certain respect that is worthy of serious consideration.
Internal Operations
Earlier, I mentioned some of the duties of the advisory board members. Here are some of the advisory boards’ responsibilities as a group:
Like the elected tiers of the TDG, the higher tiers of the advisory board will assign the responsibilities and duties of its members and the lower advisory tiers. The various advisory tiers will always be in consultation with each other, but the highestadvisory tier will be the ultimate authority within the advisory jurisdiction of the advisory board.
Other than the highest tier providing a budget and appointing the advisors to the highest advisory tier, the elected tiers will not have much say on how the advisory board operates. It will be an independent body focused on the process of governance.
Options to the Advisory Board
As each TDG designs itself, it will face its own challenges and set up its own experiments in how to make it all work. As it evolves, it will put more definition into its own structure. Here are some of the issues it needs to work out in regards to the advisory board:
Each TDG will want to set up its own protocols:
I’m sure many more issues will come up as each TDG builds itself. But at this stage in TDG thinking, providing more exact details is for the future builders.
Four Salient Features of the TDG
In essence, I see four basic and salient features each TDG must have:
As long as these four points are an integral part of the TDG, a TDG should be allowed to design itself any way it wants. After the TDG has a workable system together, it should also have the right to make changes, big or small, whenever it wants.
Anticipating the Critics
I will try to anticipate some of my critics and provide answers for possible questions and concerns about the advisory board of the TDG. I hope these answers provide better insight into the nature of the advisory board.
?The Highest Tier will Appoint Sympathetic Advisory Board Members
This implies that the advisory board members will owe their positions to the elected bodies. Hence, the advisors will never be critical of the elected bodies. It seems likely that the advisory board will be used as a cheerleading squad or a pasture for the younger elected representatives to retire the older representatives. This really won’t happen for several reasons within the TDG.
The most important reason is the highest elected tier is only place that can make appointments to the highest advisory tier. The members of the highest elected tier have, over the years, demonstrated their good character and capacity for governance on their own merit—and that is why they have risen to this position. Hence, they do not need to protect their position by appointing “their own people” to the highest level of the advisory board. Rather, they would be looking for the citizens who would best serve in this position.
Second, no member from an advisory tier can further any elected member’s career within the TDG. Because the TDG will have created a culture against campaigning, a positive comment from an advisor to vote for someone would be seen a good reason not to vote for that person. So advisors should not endorse their preferred choices for election into the TDG; the advisors will be part of the culture than shuns electioneering of any kind. Nor can the advisors vote in the tier elections to help raise someone higher. The only vote an advisor has is for the neighborhood representative in the neighborhood where the advisor resides.
Third, both the elected representatives and advisors would have an excellent understanding of their differing functions within the TDG. Both sides would understand that when an advisor speaks his or her mind when meeting with the elected tiers, it furthers the consultative process. Both would understand there is no obligation for the elected tier to take the advisor’s advice, so this advice can be freely given.
Fourth, after the highest advisory members have been appointed, they will appoint members to the lower advisory tiers as they see fit. Not even the highest elected tier shall influence or interfere with these appointments and other operations of the advisory board.
And fifth, the elected TDG tiers will be very dynamic and ever-changing in its personnel. Every year, new members will be added and others will be gone. Some will rise higher. Some will be appointed to the advisory board. Any possible political reason to appoint a certain advisor will soon be forgotten as the various issues that face the TDG come and go—just as the elected representatives come and go.
In essence, I do not see the unique relationship between the elected and appointed tiers as a natural means for individuals to band together to protect their influential positions.
The Lack of Structure
The lack of structure will frustrate many readers who have come this far. Many will want to see the number of tiers on each side, how many members to each tier, an exact definition of the roles, rules of conduct, etc. The western democratic model has programmed us very well into believing that democracy requires an exact structure for it to work.
It seems very strange that corporations, non-profit organizations, and even government ministries are constantly re-organizing themselves in how they function. Yet the actual governance within most mature western democracies are bound by structures, rules, and procedures that are a century or two old—and very difficult to change.
I have left the exact structure open for three main reasons. First, each jurisdiction will need to experiment, and with this experimentation will come some excellent structures that I cannot imagine myself. Second, jurisdictions should be allowed to make changes—big or small—as they see fit. We should not lock them into any structure that may be suitable today, but could limit their potential several decades later.
Third, and perhaps most important, those world citizens who are going to start building the TDG need something to practice on. Designing their own TDG is an excellent project to learn how to consult, experiment, monitor, and make changes. By the time a TDG has been built, those involved will have learned or demonstrated the attitudes necessary to make the TDG work in actual governance. These mature TDG builders then can take on real-life issues with more confidence and wisdom.
Again, I ask the future builders of the TDG to use the four salient features as their foundation. They are free to build on that foundation as they see fit.
Too Many People in Governance
In Chapter 3, I gave a possible TDG structure for a fictitious city of 100,000 citizens. This structure suggested about 630 citizens would have an official position in the elected side of governance. When the advisory board is included, this number could double, depending on how this particular TDG is actually structured. I’m sure that many readers would find this number rather excessive as there is a common political axiom that “less government is better government.” I think we need to rethink this axiom for four reasons.
First, many of these representatives and advisors will be at the lower tiers. Their involvement with the TDG will not be too time-consuming, and they should not have too much difficulty fitting their TDG duties around their regular life. Second, creating these positions gives these citizens a sense of fulfillment in their lives, thus making them more contented. Third, by actually being a part of the process of governance (even for a short time), they will better understand how the TDG works and can relate the TDG decision-making process to other citizens and citizen groups. And fourth, creating this pool at the lower tiers allows the TDG to train and select the more qualified citizens for the higher tiers. Western democracy has a great history of putting people into elected government positions with little qualification for those positions.
Rather than directly compare the numbers of elected/appointed officials between the western democracy and the TDG, let’s just leave this numbers decision to the future TDG builders.
Society does not have the Resources
Critics may say that having 1% or 2% of the population in governance will take away from other operations of society. All I can say here is that most of us are already spending a fair amount of time on trivial recreation. If we are called into TDG service, either as elected representatives or appointed advisors, we can sacrifice a few recreational hours a month to serve the TDG, our community, and our society.
Conclusion
With the inclusion of the advisory board, the TDG changes from a hierarchical structure of governance to a circular structure. This change of shape opens up many more formal and informal links among the elected tiers, the appointed tiers, and the citizenry to effect better collective and consultative decisions. New ideas, perspectives, and considerations are bound to arise as these various tiers work together.
As well, the structure is fluid enough for each jurisdiction to evolve in its own way, experiment with new ideas and learn from those ideas, and make changes whenever it wants. With the TDG, we will not be held by centuries-old structures which are resistant to change.
In the next two chapters, I will discuss how we can move from one system of governance to the TDG.
