Brian J Goggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:44:14 +0000, Adrian Stott
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>er, Brian, I think you have forgotten that the government owns all the
>>shares of BW, and thus can "elect" the Board.
>
>It wasn't clear from your earlier messages that that would continue.
>But if the government's sole power is that of appointment and
>dismissal of the board, it is not clear that that provides for
>effective oversight of its doings. In the European Parliament, the
>"nuclear option" --- its sole power over the Commission was to dismiss
>the whole of it --- effectually rendered the elected representatives
>powerless.
At present, the government can, in effect, appoint (or dismiss)
individual BW directors. It does not have to use the nuclear option.
There are many aspects of BW I didn't mention. I think it would be a
more reasonable assumption that I expect those aspects to remain
unchanged, rather than that I want to scrap them.
>>I'm a Canadian, so I know about Marshall Mcluhan's saying "The medium
>>is the message".
>
>One of Canada's two major contribution to world culture, that was.
>
>But you might explain its relevance in this discussion. I, alas, am
>not a medium.
You're not a message either.
>>A machine tends to do what it is best at. You may be able to get it
>>to do something else, but it probably won't do it well.
>
>And who defines "what it is best at"?
Not a person, but the result of a process -- its design. And some
machines do tend to be discovered later to be good at unexpected
things.
>>A government agency will thus usually act like a government agency,
>>i.e. it will cover its ass, and make few waves. Any other output will
>>be of secondary importance and produced (if at all) inefficiently.
>
>That is your perception of what government "agencies" do. It is not
>necessarily a description of what all such "agencies" actually do or
>must do.
<Possibly inaccurate quote> "The race may not always go to the swift,
not the battle to the strong, but that is the smart way to bet".
>The "cover its ass" is largely a result of its being required
>to abide by the law, but the tendency has been strengthened in recent
>times by the litigiousness of individualists, encouraged by the
>neocons who like to see individuals profiting at the expense of the
>commonwealth --- while at the same time weakening the commonwealth.
I think it is more to do with civil servants' concern for their jobs,
which tend to be at risk if politicians get embarrassed by them. Doing
nothing is usually less likely to embarrass than doing something.
>So do you want this new BW to look after the waterways, to implement
>government (or the people's) policy or to make a profit? I see no
>reason to believe that its aiming for profit will not conflict with
>its role as guardian of the waterways.
As far as BW is concerned, looking after the waterways *is* the
policy, and BW is required to follow it. That's its goal. Making a
profit (but not at the expense of achieving that goal) is the way of
showing that it is efficient in its work. Guarding the waterways
might better be done by another outfit ("Quis custodiet ipsos
custodes") , but isn't that (at least in part) what IWAC is for?
>>So, I am indeed concerned with remaking the (waterway) institutions,
>>but only because I think that is the only workable way of
>>getting/perpetuating/etc. the waterways we want.
>
>But you don't seem to have worked it out: you're relying on prayer and
>miracles.
I believe I have presented a reasonable outline. I think it is not
reasonable to expect me to provide a detailed blueprint.
> Make BW a profit-seeking institution and all will be well
Make BW a government department and all will not be well.
Hey this is a day for quotes -- "When you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
Adrian
Adrian Stott
07956-299966
