 The question is, how you, as a person, can be empowered to efficiently and effectively initiate massive people-mandated changes. We have developed the purpose to be served, our human purpose on which we have natural agreement. We have developed value analysis and learning to see where the general benefit awaits us. We have discussed presentation techniques to communicate that value to others, and we have gone layers deeper in seeing existing potentials for change, and how to communicate the potentials to others. And then we have examined an efficient process for not only initiating change, but for enlisting leadership to become part of that change. There are understandings that can guide the development of the sampling effort, a few more concepts that are not only obvious once presented, but that simplify the process greatly. One fundamental is that change is based on a valued result, not on some action. If the question asked is based on the rightness or effectiveness of some action, you are likely to find issues and challenges rather than agreement. We agree on valued results, and there may be differing opinions on what will best get us there, issues generally prevent or interfere with performance. What the mandate is to accomplish is the end result, but that the state and change action is an accepted way to get there. It does not even have to be the preferred way, but only reasonably bring a valued result to accomplishment. You are your first source of value determination because you are a human being. In establishing any mandate, your action will have to enlist people just like yourself and many others who vary from you. That is what has to be accomplished if there is to be a public mandate. There is no mandate through popularity, through having more people on your side than on some others. Mandate occurs where there is no real alternative because the level of agreement is so high that alternatives do not support agreement in opposition. Our sampling subject is the criteria for agreement must be able to attract the voluntary support of Pareto level segments of the population. The challenge is not popularity, it is the requirement for participation being voluntary. There is a human cost in pausing from other things that we are doing. There is a cost in time and attention that is paid by each person who participates in establishing the mandate. There must be such obvious value potential that people will choose to pause at their other pursuits long enough to receive knowledge of the potential. They must see sufficient value in taking part to give their opinion of what they have received to indicate their agreement or disagreement on the suggested mandate. You are your own sample of one person. What can you see that has such value as an end result that people will pause and give support? Your commitment is essential. It has to be something so valuable to you that you are willing to put in the time to publicly present the potential mandate. People react to the expressed commitment of other people. It is hardwired into us as human beings. How much time and effort are we willing to commit as individuals is variable. But we do always react to other people who seem committed even if it is to reject what they are committed to do. And then we have that same wedge in the door to personal empowerment. We and that is all people are the only party in interest. There is nobody else who has to be considered. There are no right people whose opinions and approval are required for mandate. The first subject is honesty in your own commitment. If you do not believe in the result of the subject mandate with sufficient fervor to commit your own time and effort to the sampling, that will almost certainly result in failure. We are dealing with all of us as human beings and all focused on what each of us will be able to value. A second subject is consistency. There must be a central document, video, or other consistent record so that our agreement is documented as to what each of us is agreeing to. It may be supplemented by answering any questions or challenges that are personally raised, but the record of the agreement has to stand on its own as a basis for people coming to agreement. It is also important to keep in mind that the desired result of the sampling is not the mandate document, but the agreement itself. If the people who are sampled are not willing to support the mandate as presented, then the mandate is not a reality. For the same reason it is important to avoid intentional bias in the selection of mandate subjects. Our purpose is not served by an attempt to manufacture a mandate. If the agreement is not real, then there is unlikely to be a real mandate as a basis for action. We need this to immediately separate this effort from exercise of privilege. Mandating is not a goal to be documented and directed to commoners for action. That will be the knee-jerk reaction of modern privilege-oriented leaders. That manipulative and authoritative application is the basic technique of privilege to sell the public on what the leader has decided is the right thing to do. The potential for mandate is either real or is not real. Answering to authority manipulation is likely to be an exception rather than the rule. On the other side, there is no need to intentionally seek to sample everyone fairly. If mandate is real, it will be hard to find any homogenous public group that will not support it. Misrepresenting the public does not create mandate. Skewing results will not affect whether a mandate is real. Our change purpose is served by discovering and documenting a real mandate potential. And then there is the mandate criteria. The smaller and more directed is, the greater the chance people will pause to receive it. If a mandate is more than half a page and is likely that people will not pause long enough to receive it, if a video is longer than two minutes, they are likely to continue on their way without receiving all of it. The one who samples needs a very short and to-the-point criteria. It has to either address a common value or put some obvious challenge forth for correction. This same consideration for the nature of the document or the record will be important in presenting it to leaders for their action. If it is simple and clear in what it is to accomplish, that clarity and simplicity become part of an agreement that the leader will have to rely upon for assuring that the people are mandating. For simplicity, I would suggest that the document be titled and that title state the valued result. The remainder of the document or record describes the changes that are proposed for action. If that sort of simplicity is not available for the action you propose for mandate, then it is likely that there will be no mandate. If people do not receive the criteria as basis for agreement, then they will not be agreed, no matter how valuable and how consistent the sought agreement may be. The rule is that you have to be prepared to rework the criteria if the potential for mandate is there, but not presented as people will support it. More complicated changes will have to be achieved by other processes, as might be gained by setting public bodies under the public's exception management authority so that the public value becomes more a criteria for political actions. We also need to consider the general leader hostility to the very concept of people coming together without a proper, or a right leader, guidance. That is a threat to privilege. For practice we can consider the current waste from the federal spending of our tax contributions. The damage is lack of any accountability or management by anyone. We want to title our mandate criteria to be simple and indicate the nature of the change we propose. The purpose is to have people pause and receive the change suggestion. This supports a title like financial representation. An optional statement of purpose can expand on this or provide additional scoping information, but care should be taken to keep any such statement simple and to the point. This is to empower our representative to take charge of spending our tax dollars, and they are to report the same to us. Then set the change in as simple terms as you can. Divide our congressional district's tax contribution out of the general treasury, and provide our representative with a checkbook. Call Congress to come together to work for us. Checks must be countersigned by one or both of our elected senators. The title gives the purpose. We can narrow it. Only our representative can write checks and other expenditures require three-quarter vote of both House and Senate members. This mandate is also to establish our citizen management by feedback information that we need to see if we are to approve or disapprove when our representative does in our name. Report to us regularly concerning the purpose of spending, specifically showing the amount committed purpose served on the senator or senators who approved. And as a final management information for us, publish a monthly status for funds held in our account, and summary of expenditures and additions. The final item on the criteria is always the question of agreement. I would approve or not approve this change. Presenting this in a public place may face challenge. It is best supported by having at least a few others who have committed themselves to the purpose of testing for mandate. It is prior agreement that best communicates value. It is the invitation of others that raises the value that you would present. Incentive to stop and take part may be appropriate, so long as it is not something that might skew or otherwise interfere with the sampling. You might, for example, offer to pay a fixed price for taking part in the sample. A pastor I knew who worked as a chaplain at the Naval Academy noted that he could always gather students by offering pizza to those who came. While such an action might be inappropriate for a mandate to authorize a pizza ria on campus, as collecting only those who like pizza, it would be of general use in gathering students as a sample to test for a summer trip mandate to a shipbuilder facility. As with other matters, if the mandate is real, people will be receptive to it. And almost everyone who experiences a sampling criteria will recognize the potential to bring people to agree. If it turns out to be simply popular, that will also be recognized. Our ability to understand general social matters is pretty well fixed. In general accord with the stated purpose for this study, the very gathering of the sample information is empowering to the ones who bring it together. It is empowering to those who take part as supporters. It is even empowering to those who are in the sample. They are receiving the understanding that their agreement may be effective, along with the stated opinions of others who probably will also agree if the criteria is well presented. For you as a student, this is not any basis for a commitment on your part. It is a potential to be compared with the many things that this study of performance will open for your decision. The true empowerment is having the choice for where you commit your efforts based on what you most value and the apparent potentials for accomplishment. The next example might be titled Manage the United States. It is a follow-on subject and I assume that the example above has been implemented. This addresses reinvigorating the constitutional assignment of government management to our congressional representatives. It empowers them to represent us more effectively through controlling the purse strings of government. Our statement of vision? Congressional management. No spending bill shall be passed without a valued result returned to Congress or to the people indicating success in the funded effort. Just that easily, every funding bill becomes an assignment to accomplish a valued result. This is a statement of government management gaining a valued result through those who are authorized to act. Maintain and publish a list of spending bills together with the amount committed, the product to be gained, estimate of when the value will be returned and when the valued result is successfully delivered. The obvious requirement is that there is feedback on performance by those who are funded and that it is published for us, citizens, to see that our leaders are successfully managing in our name. Note that satisfying leader goals and objectives has no valued product. Running things has no product. Sustaining organization has no product. The funding of all these will be presented as obvious waste. This would force an almost immediate reorganization of government so that every funded effort has some valued result to deliver from its efforts. Elements without products such as the Office of Personnel Management could not be funded without accusation of waste. Entities like the Department of Education or Environmental Protection Agency would be funded only for specific projects with deliverable results. It would be far more difficult to fund secret projects or elements of organizations as they can be intentionally avoiding having products that can be delivered. The obvious challenge to having Congress do its job is political. It is direct and obvious denial of privileged rule. The expected resistance to application would be severe, almost to the point of leaders residing rather than putting it in place. Having the responsibility for financial representation already in place will change the mandate from a direct denial of privilege to implementation of performance management, a much easier pill to swallow. As in most improvements, almost everyone comes out a winner by this change. The congressman receives the power to manage what has been denied by others assuming privilege. We certainly come out ahead as it gets much more difficult to spend tax dollars on privileged leader goals and objectives. We get to see what our leaders are accomplishing. The operation of government is required to deliver value. It has to have a public purpose or it is likely to be unfunded. But again, all those many privileged leaders are also part of us. They also receive the benefit of a more functional government that spends less of their earnings. They just lose the privilege of harvesting other people's money for wasteful purposes. In that they are losers. There is also the shrinking of government when non-productive efforts lose their public funding. There will be a lot of government employees released as their positions cannot be sustained. We will no longer be doing public charity as it has no value, public result. Government can arrange for private charity to serve the transition to a government that is managed and that does deliver value to the public. Assigning citizen rights in our amendments is ineffective for assigning privilege. If we the people are to be self-governing, it requires harshly stripping privilege from non-citizens. It is our law that any written agreement buy in among the people only puts duties and responsibilities on those who sign. The challenge is potential citizens who do not accept the authority of we the people of the United States as the one who determine the direction of our political government. Think of the impact on elected officers having to be voting citizens knowledgeable in the document being our national government before they get to assume office. It adds a whole new emphasis on the oath of office if they are a signatory to it. Also signatories limit the authority of government as it only sets such authority as the signatories can provide. That is basic to our law of contracts. One possible title for the criteria sets citizen authority. As a statement of intent, only constitutional signatories are entitled to representation in federal governance of the United States of America. Then challenge other authorities. So other authorities shall take part in governance without a signed statement of agency by authorizing signatories documenting the purpose and limits of the agency granted. To prevent effective political slavery, citizen rights to self-governance cannot be limited by agency agreement. It is probably necessary to intentionally strip privilege protection from the officers of private corporations. Corporate officers shall be personally liable for violations committed by their corporate entities. This rips up our current system of influence peddling. It rips up our money-limited system of election. It defines our current way of doing the business of government as criminal, subjecting those who would continue using it to potential prosecution and possible law civil office. It is likely to be especially hard on our news media, as corporate entities who feel privileged to peddle their own corporate preferences. It reshuffles the deck for them as they risk prosecution for endorsing one candidate above others. They get to report political news not to take part in creating or influencing it. They get to observe, to report, and to editorialize. They do not otherwise get to take an active part in election or representation matters, only as citizens can news leaders issue their personal endorsements. For implementation, the right to vote in federal elections is only recognized for those who have accepted the duties and responsibilities of citizenship through a recorded signature on a copy of our constitutional agreement and capacity to record such citizen signatures shall be provided at all polling places. For enforcement, we have to give teeth to our right to self-governance, arranging for effective prosecution of non-citizen interference. Congress shall establish and appropriately fund and staff a public office to receive, investigate, and appropriately act upon citizen complaints of violation or misrepresentation. This tears up our current political nation, replacing it with a representative republic which was originally offered. It is probably too big a change to be addressed in the near future. It is the sort of thing where the mandate might be suggested, giving people time and opportunity to accustom themselves to the extent of the challenges we face. It is hard to grasp the full extent of the damages that privileged leadership has visited upon us as a people and even harder to sell the need for the level of pain that would be experienced should we exercise our ownership rights so openly. The only losers will be well paid for their services. It will be those who are hired and well paid for implementing the change. They will be in direct contact with the painful reality of our ownership upon those who would otherwise gain their own wealth and potency at our expense. As a last note on this, there would be a significant influence on public education as it would be forced to teach the Constitution. People are not going to be eager to officially sign a document that would set duties and responsibilities upon them without having a pretty good understanding of what they sign. As another workable direction, consider the prohibition against taking private property for public purpose without paying for it. Even a privilege-based legal system recognizes citizen ownership and personal income. We have property rights to our money. While our Constitution does recognize our rights to be secure in our earnings, privilege-based leadership has continued to harvest it for the purpose of the public, with those elected into privilege having general privilege to do what is right for the public. By this point, that should start the alarm bells clanging. Something doesn't fit here. Don't our leaders have to pay for it? The answer that those elected are really rulers obviously won't do it. So the presented angle has to be that running the government is the public purpose. Just that quickly you find a change on which people can agree. You are the public. If you do not receive the benefit of an expenditure, then taking it is a Constitution level forbidden activity. Consider the impact on a public charity, a subject already discussed as a reasonable place to discover a mandate. You are the public. If you do not get value what our leaders spend in your name, then it is without value to you and probably without value to the public. A title might be Citizen Return for Taxes. No citizen taxes shall be spent without return of value to the taxpayers. I note that this is another challenge for just dumping funds into a treasury than every dollar spent has a citizen contribution. Our courts shall be authorized to receive citizen challenges to federal spending legislation or other expenditures by government that return no value to the taxpayers. Public officers who voluntary actions violate this duty are subject to prosecution before a jury of citizens for misrepresentation or embezzlement. A jury finding of embezzlement shall immediately remove the offending officer from further public employment or later public benefits from public employment. Of course there will be a cry of unfair to interrupt retirement. The answer is to make it personal. If you hired someone to clean your house, said the work is acceptably done for a long time before he is caught selling the family silver, would you consider continuing to pay what was promised for retirement or pay only after you had recovered the cost put upon you by the theft? We have to be fair to the public too. Our prior discussion is pretty well defined. Our potential mandate for patent and copyright law rewrites. For patent law, the title might be Citizen Invention Rights. The focus is the action can be simply stated as public protection is offered to citizens for their inventive and artistic works. We need to clarify the limit of effect to citizens cutting out corporate bodies in their otherwise privileged master and servant relations with American citizens. Only citizens shall be protected as inventors, authors, and artists. Government shall honor their ongoing decisions on the use and distribution of their protective works. This is strengthened by recognition of the public purpose that stands behind that area of law. Patents and copyrights are granted for the benefit of the public and protection may be terminated upon petition for any works that are effectively denied to or withdrawn from the public. The effect is to remove the public protection for planned obsolescence. Implementation will need to be enforced. Improperly claiming protection as the author, inventor, or assignee of the invention or artistic works of others shall be a misdemeanor. An appropriate recovery and restitution shall be legally directed, including the potential for punitive damages. We have the same sort of clarity for public charity. A potential title might be Supporting Citizen Charities. Our criteria must make it clear that what we have been doing is criminal. The defining statement, expending public funds on charitable causes, is misrepresentation or embezzlement as may be determined during prosecution. First, disrupt the wasteful use of tax dollars. Tax dollars shall only be used to operate the government as a service to we the people. The elected leaders shall be supported with public funds for recognizing, establishing, and arranging operation of citizen-supported charities. The service shall include the efficient receipt and distribution of donations to the published charitable purpose. As with other mandates, there must be a stated challenge for those who would continue to exercise privilege with public funds. Officers shall be personally labelled for any mishandling of donation or misdirection of public funds. We do not have to have a single direction for removing inappropriate secrecy. Our approach can be as simple as mandating the release from public office and benefits for a public officer who would secure their government activities or products from representative government management. That just cannot be allowed to continue. It is an insult to the public. It might also address the authority of our elected leaders to manage government as our representatives, so that secrecy from a representative becomes actionable, again removing the offending employee from further public office or benefit. It might again be focused on empowering grand jury review to establish secrecy as an exception matter only, so that there is a legal foundation for maintaining some critical information that is not further distributed. While it would be much harder matter to get Pareto-level agreement, it could openly criminalize all secrecy from the public. That would put the requirement of public review on all proposed secrecy, probably empowering grand jury review. Our challenge in this is the combined seriousness of those who feel privileged to accept public employment without any responsibility to the public, and the obvious value of permitting some reasonable level of protection for information that might be detrimental if generally distributed. It is not a challenge in our authority, but in having many options for mandate criteria without a clear limit on what we can accomplish as the necessary level of agreement. Our challenge for empowerment is in the ability to design and present the criteria to collect a sample from the public that can mandate public action. The good news is that empowerment is not limited to what you can do as an individual. If you have a potential mandate, you will be able to enlist others to a teamed design effort. In this lesson, we have been addressing mandate potentials. These are subjects where there are specific changes to be directed by public acclimation. It is where we, as a public, can exercise authority to assign specific duties or activities to those who are employed and operating our government. It is specific exercise of public authority to accomplish what we, as the public, can value. Our next effort will address a wider application of performance principles. It will address our potentials for we the people, assuming effective senior management over our government. This involves systemic changes to support our voluntary assumption of authority, to more directly implement public mandate, and to step in and support action wherever it seems appropriate to us as a people.