 In the previous lessons, we addressed the general subject and activity of change management. In the reality of performance, it defined a change that could be mandated for leader action. It was also quite limited in the criteria for change. Even with these, there was the requirement that the change be able to find Pareto level agreement among people so that public mandate could be given effect. Change management is necessary as part of a citizen empowerment, but potential mandates are quite limited and once achieved, they no longer can serve the purpose of empowerment. For a wider application, we need to look at citizen management over the nation that we own, and so we begin the subject of owner management. Our change management subjects have already opened the way to the potential to demand financial representation and insists that Congress manages federal spending based on what it accomplishes for us. These are potential changes to the relationship between us as citizens and our public leadership. The immediate and ultimate authority is based on ownership, and our corporate we the people ownership of the United States is clearly documented in our constituting agreement. It is a fact, but then so is the fact that public leadership has refused the very concept of citizen ownership in favor of governmental sovereignty over people. The efforts to maintain our owner authority as a cultural imperative have been presented from the start of this work. It is even in the bully nature of public education to assure proper indoctrination in what we citizens owe to the nation and our leaders. It is not until openly confronted, as in pointing out that we are not born into permanent servitude to our government, that we can exercise our ownership. We are a free people by our origin and by our legal foundation. We have examined many potential mandates to assume citizen authority as a preliminary to our establishing our effective management over our nation. Consider the concept of secrecy from representative government. The impotency of our leadership to even lead is exposed for all to see when those who do represent us can be denied management authority by the hired help. The mandate is to empower our representatives to actually represent us and to clear out any federal employees who act on the idea that they are beyond public management. While not addressed specifically, there is the apparent belief that the purpose of our government is to exercise national management through competition, checks and balances. Again, the Constitution witnesses to a different foundation where the branches of government are given a small set of central purposes and are arranged to work together. Such directions of change are important in two aspects. The first is the changes that are mandated. The second is that it is citizens stepping into management authority and effectively issuing assignments to leaders. Every step into management hammers at home that government is to serve the people. There just is no real authority from the people that can redirect public efforts to our leaders to self-determined goals and objectives. In its current state, our federal government is unmanaged. The senior employees feel justified to do whatever it is that they consider to be the right things. Those who are elected are non-functional as to management, but set into endless competitions over issues. Note that this is the same basic cause of disempowerment among citizens and disempowerment of citizens is just another aspect of maintaining privilege and leadership. Our performance perspective points to that amazing approval rate for Congress, and it is less than 20%. We all know that it is failing. Our challenge is doing something about it. The cure for missing management is, take a deep breath, application of management. The cure is simple, though implementation may be a challenge. So where is the foreman, the one who will bring the efforts of those otherwise divided leaders to focus on what they are to accomplish through their teamed efforts? The first level answer is that we hired leaders through election, and they were to manage the government in our name. They're not doing the job and have refused the original assignment as inappropriate for the privileged leaders. The nature of the cure will involve reassignment with such performance requirements that our leaders will work for us. We, the people, are the in fact owners of the nation, the government, and even the legal system that leaders now claim as an assignment to have sovereignty over us. Without us, the federal government of the United States has neither authority nor right to exist as a political entity. We are the only real party in interest and can do whatever we agree to do and issue mandates and instructions to those who claim to act in our name. All the real choices are ours. We are the source of all political power. In specific fulfillment of the management challenge, it is our choice when and how we pick up the range of the nation, we pick its direction, we can on our options that things in motion as we feel is right. If there is a boss in this nation, it is the corporate we, the people, not those elected to represent us. Our constitutional agreement is still a good working tool. We can direct leadership to actually do the job set forth in the document under threat of our corporate disapproval for their continuing imposition of public authority. Whenever, wherever, and however we come to a corporate agreement, we become the voice of the people and the voice of the nation. It will not be challenged by any leader who values their continuation in office. I do recognize the incredible potency of sampling, which is so very different than the method of voting. Majority rule does not establish the voice of the people. In specific, our constitution grants no authority to represent some citizens in overcoming the interests of others. Sampling is the alternative that can efficiently establish public mandate. A mandate is foundation for effective assignment to leaders to do the representation demanded of them as public employees. Clearly, direction through public mandate is a very limited tool when it comes to management. It is a process intended to establish a very limited and directive assignment. For management, we need an ongoing process. It is not for direct management of government as we, through election, hire leaders to accomplish day-to-day public management on our behalf. Our deeper need is to fulfill the purpose of exception management, stepping in whenever additional support is needed, whenever there is a failure to perform, or whenever needed to prevent distractions from the purpose we assigned. Again, we do not need to be a constant and present governance director. We have already done what we had to do in our constitutional assignment. What we need to do is step in whenever and wherever it serves our purpose. And we do have a flexiling approach to that in the concept of a grand jury. It is a sampling of the public, not some body of elected leaders. It is a legal tool that can review and approve public efforts, that can monitor and receive management feedback from what government does, and that can authorize special actions on behalf of the public from which the sample is drawn. A jury can easily be authorized as a public entity to perform senior management functions on behalf of the larger public. It can perform the general functions for government that a production manager performs for a collection of performance groups. I note that current court authorities being focused on privilege in public leaders has done its best to limit grand jury activities to those that are authorized by privileged leadership or by the system of laws that support privilege in leadership. It will almost certainly take a citizen mandate to do the required change. Privileged leadership is highly resistant to anything that might require them to perform anything other than what they select for themselves. Working for people, yes, that is acceptable to leadership as long as they get to decide on the goals and objectives that properly serve the public. The public resisting their directive of action is just a complaint, not a directive. Is this really addressing a grand jury or is it something else entirely? The answer is, we the people are the only party in interest. If we wish to empower a sampling of citizens calling it a grand jury, that does not require the blessing of the hired help. We as gathered are the authority who can call it anything we like. The hired help can make suggestions that they feel so inclined. In this vision, that sampling of citizens is authorized as our agent to perform sovereign authority management over the operation of government. In that, they will not have any assigned job that they have to perform on behalf of government authorities. The hired help does not put duties on the owner. This sampling or jury may be impaneled to concentrate on certain management needs, but they are not subject to any lesser authority. They choose the subject of their own actions and step into authority as needed to accomplish management. As the effective senior management, they have owner authority to take whatever actions they deem to be appropriate. It is authority that can override any assigned legal authority in government. They will function as the voice of we the people who have authorized the very existence of federal government that they monitor. In a real sense, sampling is a tool for human empowerment. It is not the power itself, nor a grant of power, but simply a recognition that the microcosm of the sample can often speak as the voice of the people. If we have a grand jury, we want its members well paid for their part in witnessing their agreement on behalf of the public. Publishing where they agree and do not agree is also publishing where we the people are likely to find our own wider agreements. Jury members need to rotate and probably to shift even in its ongoing membership. The sample must be fresh and not become a profession like a leadership. That has been allowed to develop into a political elite. The very concept is to maintain a sampling that can represent the common citizen. As in the family, each generation of new members is expected to learn from those who remain. This sampling is to be ultimately human. As we noted, the disruption of unmanaged secrecy is to be at the heart of the operation of sampling. It involves insistence in the representative nature of those in positions of authority with recognition that the very concept of secrecy from the public is ultimately discordant with citizen self-governance. Secrecy from our elected representatives does violence to the representative nature of our government. Secrecy from the sample who are the intended voice of the people is criminal. The very purpose for having a grand jury review is to provide those who would represent the people with support and guidance that they need to be successful in their representation. Should our elected leaders lose their way, focusing on the right things to do instead of delivering value to the citizens, the jury will be there to address what the people value, providing that common sense of purpose that allows employees to come together and get things done. If there is a question of whether an expenditure on a public purpose is something the public will support, the sampling of the public will be available for resolution. It can provide a point of convenient review for any public action or can step in and offer a review on its own decision. The term for that is self-governance. It can even extend to court decisions. The subject shifts to the setting up of such a sample and the general unwillingness of government leaders to accept any such review. The answer is that of mandate. If this is what we as the public mandate to our leaders, they will give heed on threat of being replaced with others who are more interested in serving than ruling. When gathered in agreement, we are the authority that stands behind all public leadership. It would be a self-governing body of citizens empowered and set in place to be a sampling of citizens. There would also likely be a number of these samplings, with that number of groups impacted by the needs as seen by its members. That number may start out quite large as it would be containing the established leadership preference to rule. It would likely shrink as governance becomes more responsive to citizen management. A large part of the sampling purpose is a function similar to that of the foreman working with those who are authorized to act in government. Jury findings are indicative of what should be expected of citizens in general. The social part of this approach is that the jury can be given almost any proposed activity for review and its reaction be guidance for those in public authority, a sampling of how the public will likely receive it. If there is some act that a number of leaders feel would be detrimental to governance, the sampling review would provide a sensing of the larger public. This is not a decision service, but a support service. It provides our leaders with a reasonably speedy way to get a public sensing, a way to better align what leaders would do with the wants and needs of the people they represent. It is a support for teaming with the public. It provides an ongoing teaming in contrast to where voting for the right people is just periodic. In another sense, it provides for the publication of the quality of teaming that leaders exhibit in their official capacities. It provides publication of their ability to apply the authority of their positions in service to the people. The clash with privileged seeking leadership will be immediate and intense, but will not involve conflict. This is because the people are the only party in interest and those intent on serving some other people or serving purposes of their own will face potential publication of their unwillingness to serve. Consider that the members of the sample are physically together and daily work together for a public purpose assumed by the jury. They are almost certain to team among themselves with subgroups forming for addressing issues and challenging reviews. If there is a potential for teaming on a matter, they will see it. If there is disagreement in the jury, that is also part of their findings. That too is valuable information for guidance to elected and hired leadership. If some congressman wants to fund an online school with tax dollars demonstrating how great the economic advantage, but other members oppose it as public funding, preferred private support funds that be its basis, it would likely come before the sampling of we the people as a public for review. The difference is that the jury is a team and is likely to exhibit the same split. The difference is that they are those who receive government services, not the leaders who implement. They represent the public and what splits their evaluation is likely to reflect a split in the public. The intent of funding the school that some feel is beneficial with some of the funding provided by people who think it is a bad idea has a very different effect. It is likely to be recognition that the ones who want it should be funding it, supporting citizen choices, giving support to those who value the result will almost certainly be the basis for what the team returns to those leaders. It will almost certainly be about service to the public rather than the quality of what leaders are able to do. Would this be able to team the congressional members? Achieving that value purpose is far more likely to focus on the divisive issues in public funding. The other side of the sample to action is public authority, finding of such general nature that they achieve Pareto level agreement. This opens the way to real exception management over government. It is exercise of owner authority when and where the public is agreed on activities. The first principle is that there is no effective public opposition when that level of agreement is reached. It is owner authority and does not answer to government, to law, or to political preference. By this level of agreement, which is not easily found, the directions of the jury or sampling will be directive for all public servants and employees. On reaching that level of agreement the sampling becomes public authority. It can direct public employees to action. It can unsee the Supreme Court justice or kick a president out of office based solely on the effectively universal public determination that this might serve our public purpose. This is the other side of the exception management. It is stepping in to handle situations or needs as are recognized by public agreement to be necessary for meeting public purpose. Also foundation for action such as approval of secrecy, which by its very nature is an exception to self-government. It would take a Pareto level concurrence of this body to authorize restriction from further access to the subject of our materials presented for protection, only if there is such an effective agreement should that secrecy be authorized. This is also the sharp end of the stick when it comes to investigations. When the sampling of citizens requests information or testimony that they feel is necessary for their deliberations, public officer refusals or unnecessary delays may well reach the point where the group can come to Pareto level agreement on adverse actions to compel response. This can be sending the police to bring the person or materials to them or to terminate federal employment. The purpose of government is serving the people. If public leaders feel that they have something more important to do they can be called to present it to the public that is otherwise entitled. I note that the people are the only real party at interest. When they find such agreement even the courts will not lightly try to interfere. The courts also answer to the same we the people authority. You can almost hear the challenge do you have any idea what this is going to cost? The answer can be devastating to leadership. It is unifying answer instead of the one that divides. Nobody can know what it will cost. What we do know is that our current approach costs about 30% of everything we earn and we are about 20 trillion dollars in debt. That is the cost of continuing what we are doing. This is our action as people. It will be challenged and we even know what the challenge will be raised. We know because they are the challenges that have been raised all along. It is the challenge of putting the wrong people into authority to take advantage of this challenge there is another understanding one that is firmly supported in performance. It is the basic motivation of all those who would rule. That stands behind all such challenges. It is the loss of privilege. The loss of power that comes with the challenges that the wrong people can get into authority. The answer is the stark and total denial of the background assumption. We are America. There is no them. We are the nation and the USA cannot be any more powerful than we are. There is no them there is just us. Whatever 80% of the jury would say with 95% reliability and representation is the voice of the people. The jury can speak with the voice of the people the only source of authority. Another aspect of this management system is feedback to the public. It is the publication of summary causes and decisions by each jury so that the people can have their choice review and act upon what their sample is doing. Having that choice and freedom is in being given citizen options in determining what they review and what they would choose to do with it. That is public empowerment. Only we the people can challenge what a sampling of we the people decide. It is not like where some leaders are in charge of the system. Performance comes from errors being handled as simple mistakes. The public authority of we the people is absolute. When the people speak as a unit there is no other public authority. When the people as a unit accept a purpose then there is no alternate public purpose. Even with the myth of representative rule the authority of each citizen to represent themselves is absolute and no decision by any leader judge or authority can change or alter what the citizen decides. Rulers cannot change the minds of even the lowest peasant but could only beat them into submission controlling what they say or publicly support. The human being is still an independent and self-sustaining unit. Agents cannot disagree with the ones they represent that cannot be authorized. Neither can representative leaders disagree with the people they represent without abandoning their own authority. But there is even more and it is that people can direct their agents as to what they are to do in their agency. That is a fundamental principle in the law of agency. As an agent destroys the agency by refusing the one they represent so the representative loses public authority by challenging the public that they are to represent. A sampling of we the people can whenever sufficiently agreed to establish effective unity direct public officers to what they do they can direct response on any challenge by a representative denying authority to counter what the people have decided. This is not some authority granted by government it is the authority that permits governance to continue it is not some public service available to support those who would rule it is the very voice of the people that rules over all others. We the people do not grant authority over us to rulers. We grant permission for them to represent us permission to exercise authority in our name. That is the performance orientation and it is inconsistent with the exercise of privilege by leaders. Privilege will be compelled to address this sort of macro change in terms of authority and lack of controls potential for errors that cannot be corrected by but then the idea that leaders can step into correct errors is a very problem we are avoiding by use of sampling. The last thing we need is someone to rule over decisions of we the people. For a more satisfying approach we have to address the reality of potential errors and that people are no matter what else randomly variable. That is why it takes Pareto level agreement to witness to effective decisions by the people as a necessary result of human variability what is the right cause of mandate today may not be so tomorrow we can and certainly will come to action by mistake that is human. It is not going to be cured by having the right people in charge they can and certainly will make their own mistakes the difference is freedom something that we as humans value it is the mistakes we make that are ours then we are freely made if the mistakes are by rulers then they are not we are not even free to make mistakes we are also going to continue learning from what we accomplish and our priorities will shift as we accomplish what we consider to be highest priority success in human accomplishment involves change it is probably wise to limit the effect of even our samples decisions to some time period this will indicate a review of past decisions as to whether they need to be affirmed for another time period or become historical unlike the mandate itself these questions can be settled by simple majority the mandate is already in effect and the challenge is the need to maintain it the period of time for the next review of past government decisions may be initiated along with the sampling or jury system and will then also be subject to review like any other government decisions it can remain useful until there is some need to change it that is a potential for review in this work I have used the terms jury and sampling as almost interchangeable it is not a necessity it is a result from recognizing that we already do have a sampling of citizens in the very concept of a jury it is a sampling of citizens that is already accepted as an official decision making authority expanding on the concept of the jury to address public sampling for management over government is a matter of convenience not a necessity it is promoted more by the practical need to gain Pareto level agreement on any changes that we the people might set in place it is a convenience as the jury is already widely accepted as a source of public value and matters where representation is needed it is going to take a mandate to do anything like this and it will likely be a mandate only after many other changes have already been accomplished through mandate as a matter of comfort I expect people to balk at the change it is a cost and setting people to manage over our government is a huge change it raises questions of how much definition will be required before people can see its benefits it goes against our culture to challenge authority like this but our purpose is empowerment it is giving you the choice it is addressing the costs and benefits that are associated with this level of change so that you have freedom empowerment is through you having the personal choice with intelligence supporting what you choose to do in our next lesson we will concentrate more fully on your personal choices in where you choose to invest your personal time, effort and other resources we will be getting far deeper into the more personal aspects that are associated with being an independent and empowered human being we will be looking at managing your own decision process for most certainly accomplishing what you most value