 Brother Michael has apparently been a bad boy and is being accused by three of his parishioner families of molesting their young boys. Brother Michael is a senior priest with a large congregation and he is serving the rest of them in exemplary manner. Brother Michael as a congregational administrative manager is called in by the bishop as this has become a matter beyond the parish leaders control. Michael is warned that there will be consequences if he engages in this unacceptable behavior and he is reassigned to another congregation. Unless there is a criminal complaint filed from outside the corporate religious institution there are unlikely to be any serious actions taken that might injure Brother Michael. This examples a corporation's administrative leadership. It is not focused on serving the congregation but on running the corporate entity to serve leader established purposes. Government leadership is even more isolated from the common citizens. The congressman who misrepresents his people voting for taxes that support only people in other states will pretty much ignore the complaints of citizens who are being violated in their reason for voting him into office. If anything the act is justified by noting how cleverly he used it to get votes for some other bill that might also not have been representative. This is the nature of aristocracy that whatever the leader does is for the good of the people independent of whether they get any good out of it. There is no struggle between light and dark. When the light comes the darkness is no more. We the people should never struggle against our own government. When we the people find our voice through our agreement it will also be the voice of those who lead in our name and government leadership will implement what draws people together. Whenever and wherever we find our agreement we are truly the only party in interest. And so we have owner authority and authority that has created the United States and has empowered government to serve us. We the people are the true aristocracy, the source of all U.S. authority. We are the public that has hired leaders to represent us. The challenge we face is more one of finding voice than applying management to government. The challenge is providing those who work for us with assignments they need to properly serve our corporate interests. Our central purpose is already documented in our constitutional agreement and our purpose is exercised through mandating our assignments to those who would act in our name. The Constitution is where we start because it is our documented agreement and is our assignment to those who get hired to operate our government under its authority. National government is a family business and we the people are the family that takes care of its own when we receive the benefits of owning this national business. We just hire people to operate for us but it is our purpose that it is to serve. There is no government purpose set by the people who run the government in our name. We have a leadership that has gone rogue with what we entrusted to them. They seem determined to seize and sell our silver acting like they are the in fact owners. Our leaders have been doing this for so long they really believe that they are the ones in charge. That is the general challenge we face as citizens. We have hired people to operate our government for us but they are convinced that it is our job to serve whatever purpose they present as proper governance of the nation. Our immediate challenge is that we cannot come together as we the people to operate this business. We just do not have that level of agreement. What we do have is executive administrative authority. We can apply this to set executive management in place and apply the general tools of management to reset our representatives to being our agents in fact instead of just in name. We can start wherever agreed to hold our agents personally accountable for any misrepresentation of our stated purposes. We know how to perform executive management. It starts with what each public leader must deliver to us to be a success in filling a public office. To do this right, we have to define a product or result that each must deliver. We must arrange to receive it as witness to the fulfillment of office. If things start to go wrong and the leader comes to us for support, we must be willing to step in and set things back on track for our leaders. We are, after all, the only party in interest and the ultimate owner of all that is in the United States. If our hired managers are not doing their performance management, it is for us to assign it to them based on the results we are to receive. If needed, we can hire others to monitor their management on our behalf. This might be through a representative citizen body such as a grand jury. And if the law would not support this, then we assign changing the law. We own that too. When we are agreed, we are the ones who own government. And that should only exist to serve the people. If the government is not serving we the people, it serves nobody. So what will get raised in opposition? The danger of letting ignorant people run things? With that, you have the purpose of fixing the educational systems so that we are no longer the ignorant people. This just defines the purpose to be served as what we the people will value instead of what some aristocratic leaders think is best. It has been in the interest of non-representative leaders to maintain an educational system that leaves people isolated and in competition with each other. Empowerment courses of study such as U.S. law and government for teens have been largely rejected as not fitting in with what government wants to support. Who in their right mind would support a public education system conducted in languages that most citizens cannot understand? What sort of people would promote a fractured public where citizens cannot communicate effectively with each other? Who is it who promotes the lack of communication skills as some sort of public service? Will others argue that the common crowd would do all sorts of crazy and harmful things? Just try to get 80% of the people to agree on crazy and harmful things and that argument fails. It is hard enough to get agreement on those things that are beneficial to everyone. What about preserving the environment, the world? These are things that only government can do for people. The answer is the carpenter who crates up his baby crib to protect it from harm, giving his own children somewhere else to sleep so that the children of following generations can enjoy the crib too. Yes, that is what we're talking about today, creating up the environment for the benefit of citizens not yet born. The reasonable presumption is that these same leaders would not let our children use it either. The answer is that we do not hire people to deny us. We hire them to do things for us. If they are doing things for the environment at our expense, they should be treated as agents who refuse to serve the people who pay them. Our challenge is knowing enough about general management that we the people can come together and direct our government to the purposes for which we elect representatives, which is to represent us. We don't hire government parents to rule over us or to see to our needs as they think is best. We hire people to serve. To do this, we must find those results that we so value as a people that we can agree to assign responsibility for result upon our leaders. That is what we will do. That is what we will need to mandate if we are to establish owner management over our government. Will our leaders support this? The answer is not simple but is obvious. Our leaders are also people, not some class of divinely blessed parental authorities. Our leaders will share in our corporate sense of value, even if it is not their own choice. If they are in that small minority, they will understand this the same way other small minorities understand it. Where less than one in five supports their understanding, they will go along with the supermajority, for that is human. Again, the challenge is finding those things in which we have such a remarkable agreement. I might suggest that agreement is likely in demand that congressmen personally answer to their constituents for any acts misrepresenting the public that elects them. Any congressman who takes action in defiance of representation should be subject to recall from their congressional seats and replacement with someone who is willing to serve. For one application, we might use a grand jury finding by an appropriate supermajority of jurors in agreement that proposes their removal. It would then be up to the appropriate lower level government to step in and appoint a successor as if the office had been otherwise vacated. Will congressmen support this? It is a matter of how much they want to stay employed. If 80% of his public support in a congressman's area supports removal, which has good possibility if the jury supports it, other congressmen are unlikely to object. That would encourage their personal removal for cause. Can there be citizen agreement that no legislation be passed that expends public funds unless there be a productive result to be delivered back to Congress? That is called an assignment that the law expends public resources also serves us as assignment for the ones who are resourced for action. Again, this directive has a good chance for finding the level of agreement that will make it public mandate. What about a mandate that Congress cannot expend dollars from any voting district without the approval of the House representative and one of the senators representing those citizens except where it is supported by two-thirds vote of both House and Senate? If this becomes a mandate, then each House member is empowered to represent his or her constituents directly, no more corporate sovereignty overruling the people's representatives. Note that this is what we addressed earlier as an improvement, cutting wasteful spending on bills that do not serve the people. Again, there is good potential to address waste in terms of demands put upon citizens to serve their government. As we addressed it in discussion on real property, every demand that is placed on citizens to own and transfer ownership of their property can be eliminated by having the county governments serve the people instead of requiring citizen actions. It would have county employees meeting their own regulatory requirements instead of requiring the people to meet governmental requirements. Can this get 80% county and state level agreement among the people that their government follow its own rules and service its citizens? The alternative question is who would object? We can be sure that it is mostly the real estate brokers and lawyers and title insurance professionals who would no longer be hired by the people buying and selling their own property. To that we would add a percentage of the people who would rather not support a random number. Yes, agreement is possible here with a net reduction in the resources demanded of property owners. The cost increased in recording changes in ownership is likely to be minor, but for significant decrease in the cost of experts to support those who buy and sell property. Establishing citizen management over government is generally a value to we the people. Agreement is possible to set exception management in place so that any citizen is able to assure that the elements of government are serving we the people. This includes strengthening the assignment of duties and responsibilities set on public employees. It is assignment to serve the people who elect them. It includes arranging for our representatives to function as performance managers over what they assign through legislation. It includes arranging management feedback of information that supports our exception management effort. Our general purpose in this is to assure that our government which acts in our name and with our authority using our resources delivers governmental services to meet our needs and wants. Our twin challenges will be to come to agreement among ourselves on what is needed and to keep from the temptation of revolution tearing up everything instead of just cutting away the waste. When our leadership is no longer able to wastefully spend then we can see to reduction in the burden that our government would put upon us to support its spending and that is a good thing.