 Government management is a challenge that cannot be met with just authority. This is no course in revolution. It is a course in citizen empowerment. Even more on point, this course does not give power to the citizen who passes through it. It discovers a power that is already there, and it reveals the source and nature of citizen sovereignty. Citizen power is discovered, not created. The knowledge imparted within this area of study is designed as a foundation for taking actions as empowered citizens. It includes the study of our legal foundation and government structure, so that citizens share in basic understanding of the nature of their empowerment. And that nature is one of empowerment as a people. When we the people come to agreement among ourselves, then we are the center of all national power and authority. It was by exercise of this that the United States became a nation instead of a confederation of independent states with common interests. At the time of our nation's founding, we the people were not ready to assume management over our nation. We entrusted it to those who were elected to represent us, and to see to our interests as both individuals and as a corporate nation. Even the leaders were unprepared. They had their own understanding of authority. It was set in sovereignty of government, and changing this was seen as a cost. Change is always seen as a cost, even a beneficial change. Our leaders did what they knew. They assumed the U.S. to be a sovereign government over the common people they represented. We have continued to this time as people unprepared to assume our legal authority, which is citizen sovereignty. This course is a foundation for applying our authority as gathered sovereign people who own our nation, our government, and our economy. The tool is management, giving proper and effective executive management support to those who have been hired to operate our nation on our behalf. The tool is not one of doing the operation, but one of entering into exception management over our leaders. It is giving them direction where needed, and to provide support to do things we assigned to their responsibility, and provide adequate rewards for their service, then they deliver to us. We just begin with the Constitution as our initial document. It is a source for our agreed purposes, our granted authorities to our leaders, and what we expect our leaders to deliver to us as a product of their performance. All management starts with purpose, with something that those who are hired into labor are to accomplish as a basis for hiring them into service. Our documented purpose is to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. This is the management purpose we set upon those who are elected or hired into public service. Our constituting document serves as an assignment of these purposes to all those who are paid as public servants. Our task will include establishing and maintaining our management over these public employees for the purpose of gaining these results through their efforts. Needless to say, this purpose has not been historically filled by we the people as a public owner. To establish exception management, we need to assume direct authority over three areas, finances, personnel, and discipline. For this, we need a forum in which we can regularly come together to receive and evaluate management feedback on our government's fulfillment of our purposes. Voting annually for which of a few offered candidates will be given authority is obviously inadequate to meet this purpose. As exception managers, we only need to actually exercise authority when there is a need for additional assignment, for additional public resources, for review of personnel actions, or matters of discipline being taken in our name. Our need is to support this government as it accomplishes what we have assigned. Our means of addressing these will be management feedback from operation of our government. We need to receive information on what is being used up in running this government and the goods and services that we receive from its operation. One obvious exception management directive would be that our public resources are only to be used on efforts that return value to us. Where there is no value being delivered to us, expending public resources should be treated as a criminal act, either embezzlement or misrepresentation. We also need to have a forum for intentional review of the management feedback on the success or failure of each funded government effort. Our review provides our leaders a clear vision of what we the people both receive and value from their representative actions. The concept of executive management was clearly not a part of the original vision that established this nation. The only apparent people's body for review is the grand jury, a citizen with a power of presentments. This will probably have to do as a first effort, though we are in authority, as we are agreed, to establish such executive management bodies as we think are proper. We also need to address review of personnel actions. The constituting document does not have a body of citizens performing this function. It rather sets Congress in authority to perform review of elections of its representative body. This is technically inadequate for the purpose of executive management. Congressional review can form the basis for information supporting an executive review of personnel actions, but the review is necessary for executive management. There, once again, needs to be an executive review to accept or change hiring or termination actions. A jury review should be appropriate, giving a final approval to all such personnel actions. This has recently become an issue with presidential candidates, who specifically stated qualifications for office appeared to be in question. Such matters should have been settled before the office was filled, but were obviously left in the hands of those who had other priorities. Having other priorities is appropriate for we the people, not for our representatives to whom such requirements were assigned for performance. The third matter is discipline, both review of discipline by representatives and discipline potentials for original application. The first is a simple review, and the people can and should be the final arbiter and approver on all hires where we choose to assume this review. It would certainly include discipline of elected officers who were empowered as citizen representatives. The first type of representation would involve submission of all internal disciplinary actions to senior officers for we the people's review before any application. The second is origination of disciplinary actions. This is sitting as the representative jury originating actions on whatever disciplinary actions we may find to be appropriate. I note that the grand jury system is now not arranged to perform the whole executive management function. I would suggest that there be a gathering of we the people by whatever means seem acceptable, to more thoroughly document and establish the manpower system that serves our corporate purpose. It also seems appropriate that no government burden upon we the people be authorized without expressive approval of we the people as the only party in interest. As owners of the nation, we are the ultimate source of public resource, whether through taxation, fee, seizures, or other means. Ongoing burdens on we the people would be a subject to periodic review. I note that there were severe limitations placed in the original writing of the Constitution and government leadership chose to ignore these. Without our executive management review, that has been allowed as if authorized. No system of taxation should be considered as authorized without executive approval. Unauthorized taxation is a reversal of the purpose of serving we the people, a reversal of representation. Such efforts involve people being forced to invest in their government's efforts, independent of receiving anything that they value in return. We the people want our nation to function and will support such taxation as may be needed to perform the functions of government for our purposes. Another matter is secrecy. There is no such thing as a secret representation. Even the attempt at taking action unknown to those who are represented is intentional misrepresentation. The value in protecting a certain actions or information from general publication is recognized. A potential performance approach is again jury review of actions that the public officers would secure from wider public scrutiny. A finding of need by we the people as represented by the sample who are the jury would then authorize securing matters from the larger public. This is also a matter for reviewers to dealings with other nations. If these undertakings by public officers in the name of the people, then securing them from the people is the exception. We the people are not the ones who claim to need secure representation from ourselves. Citizen rights to representation should be considered as absolutes as we already recognize that parents do not politically represent their minor children. It is only when our youth reach their majority that they are entitled to independent representation services. In the alternative, our government needs to know who it is to represent. We need a recognition of the acceptance of the United States government that we own. It is reasonable that every citizen who would be represented sign a copy of our constitutional agreement and be verified as to citizenship. All signatories will then be recognized by government as personally entitled to a citizen's voice in our constitutional government's operation. We cannot have public representatives who do not know who they are to represent. This supports a registration where the death of a citizen is noted and removed from the list. It simplifies the constitutional requirement for a census in support of the operation of our government, setting the voting role so that citizens can be identified with their signatures on the Constitution. The periodic census would also include verification of citizens on voting roles, removing those who are no longer living and verifying transfers to and from other recording jurisdictions. This list of citizens entitled to vote would provide an initial requirement for federal jury duty and for representation through any grand jury or other gathering to exercise executive authority over government operations and personnel. Any citizens who are not on the list of constitutional signatories will be assumed to be represented as part of the larger citizenry. We as the only party in interest are able to establish executive management over our government. This initially includes the purposes written into our constitution, which should be signed by each and every citizen as accepting its terms and limitations and in recognition of the rights of other signing citizens. This would include authority to assign additional duties and responsibilities to public officers and to see to the three functions of final review for finance, for personnel and for matters of discipline. The mechanism for accomplishing this is not currently a part of our constitution but is most closely aligned with an expansion of the grand jury, empowering it to perform the functions that are essential for executive management. Each grand jury would act as a sampling of we the people, representing the larger population of the citizens who have signed our constitution and whose names are on the list deciding citizens.