Posted by so on May 20, 2005, at 13:32:22
In reply to Re: effective government, posted by Dr. Bob on May 20, 2005, at 10:06:24
> > But in effective government, major disagreements are assigned to legislative venues, and the result of disagreements are codified into law, which is administered by an executive branch, with any disgreements settled by a yet-again removed judicial branch.
>
> It could be debated, how effective governments like that are, but in any case, it would be a big jump to go from this system to one like that. Would you like to propose a next step, starting from where we are now?
>
> Bob
We might be on the same side of such a debate, or at least each offering sound if not similar critiques. A parliamentary system can be a bit less cumbersome. Benevolent dictatorships sometimes seem to work -- especially when they include elements of democracy as in Cuba or the People's Republic of China. But they tend to ebb and flow, regarding their respect for rights, as seems to be the case in the dictatorship that governs this board. But then the world's leading tripartite government hasn't always scored so well on human rights, either.Bob, the thing that trips up more young doctors than anything else is they go out on their own where they have no governing influence from peers. A first step toward more effective governance for you would be to invite a peer to join you in administering the board. A retired p-doc might be ideal -- someone whose clinical and administrative experience you admire and to whom you would afford deference. I would like to think you could identify such a person and offer them the deference and humility needed to recruit them to your project.
Moving the site away from the University, for whatever reason you did so, might have reduced a growing body of input that could have helped you. University support could still be an option, but you know what the issues were there better than I do. I suspect it had to do with your academic and professional liberty, if only freedom from bureaucratic red tape.
If you selectively invited peers to participate, it would allow you to stack the deck in favor of governance that aligns with your philosophies. You might even consider interns ... psychiatric med student interns ... whose youth might bring courage and insight to challenge you in ways you won't accept from members of the group. This could be an adjunct to your limited deputy system, and could result in support for your deputies you simply don't have the time to provide. That might be the dynamic I am witnessing -- you might have a limited personal budget and could be inclined to convince yourself whatever you can fit in your current budget is sufficient for all needs.
A second step, or an alternate first step, would be to seek funding to support the site. The process of documenting your accomplishments and challenges in a grant application would serve the same purpose ... it would formally document your governance in a way not intended to present as research, but in a way that could improve operation of the site. The feedback you get from a foundation board could inform you on matters such as liability, harm and efficacy.
Anyway, it's a good question you asked. Maybe it's just my ego wanting to feel important, but I get the sense you asked sincerely and might consider using the input you requested. What is important is that you alone are the one who can decide whether to take a step in the direction about which you seem interested.
poster:so
thread:491889
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/500370.html