This week’s “Daily Journal” guest columnist is Paul Messino, Project Management Specialist for the John Locke Foundation.
It occurred to me earlier this week that the increased access to timely information has done more to impede our acquisition of answers than it has done to accelerate it. Despite breakthroughs in technology, which quicken the speed with which we move from question to answer, we’re not saving time — we’re actually spending more of it. What’s more, where we think the “instant-access age” may help illuminate the opaque political system, we’re disappointed to find that it just ain’t so.
When we use technology as an aid for inquiry, we’re hoping to quickly get in touch with a source that can provide us with the most correct answer to any number of questions. I say “most correct” because our definition of correct these days is time-stamped. Whether it is the most-recent theory of quantum mechanics or the current population of Albuquerque, N.M., every answer we’re looking for is in relation to the next-best answer that may be out there.
An answer requires more than just time-relevance. It also must be scrutinized in terms of source. Even after we find the answer we’ve been searching for, we inevitably ask from whom are we getting our information? Is it reliable? Can I be appeased with this answer, or are there more questions to be asked as a result? And as we answer these questions in turn, we find that the search seems to be unending.
Pretty soon, we may find ourselves in a circle-search, reminiscent of Alice and her host of drenched companions, running willy-nilly at the behest of the Dodo, where
First [the Dodo] marked out a race-course, in a sort of circle, (‘the exact shape doesn’t matter,’ it said,) and then all the party were placed along the course, here and there. There was no ‘One, two, three, and away,’ but they began running when they liked, and left off when they liked, so that it was not easy to know when the race was over.
And though the analogy to the never-ending, ill-defined race fits quite well with our search for answers in this fast-paced information age, it fits even better when this search is concerned with the actions of government.
Awed at the diabolical taxing scheme designed for the proposed Wilmington convention center (brought on by concerns that the center would tank, and neither the private parties involved nor the city would be able to afford to subsidize the mess), I decided to track the legislation in the General Assembly. I had hoped that in moving to the source, I might be able to cut past the newspaper spin and follow the issue for myself.
In comparison to other legislative sites in the nation, North Carolina has one of the best. It’s organized, easy to follow, and provides quick responses to search terms – all in all, very “citizen friendly.” Despite this, it’s impossible to find the Senate bill which initiated the proposed change in Wilmington to allow for the financial funding of the proposed convention center.
Part of the problem here is that the original title of the bill affecting the center’s funding is called the Burgaw Occupancy Tax bill. I found this out after searching the site, and then conferring with the available news sources.
In the House, this bill later became the Burgaw/New Hanover/Wilmington Occupancy Tax bill. Among other things, it created the New Hanover County Tax District “U” – which was to consist of all the unincorporated areas of the county outside of the City of Wilmington – and then levied a 3 percent occupancy tax in those areas. Within Wilmington, the current 6 percent hotel tax, which was divided equally between beach nourishment and tourism promotion, would now go exclusively to the convention center. The new 3 percent occupancy tax in the unincorporated areas would help cover the revenue lost in subsidizing the convention center.
The House sent its amended bill back to the Senate, and a conference committee resulted. The House voted for the changes, while the Senate just yesterday approved legislation, though what exactly they passed, is still unknown to the public. Piecing together the life of this bill, while indisputably aided by technology, only alerted me to the inherent imperfection in a technologically-based system. For all its value, technology is only as fast as the human component maintaining it.
Behind the thousands of government employees who each contribute to the law-making process, the average citizen should be circumspect when someone praises technology’s ability to increase the accountability and transparency of government.
In short, if you’re looking to find answers these days, you shouldn’t always praise the Dodo, even if he’s dressed up in the most recent information-age garb.