Super relevant to the elections discussion. I list the scenario and you tell me if the example is an example of corruption.


1. There is a pothole on Main Street. A Concerned citizen calls his City Council Member and the City Council Member calls of the Department of Transportation and has the pothole fixed right away (jumping the head of the queue of requests to have potholes fix). City Council Member has no relationship with the Concerned Citizen other than he is a constituent.

2. Same scenario as the above but later, the City Council Member send the Concerned Citizen a flyer asking him to donate to his re-election campaign.


3. There is a pothole on Main Street. The Brother of a City Council Member calls the City Council Member and the City Council Member calls of the Department of Transportation and has the pothole fixed right away (jumping the head of the queue of requests to have potholes fix).

4. There is a pothole on Main Street. The largest donor of a City Council Member calls the City Council Member and the City Council Member calls of the Department of Transportation and has the pothole fixed right away (jumping the head of the queue of requests to have potholes fix).

5. There is a pothole on Main Street. The head of the largest church and other wise very prominent member of the community calls the City Council Member and the City Council Member calls of the Department of Transportation and has the pothole fixed right away (jumping the head of the queue of requests to have potholes fix).

6. There is a pothole on Main Street. A Concerned citizen calls his City Council Member and the City Council Member does nothing about it. The Concerned citizen keeps complaining. The City Council Member sends a request for a donation and the City Council Member does not call the Department of Transportation and have the pothole fixed until the concerned citizen makes a donation. There is no evidence that the City Council Member made an explicit request for a donation in order to fix the problem.



Which of these scenarios in your mind involve corruption.







**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>1. There is a pothole on Main Street. A Concerned citizen
>calls his City Council Member and the City Council Member
>calls of the Department of Transportation and has the pothole
>fixed right away (jumping the head of the queue of requests to
>have potholes fix). City Council Member has no relationship
>with the Concerned Citizen other than he is a constituent.

woulda been cool had he not jumped the line.
>
>2. Same scenario as the above but later, the City Council
>Member send the Concerned Citizen a flyer asking him to donate
>to his re-election campaign.
>
corruption
>
>3. There is a pothole on Main Street. The Brother of a City
>Council Member calls the City Council Member and the City
>Council Member calls of the Department of Transportation and
>has the pothole fixed right away (jumping the head of the
>queue of requests to have potholes fix).

corruption

>
>4. There is a pothole on Main Street. The largest donor of a
>City Council Member calls the City Council Member and the City
>Council Member calls of the Department of Transportation and
>has the pothole fixed right away (jumping the head of the
>queue of requests to have potholes fix).

corruption
>
>5. There is a pothole on Main Street. The head of the
>largest church and other wise very prominent member of the
>community calls the City Council Member and the City Council
>Member calls of the Department of Transportation and has the
>pothole fixed right away (jumping the head of the queue of
>requests to have potholes fix).

corruption

>
>6. There is a pothole on Main Street. A Concerned citizen
>calls his City Council Member and the City Council Member does
>nothing about it. The Concerned citizen keeps complaining.
>The City Council Member sends a request for a donation and the
>City Council Member does not call the Department of
>Transportation and have the pothole fixed until the concerned
>citizen makes a donation. There is no evidence that the City
>Council Member made an explicit request for a donation in
>order to fix the problem.
>
corruption
>
>

>Super relevant to the elections discussion. I list the
>scenario and you tell me if the example is an example of
>corruption.
>
>
>1. There is a pothole on Main Street. A Concerned citizen
>calls his City Council Member and the City Council Member
>calls of the Department of Transportation and has the pothole
>fixed right away (jumping the head of the queue of requests to
>have potholes fix). City Council Member has no relationship
>with the Concerned Citizen other than he is a constituent.
>
>2. Same scenario as the above but later, the City Council
>Member send the Concerned Citizen a flyer asking him to donate
>to his re-election campaign.

1 and 2: Totally fine; those are just what representative democracy is.


>3. There is a pothole on Main Street. The Brother of a City
>Council Member calls the City Council Member and the City
>Council Member calls of the Department of Transportation and
>has the pothole fixed right away (jumping the head of the
>queue of requests to have potholes fix).

Embarrassing, but I don't think it would amount to a significant scandal, especially if the member's brother is a constituent.

>4. There is a pothole on Main Street. The largest donor of a
>City Council Member calls the City Council Member and the City
>Council Member calls of the Department of Transportation and
>has the pothole fixed right away (jumping the head of the
>queue of requests to have potholes fix).

Again, embarrassing, but not scandalous unless there's a quid pro quo. If this donor is a constituent, then the member would just say he helped him like he would any other constituent (which may or may not be true, but impossible to say for sure). If there was evidence of an agreement that future donations would come if and only if this pothole was fixed, then I think that would be a crime.

>5. There is a pothole on Main Street. The head of the
>largest church and other wise very prominent member of the
>community calls the City Council Member and the City Council
>Member calls of the Department of Transportation and has the
>pothole fixed right away (jumping the head of the queue of
>requests to have potholes fix).

Totally okay. Pandering, probably, but political pandering isn't corruption.

>6. There is a pothole on Main Street. A Concerned citizen
>calls his City Council Member and the City Council Member does
>nothing about it. The Concerned citizen keeps complaining.
>The City Council Member sends a request for a donation and the
>City Council Member does not call the Department of
>Transportation and have the pothole fixed until the concerned
>citizen makes a donation. There is no evidence that the City
>Council Member made an explicit request for a donation in
>order to fix the problem.

Very embarrassing, and would likely lead to a scandal that would undermine future support for the member. But if there's no evidence I assume it couldn't be prosecuted. Whether or not it's "corruption" depends on the particular motivations of the member, which we'll never know. But luckily that's not the important question.

The fact the the council member uses her influence to push the pothole repair to the top of the queue is corruption. She is using here influence to skirt the rule of law.

3, 4,5, and 6 fit the more common definition of corruption though

_______________________________________

to use their influence to improve the lives of their constituents.

They are advocates for their constituents.

I think if there were rules, laws about the order of pothole repair maybe what you say would make more sense to me.

But politicians should be doing everything they can within the law to be responsive to the needs of their constituents.


That being said, our system is a little broken because by legal standards, none of the above would be considered necessarily corruption.


>The fact the the council member uses her influence to push
>the pothole repair to the top of the queue is corruption. She
>is using here influence to skirt the rule of law.
>
>3, 4,5, and 6 fit the more common definition of corruption
>though
>
>
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Administrative functions need to be separate from political functions. Politicians should not be able to manipulate the inner workings of the bureaucracy.

_______________________________________

It's the same thing really.

---
"People that need positivity around them all the time are weak individuals in my book" - @lilduval

Not to arrest Billy for disturbing the peace.

Again, political functions vs administrative. You don't what politicians having a say in the day to day operations of the police.

_______________________________________

>Again, political functions vs administrative. You don't what
>politicians having a say in the day to day operations of the
>police.

I'm gonna assume the 'what' there is a want and respond with yeah I do. The NYPD police chief doesn't care what I want. A senator, rep, governor, or even POTUS might.

There are instances of political pressure being used for the good. My personal corruption test is 1. is it for the many or the few and 2. are there any ill-gotten gains for said politician.

---
"People that need positivity around them all the time are weak individuals in my book" - @lilduval

I complain to my congress person for more police presence in my hood. He in turns calls the local PD and tells them to put my cops on my block. More police on my block mean Billy ends up getting arrested.

Something wrong with that?



>Not to arrest Billy for disturbing the peace.
>
>Again, political functions vs administrative. You don't what
>politicians having a say in the day to day operations of the
>police.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

If the administrative and bureaucratic didn't have to be responsive to the people and their elective officials, that granting way to much power to the bureaucracies and we end up with some Soviet nightmare bureaucracy.


>Administrative functions need to be separate from political
>functions. Politicians should not be able to manipulate the
>inner workings of the bureaucracy.
>
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

That's the purpose of joining such organizations.

---
"People that need positivity around them all the time are weak individuals in my book" - @lilduval

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

to decide who gets service and in which order?


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

EDIT: Excellent post b_g


>Super relevant to the elections discussion. I list the
>scenario and you tell me if the example is an example of
>corruption.
>
>
>1. There is a pothole on Main Street. A Concerned citizen
>calls his City Council Member and the City Council Member
>calls of the Department of Transportation and has the pothole
>fixed right away (jumping the head of the queue of requests to
>have potholes fix). City Council Member has no relationship
>with the Concerned Citizen other than he is a constituent.

There might be a power imbalance or the other city council members may be more apathetic, but the CC member did their job. That last sentence is crucial in saying this isn't corruption.

>2. Same scenario as the above but later, the City Council
>Member send the Concerned Citizen a flyer asking him to donate
>to his re-election campaign.

Ok. Cashing in on good will. Seems standard. I'm ok with it because #1 was above board.

>
>3. There is a pothole on Main Street. The Brother of a City
>Council Member calls the City Council Member and the City
>Council Member calls of the Department of Transportation and
>has the pothole fixed right away (jumping the head of the
>queue of requests to have potholes fix).

NOPE. I can see how it fits in the confines of #1, but I'm not okay with jumping the line for any reason other than keeping non related constituents happy. Only swing your dick for good, etc.

>4. There is a pothole on Main Street. The largest donor of a
>City Council Member calls the City Council Member and the City
>Council Member calls of the Department of Transportation and
>has the pothole fixed right away (jumping the head of the
>queue of requests to have potholes fix).

This is corruption. The motivation is quid pro quo and their previous relationship separates this from the possibility of a donation/vote from concerned citizen in question one.

>5. There is a pothole on Main Street. The head of the
>largest church and other wise very prominent member of the
>community calls the City Council Member and the City Council
>Member calls of the Department of Transportation and has the
>pothole fixed right away (jumping the head of the queue of
>requests to have potholes fix).

That's the system working. Civil organizations have always been a part of republican democracy and their protection/prominence is built right in to the system.

>6. There is a pothole on Main Street. A Concerned citizen
>calls his City Council Member and the City Council Member does
>nothing about it. The Concerned citizen keeps complaining.
>The City Council Member sends a request for a donation and the
>City Council Member does not call the Department of
>Transportation and have the pothole fixed until the concerned
>citizen makes a donation. There is no evidence that the City
>Council Member made an explicit request for a donation in
>order to fix the problem.
>

That is a disturbing level of corruption. I'd want a probe in to that CC member's every move.


>
>
>Which of these scenarios in your mind involve corruption.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>**********
>"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then
>they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
>
>"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

---
"People that need positivity around them all the time are weak individuals in my book" - @lilduval

then by definition, each of these is corruption.

Politician and say the crime on my block is ridiculous. I want more police presence here. He is suppose to say, "can't help you, it's up to the cops to decide how many police are on your block"?



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

to the front of the line of all existing potholes?

that's corruption by definition.

If I use my influence or authority to help a constituent because I want to do good by my constiuent than I can't see how that is corruption.

Again, you skipped the example of people organizing to get more police presence in their community. If we get 1000 signatures to our congress person demanding change and he calls the local Police Chief to make change happen, how is that corruption eventhough he is using his influence to make change?


>to the front of the line of all existing potholes?
>
>that's corruption by definition.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

that George Clooney movie SYRIANA had that line in it and it always comes back to me.

black lawyer dude was about to bring one of the partners up on charges after being told to find dirt. best he could find at that point in the movie was corruption. his boss flipped out like, nigga you gonna have to do better than corruption!

its all in the game if you ask me. which is why everything stinks.

Let's assume that the pothole line is usually rational (by which I mean, the line is constructed so as to facilitate a combination of 1.) the most work being done daily--e.g. it tackles a specific district at a time, and 2.) it tackles the most inconveniencing potholes first (note these might not be the WORST potholes; there's a nexus between severity and level of traffic that should be taken into account in defining a pothole's inconvenience level...of course, on top of this, there would probably be a determination about dangerous potholes, which would be handled first, no matter where they are, criterion 1 notwithstanding). A 3rd criteria would if possible try to repair the oldest potholes first, since this would accomplish the lowest median inconvenience and automobile wear and tear levels.

To me, I wouldn't consider it suboptimal to then let levels of community feedback inform the determination about number 2 (inconvenience level). If 50 people call about Pothole A, and the most people who have complained about any other pothole is 5 (in regards to Pothole B), is is corruption if this criteria is used to dismiss a previous inconvenience determination that ranked Pothole A as less inconvenient than B? No, this is simply crowdsourcing to find inconvenience level. But this is an easy case obviously--the harder cases would be closer decisions.

Therefore, in answer to your question, it would come down to whether the decision to use a citizen's request to inform inconvenience level actually made sense, when looked at objectively. If their complaint was just one of many, then probably any deference paid to it would be dubious.

I think the problem with your approach which appears fair on it's face is that I don't think the process or government can be completely objective.

There is a subjective element even when you try to make it as objective and scientific as possible and even at it's most objective you are still subject to gaming the system. Sort of like how people game Google Searches.

Ultimately you end up with a system where the people with the resources to figure out and game the system get the most attention which doesn't seem any more fair than randomness or calling your congress person.


I mean the pothole example might be a bad example because you could come close to an objective scheme for figuring out how the line prioritizes request (maybe). But what about clearly more subjective issues like police/community relations?



>Let's assume that the pothole line is usually rational (by
>which I mean, the line is constructed so as to facilitate a
>combination of 1.) the most work being done daily--e.g. it
>tackles a specific district at a time, and 2.) it tackles the
>most inconveniencing potholes first (note these might not be
>the WORST potholes; there's a nexus between severity and level
>of traffic that should be taken into account in defining a
>pothole's inconvenience level...of course, on top of this,
>there would probably be a determination about dangerous
>potholes, which would be handled first, no matter where they
>are, criterion 1 notwithstanding). A 3rd criteria would if
>possible try to repair the oldest potholes first, since this
>would accomplish the lowest median inconvenience and
>automobile wear and tear levels.
>
>To me, I wouldn't consider it suboptimal to then let levels of
>community feedback inform the determination about number 2
>(inconvenience level). If 50 people call about Pothole A, and
>the most people who have complained about any other pothole is
>5 (in regards to Pothole B), is is corruption if this criteria
>is used to dismiss a previous inconvenience determination that
>ranked Pothole A as less inconvenient than B? No, this is
>simply crowdsourcing to find inconvenience level. But this is
>an easy case obviously--the harder cases would be closer
>decisions.
>
>Therefore, in answer to your question, it would come down to
>whether the decision to use a citizen's request to inform
>inconvenience level actually made sense, when looked at
>objectively. If their complaint was just one of many, then
>probably any deference paid to it would be dubious.
>
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"