Government Agency

Government Agency: Funding?

2008-06-25T20:09:46.0000Z

I think what Jeff is suggesting is right on the money, no pun intended.

Government Agency: Funding?

2008-06-24T21:21:11.0012Z

I think that a relatively simple CVT as Jeff proposes would suffice to say things like, “The FY 2007 budget of the Department of Homeland Security was G$44.9.” Sources and breakdowns could be added to that CVT later if there is real demand.

Federal Bureau of Investigation: Additional types

2008-06-24T21:19:05.0005Z

That’s not a bad idea. I see you’ve also posted it on the Government Agency type; I’ll join the discussion there.

Government Agency: Funding?

2008-06-24T19:17:55.0000Z

Not to be difficult here, but most agencies (and organizations) receive "funding" from multiple sources. I would suggest "operating budget" or something else more inclusive sounding to describe how much money was available for use during a certain time period. Either that or add a "Funding source" property to the CVT if you want to be specific about funding.

Government Agency: Funding?

2008-06-24T18:18:21.0012Z

They do seem reasonable. For funding, would a simple CVT that had properties for currency, amount, and year be sufficient?

Government Agency: Funding?

2008-06-23T21:21:50.0005Z

I added a comment to the FBI page, but perhaps it is better suited here. Could a "funding" property be added to the agency? Also, how about a "number of employees" property? These both seem reasonable and necessary.

Federal Bureau of Investigation: Additional types

2008-06-23T21:15:50.0000Z

I meant property, not type. My apologies.

Federal Bureau of Investigation: Additional types

2008-06-23T21:15:28.0012Z

Could government agencies be given the type "Funding"? It seems the amount of money given to them each year is probably worthy of note.

Government Agency: Suggestions for additional properties for Government Agency Type

2008-06-09T17:04:21.0000Z

Yeah, level of government is complicated. Not all countries are the same, nor are all cities. Some have metro bodies that encompass more than one locality.

I think I've always done 3 levels, and they can mean whatever it means for that country: Federal, Regional, Local:

Federal=country level only
Regional=provinces, states, cantons, administrative divisions (like Spain), or even cross-provincial entities
Local=below state regional (i.e., cities, metro agencies)

I'm not saying that is the best way to go or anything, but just an example.

Government Agency: Government "Agency" vs. "Body"

2008-06-09T16:57:04.0000Z

I disagree. I think at the federal level it would be the country's congress or equiv. It is not an agency (yes it may have employees but I still think it is a "body"), and I think it is a valid distinction. Yes, it is limited in use, but still a distinction. (most govt entities will be an agency)

Government Agency: Government "Agency" vs. "Body"

2008-06-08T17:43:27.0005Z

I am a little anxious about saying anything as a big old newbie, but I don't think the disctinction between "governmental body" and "government agency" is valid, either legally or practically except in limited circumstances. The distinction seems to swing on whether the "body" has employees, in which case it becomes an "agency."

Many government agencies that have employees also have boatloads of politicians who are elected or appointed to leadership or managerial roles in that agency: the FCC, for example.

Second, there are virtually no "government bodies" that are composed of politicians only. Courts, many city councils, legislatures all have employees, even though the people calling the shots in those entities were elected or appointed through the political process. They all have employees / flunkies to carry out the directives of the decision-makers.

The division between government "body" and government "agency" does not take into account the realities of modern government, wherein various "bodies" have employees and "agencies" have politicians on board.

Just my thoughts, but I believe the distinction is artificial. I think that categories based upon the legal status of the entity, such as belonging to the executive, legislative or judicial branches would be a better starting point. The three branches of government are not just a taxonomy, but tell something about the nature and powers of the entities that belong to them.

Thanks for your help! Dennis

Government Agency: Suggestions for additional properties for Government Agency Type

2007-11-13T00:25:27.0007Z

Sounds like we're in agreement about the predecessor/successor model. Level of government is an interesting problem. Part of the problem is nomenclature -- "national" and "local" are fairly straightforward, although there can be several levels of government that are arguably "local" (in the US, city/town/village and township are pretty clearly local, and I would guess county is as well). But for the in-between level(s), I'm not sure -- at what point does an administrative division stop being local and start being "state"-level? Are Italian provinces "local" or "regional" (they sit below "region" but above "comune" in terms of hierarchy)? I also wonder if this could just be inferred from the jurisdiction itself? (I.e., this agency has a jurisdiction of something that is a city, therefore it is local?)

Government Agency: Suggestions for additional properties for Government Agency Type

2007-11-10T22:27:06.0007Z

Scratch my comment about a single government agency splitting in two, as I realized after I posted this that that defines a predecessor/successor relationship! I guess Jeff's suggestion is the best, that a split would involve two or more agencies being separated and that merger would involve two or more agencies being brought together.

On the issue Jeff raised of a "an agency spawning off a section of itself into a new agency, but without dissolving the parent agency," I think you're still looking there at a predecessor relationship. The new agency's predecessor is the parent agency that remains behind.

Government Agency: Suggestions for additional properties for Government Agency Type

2007-11-10T20:09:59.0007Z

Hello Crism and Jeff - sorry for the lengthy delay in getting back to your replies for more information/comments on my suggestion. It looks like you've acted on some of them, which is great. I looked at the current instances of Governmental Jurisdiction and it looks like I used the wrong term for what I was trying to impart, though I thought from the examples I used -- "(federal, state or provincial, regional municipal or local)" -- that what I meant was a property that embodied that aspect of government. I think this is a very important element that can be used for meaningful queries. That being said, I'll leave it up to you to decide whether the "level" of government, for want of a better term, should be a property of the Governmental Jurisdiction Type, the Government Body Type or some other Type.

Regarding the Predecessor/Successor properties, I believe the Split/Merged properties are required and could work the way Jeff indicates, except a that split would also have to allow for the last example he cites of an agency spawning off a section of itself into a new agency without dissolving the parent agency. In other words, a single government agency can simply split in two, which frequently happens at the state and provincial levels. On the other hand, mergers can encompass any number of agencies being amalgamated. In my part of the world, it would be very unusual for four agencies or departments to be merged into one. More typical is a merger of up to three, with two departments being merged into one representing, I think, the norm.

Government Agency: Suggestions for additional properties for Government Agency Type

2007-10-30T19:24:36.0007Z

I'm working on revising this model right now. One thought I had is that we could use predecessor/successor properties to represent split/merged as well: If an agency has two (or more) successor agencies, it would indicate a split; if it has two or more predecessors, it would indicate a merge. The only thing this doesn't cover, I suppose, is the case of an agency spawning off a section of itself into a new agency, but without dissolving the parent agency.

Government Agency: Suggestions for additional properties for Government Agency Type

2007-10-16T01:57:37.0007Z

Thanks for the suggestions, David. The establishment and dissolution dates seem pretty straightforward.

For country and jurisdiction: would it be sufficient if the associated government had more location-based information? Or are there a significant number of agencies whose jurisdictions are different from that of their governments?

Along similar lines, are both predecessor/successor and split/merged needed? Would just predecessor/successor suffice? And what proportion of agencies have this? The answer will influence priorities, I think.

Thanks again for looking at this.

Government Agency: Suggestions for additional properties for Government Agency Type

2007-10-08T03:08:10.0005Z

I would like to suggest the following properties for the Government Agency Type:

Predecessor Agency
Successor Agency
Split From
Merged With
Established Date
Disestablishment Date
Country (as distinct from Government)
Jurisdiction (federal, state or provincial, regional municipal or local)

Thanks!