I have a modest proposal. Every large bureaucratic organization – schools, corporations, charities, and of course every level of government – should create an Office of Unreasonable Rules. The sole power of this Office is to hear complaints about unreasonable rules elsewhere in their organizations. Should they determine that a rule is unreasonable, they (a) Grant the complainant an exception, and (b) Tell whoever made the rule to make the rule more reasonable.
For example, at a certain university I know of, the Math Department only allows students to take placement tests for the next math course. Even if a student is clearly able to leapfrog several classes ahead – for example, because they unofficially took the harder class and earned an unofficial A – they aren’t even allowed to try the placement exam. Almost anyone can see that this is an unreasonable rule, but under the university’s current regime, there’s nothing the student can do about it. If an Office of Unreasonable Rules existed, they would have recourse.
Notice how my proposal modifies existing incentives. Right now, victims of bureaucratic abuse usually give up in despair. Their only option is to quixotically persuade the system to mend its ways. With an Office of Unreasonable Rules, the victim has a clear selfish incentive to push back against unreason. Namely: If they win, they automatically get an exception. In the aftermath, the rule-makers have to mend their ways, but the victim doesn’t have to wait around and hope they do a better job. In exchange for nudging the System in a better direction, they get relief.
Wouldn’t this put rule-makers in a tough spot? Indeed. That’s a feature, not a bug. If you think that bureaucratic organizations tend to cavalierly impose onerous rules, wouldn’t it be a good idea to pressure them to think before they boss? The very existence of an Office of Unreasonable Rules would hang over rule-makers’ heads. Not like the Sword of Damocles. More like Jiminy Cricket.
READER COMMENTS
Brian Peters
Jan 19 2022 at 10:25am
A decade or two ago, I worked at the NY Federal Reserve Bank. As part of our effort to change the culture, we actually had a “Silly Rules Committee” – staff were encouraged to elevate the stupid legacy things we were doing. Worked well as a limited initiative.
robc
Jan 19 2022 at 11:32am
Why limited?
Over time, hopefully, it would become less useful, but I can’t imagine you got to the point was everything was so perfect it was no longer needed.
Jose Pablo
Jan 22 2022 at 7:29pm
“Over time, hopefully, it would become less useful”
That’s a lot of baseless hope!
If the capacity of an organization to create new silly rules exceeds their capacity to amend existing silly rules (with the “limited” help of the “silly rules committee”), this committee will be increasingly useful overtime … or, at least, increasingly busy.
A very likely scenario, indeed.
Laurie Carver
Jan 19 2022 at 11:36am
What incentive do the staff of the Office of Unreasonable Rules to rule an unreasonable rule officially Unreasonable? Who sets their pay and evaluates their performance? Wouldn’t it just get captured by the unreasonable rule creators?
MikeDC
Jan 19 2022 at 11:41am
Seems like this is the traditional ombudsman role, although maybe with a little bit more authority (authority of ombudsmen seems to vary widely over time and place). So, it’s definitely a good idea, but I don’t hold out a lot of hope for it.
What I picture is, for example, the student who appeals about the math placement test to get his exception. The math department forms a committee to update their placement testing regime. 18 months later, they simply get rid of placement exams altogether, and force everyone to take every class in the sequence unless they have a transcript showing they’ve already satisfactorily passed the assignment.
Phil H
Jan 20 2022 at 1:57am
I have to agree that this sounds like a very good idea, and also like an idea that already exists, as others have noted above. In order to make it politically more palatable, rather than using the word “unreasonable,” you could call it an “exceptions” process, and include a procedure by which, when an exception is granted, the exceptions office may make a recommendation for altering the rule.
Mark Brophy
Jan 20 2022 at 3:57am
The Small Business Administration has an Office of Advocacy that tries to reform government agencies.
The purpose of Advocacy’s Regional Regulatory Reform Roundtables is to:
Identify regional small business regulatory issues in order to assist agencies with regulatory reform and reduction in compliance with Executive Orders 13771 & 13777;
Compile crucial information for Advocacy’s new report on existing small business regulatory burdens across the nation, identifying specific recommendations for regulatory changes based upon first-hand accounts from small businesses across the country; and
Inform and educate the small business public as to how Advocacy and SBA can assist them with their small business.
Jake Witmer
Jan 21 2022 at 5:25pm
What enforcement powers would the Office of Unreasonable Rules possess in order to make all the stupid and unreasonable sociopaths implied by part (b) comply? …Would they be supplied with enough ammunition to make switching to 3-round burst feasible?
Comments are closed.