View From the Bridge: Submarines and governance complexities

Recently I encountered two former Shelter Island supervisors, men who served years apart and under very different circumstances.

One conversation occurred before a funeral service for a local resident, the other while I was walking my dog. Both independently expressed the same concern regarding modern government. Each lamented the extraordinary “complexity” that has overtaken local governance.

The fact that both chose the identical word stayed with me.

Their comments brought me back to an interest I developed years ago as a Navy ROTC midshipman in college. At the time, I was fascinated by ballistic missile submarines — the Navy’s “boomers.”

These vessels operated silently beneath the ocean for months at a time, carrying nuclear reactors, strategic weapons systems, navigation equipment, communications infrastructure, and life-support systems, all managed by roughly 150 people sealed inside a steel pressure hull. The integration of technology and human judgment required to safely operate such a vessel struck me as extraordinary and exhilarating.

Over time I came to appreciate that many critical systems share similar characteristics, including air traffic control systems and electric power grids. Ironically, years after my fascination with naval systems, I would spend a significant portion of my professional life helping manage the electric grid for Public Service Electric and Gas in New Jersey. There, the realities of complexity became very real.

Complex systems share several defining traits. They contain many interconnected parts. Outcomes are often non-linear, meaning small actions can create disproportionately large consequences. Feedback loops can amplify problems unexpectedly.

Most importantly, complex systems produce emergent behavior — outcomes that cannot be predicted simply by examining individual components in isolation. Most sobering of all is the reality that human beings are often poorly equipped to fully comprehend the instability such systems can generate once disruption begins spreading.

That reality applies as much to local governance as it does to electric grids or submarine operations. Modern local government exists at the intersection of environmental regulation, taxation, land use, infrastructure, public safety, labor management, legal compliance, public education, social services, and increasingly intense public scrutiny.

Every decision affects countless others. Financial choices influence infrastructure. Infrastructure affects environmental concerns. Environmental policy affects property rights. Public opinion simultaneously shapes all of it.

The challenge is not merely complexity itself. The greater challenge is maintaining coherent decision-making within that complexity.

Recently on Shelter Island we witnessed what I would describe as the insertion of disingenuous behavior into an already extraordinarily complex civic environment through two letters-to-the-editor and a separate unrelated incident. In complex systems, disingenuous conduct does not merely add “noise.” It attacks the mechanisms that allow systems to remain coherent and functional.

In electric grid operations, for example, operators depend upon accurate system data. If voltage begins collapsing in one sector and an operator ignores or deliberately discounts that reality, the problem does not remain isolated. The false assumption feeds back into the system itself, distorting future decisions and magnifying instability. Eventually the entire grid can be endangered.

Civic systems are no different. When individuals inject selective facts, concealed conflicts, or hypocritical arguments into public discourse, they corrupt the social feedback loops upon which governance depends. They create what might fairly be called “liar’s loops,” wherein distorted information begins driving public reaction, political pressure, and policy discussion. Already difficult governance challenges become even harder to understand and manage.

Recent local examples illustrate the problem.

One resident opposing a proposal on environmental grounds described the project as posing unacceptable ecological impacts in a fragile area. Yet that same individual resides in an identically zoned district while operating under conditions that arguably present equal or greater environmental concerns, including: a bedroom count reportedly exceeding septic design assumptions; apparent use of an outdated septic system; swimming pool backwash affecting the aquifer; and prior code-related concerns involving accessory quarters.

Another resident publicly urged defeat of the school budget while simultaneously drawing a substantial six-figure public pension from a separate New York school district.

A third individual sought taxpayer-funded senior citizen home repair assistance for an income-producing investment property advertised as a $2,500-per-week Airbnb rental while also circumventing Town licensing requirements.

The point is not that citizens lack the right to speak freely. They absolutely possess that right and should exercise it. Nor is the point that individuals must be morally perfect before expressing opinions. Human imperfection is universal.

The issue instead is whether participants in a complex civic system possess some reciprocal obligation toward honesty, transparency, and intellectual consistency when inserting themselves into difficult public debates.

Complex systems depend fundamentally upon trust in the integrity of the information flowing through them. Once bad-faith distortions, selective omissions, and concealed contradictions become normalized, the system’s ability to process reality begins to erode. Public discourse becomes saturated with suspicion, distraction, and performative outrage rather than constructive problem-solving. Governance then becomes less about managing reality and more about managing distortion.

The former supervisors I encountered were correct. Local governance has indeed become extraordinarily complex. But complexity alone is not the true danger. The greater danger arises when disingenuous behavior further burdens already strained systems, making coherent decision-making increasingly difficult.

Disingenuous conduct does not simply add noise to a complex system. It attacks the very mechanisms that allow the system to function at all.