Advisory Popular Consultation Commission RE: RA Size

Here you might discuss basically everything.

Moderator: SC Moderators

User avatar
Cadence Theas
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 641
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:50 am

Re: Advisory Popular Consultation Commission RE: RA Size

Post by Cadence Theas »

michelmanen wrote:In short, the answer to your question is: The Terms of Reference set by the Chancellor for this APCC: 1) provide me with the wording of the question to be asked of all CDS citizens; and 2) do not require me to consult with my assistants as to the specific wording of all my communications with CDS citizens, inviting them to participate in this process. I have fully complied with these Terms of Reference.
What completely different ways of working. The RA commissions allow the commissions to develop organically and in concert with the people both within the commission and outside of it. From what I have heard from people attending the commission meetings, there is a sense of common purpose and no one, not even the chair of the commission has an absolute mandate. Then there is the chancellor's commission with a pre-determined question and no obligation to consult with the other members of the commission. And yet, even before the COI commission began you were voicing rather strident concerns about its impartiality and procedure, which seems horribly self-serving when the blatant partiality and heavy-handed nature of the mandate that you have assumed in the APCC is evident in these communications. Although you write nicely and argue well, there is slowly appearing a curious pattern of democracy first when it serves you, and a more magisterial style when it serves you. And so it is clear, I am not against a commission about the RA, but it seems that you have already written the conclusions to the commission even before it meets. As you told me, why not get this commission off on the right foot, so that its procedure and its conclusions do not seem to have a political agenda behind them.

cleopatraxigalia
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:42 pm
Location: RL USA , SL: CDS Citizen
Contact:

Re: Advisory Popular Consultation Commission RE: RA Size

Post by cleopatraxigalia »

:)
Last edited by cleopatraxigalia on Sat Oct 04, 2014 8:27 am, edited 2 times in total.
Cleo

User avatar
Rosie Gray
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1821
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 9:47 am
Location: west-coast Canada

Re: Advisory Popular Consultation Commission RE: RA Size

Post by Rosie Gray »

Cleo what is the point in reposting people's old conversations out of context? The debate should be on the merits now, not what someone said 4 years ago.

(This is in reference to Cleo's post just above where she had posted some quotes from people and has since removed it.)
Last edited by Rosie Gray on Sat Oct 04, 2014 9:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Courage, my friend, it's not too late to make the world a better place."
~ Tommy Douglas

michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Re: Advisory Popular Consultation Commission RE: RA Size

Post by michelmanen »

Cadence, I am afraid your comparison between this APCC and other comissions does not hold water. As I explained in detail, this commission has no report or conclusions or recommendations to write. The only job Molly, Nolligan and I have to do is organising debates and discussions for the CDS citizens to help them form an opinion of the RA size issue, then collect notecards with their final opinions and report on the result. At no point do we voice our opinion on this issue, or issue any advice to anyone - be it citizens or the RA. This is totally different from commissions where members actually do so, and write draft bills for the RA's consideration. MY job is to make sure as many citizens as possible attend meetings to engage in the deliberative process, arrange for speakers to provide relevant information, and compile and report on the final opinions of the citizens. Nolligan and Molly's job is to assist me in moderating the discussions and gathering and compiling the results. That's it. I am sure that being LRA, you can see how this process is entirely different from that of of Chancellor's Powers or Conflict of Interests Commission, where members have to come up with their own terms of reference (as opposed to ours, given by the Chancellor) and submit their own recommendations and draft bill to the RA (we don't do any of this).

You disagreed that I used the word "oversight" when talking about the actions of the RA two years ago. Do you agree that the RA should change its own composition (akin to gerrymandering in the US), then pass a constitutional amendment without any popular consultation whatsoever, fixing forever the RA size? That is the oversight I was referring to, and I fully stand by my words. The purpose of this commission it to remedy this oversight and set up deliberative and informative discussions to help citizens make up their own minds together - not persuade them one way or the other. I think this should address in full your concerns.

michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Re: Advisory Popular Consultation Commission RE: RA Size

Post by michelmanen »

Rosie, thanks for your comment. That is exactly what this APCC is doing - organising informed debates and discussions between all citizens on the merits of the issue - something that should have been done before such an important constitutional amendment was adopted. Maybe you can be one of the presenters, as an RA member who actually sat at the time in the RA and voted on this issue, and explain why the RA did so and with what limitations (see Beathan's comments above). That would indeed assist citizens to discus the merits of the issue and then make up their own minds.

michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Re: Advisory Popular Consultation Commission RE: RA Size

Post by michelmanen »

Patroklus Murakami wrote:
Michel Manen wrote:I had no need to inquire and did not in fact inquire as to Molly’s and Nolligan’s opinions on this matter
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this is a sectarian enterprise with a pre-determined outcome. Michel has presented a one-sided and biased account of the decision the RA took. He has conducted the commission so far in a high-handed manner and then attacked anyone who dares to question his actions or his statements. It is clear that this is being driven towards the conclusion the sponsors of this commission want to see.
It is difficult to see your comments and attacks on this APCC and your McCarthy-esque style of questioning me on my un-CDS Activities as anything other than a blatant attempt by a former RA member and LRA who led the vote to change the RA size, to protect his own actions and to cover up his own failure to properly discharge his duties at the time, and build up political capital for a future re-run for the Chancellor's office after his narrow loss earlier this year.

As to what you call my "biased account of the decision the RA took", I have only stated the facts:

1. The RA (led by you as LRA at the time) did indeed adopt a constitutional amendment changing the Constitution's original provision for an RA proportional to CDS' population, to a 5-person RA in perpetuity;

2. This critical constitutional change was adopted without any popular debate or consultation;

3. This represents a democratic oversight which needs to be addressed, given the critical importance of the issue for a community now counting over 90 citizens - which means that, under the terms of the original Constitution, our next RA should have 9 RA members, not 5.

4. This Advisory Commission will assist citizens engage in a deliberative process to decide for themselves if they wish to go back to the original provisions of the Constitution regarding RA size - or maintain the current provision for a 5-person RA, irrespective of CDS population size.

Unless you wish to engage with this APCC constructively Pat, I don't think I have much to add to your transparent attempts to yet again find a scapegoat for your own failures - as you have done so many times in the past, from Ashcroft and the Judiciary Act to today. Had you done your job as LRA properly two years ago, this Advisory Commission would be entirely unnecessary. We are now trying to fix the mess you left behind, in an open, inclusive, democratic fashion. If you wish to help out, you are more than welcome to join us and help us do so - and esure your perspective as a key actor at the time is put forward and explained in its proper context.

User avatar
Shep
LRA
LRA
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:11 pm
Location: UK

Re: Advisory Popular Consultation Commission RE: RA Size

Post by Shep »

Oh joy here we go ... Now let me think who is it has been whining about RA numbers .. the name is on the tip of my tongue! .. And how to get her own way .. I did say her did I not ... the plan is to make citizens unhappy with the status quo by marching out some old avies .. I'm sorry, Kudos to the founders for forming CDS .. but everything is not set in stone, if it were what is the point of intelligent people giving of their free time to work here to try to improve things .. they had their vision .. we have ours ... I read a post from Cleo bewailing the fact that she does'nt have a majority on RA .... and therefore can't change things she wants to .. so she thinks larger RA will get her her majority .. careful what you wish for ... sometimes you get it :D
I am not a sheep ... I am the Shepherdess .. An it harm none .. so mote it be ..

michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Re: Advisory Popular Consultation Commission RE: RA Size

Post by michelmanen »

;)
Last edited by michelmanen on Sat Oct 04, 2014 5:40 pm, edited 3 times in total.

michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Re: Advisory Popular Consultation Commission RE: RA Size

Post by michelmanen »

Shep wrote:Oh joy here we go ... Now let me think who is it has been whining about RA numbers .. the name is on the tip of my tongue! .. And how to get her own way .. I did say her did I not ... the plan is to make citizens unhappy with the status quo by marching out some old avies .. I'm sorry, Kudos to the founders for forming CDS .. but everything is not set in stone, if it were what is the point of intelligent people giving of their free time to work here to try to improve things .. they had their vision .. we have ours ... I read a post from Cleo bewailing the fact that she does'nt have a majority on RA .... and therefore can't change things she wants to .. so she thinks larger RA will get her her majority .. careful what you wish for ... sometimes you get it :D
"...marching out some old avies..."? Hahahaha! I am sure Gwyn and Aliasi will LOVE this..... ;)

User avatar
Shep
LRA
LRA
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:11 pm
Location: UK

Re: Advisory Popular Consultation Commission RE: RA Size

Post by Shep »

michelmanen wrote:
Shep wrote:Oh joy here we go ... Now let me think who is it has been whining about RA numbers .. the name is on the tip of my tongue! .. And how to get her own way .. I did say her did I not ... the plan is to make citizens unhappy with the status quo by marching out some old avies .. I'm sorry, Kudos to the founders for forming CDS .. but everything is not set in stone, if it were what is the point of intelligent people giving of their free time to work here to try to improve things .. they had their vision .. we have ours ... I read a post from Cleo bewailing the fact that she does'nt have a majority on RA .... and therefore can't change things she wants to .. so she thinks larger RA will get her her majority .. careful what you wish for ... sometimes you get it :D
"...marching out some old avies..."? Hahahaha! I am sure Gwyn and Aliasi will LOVE this..... ;)
Well if that is the worst you can say about my post .. then I guess you approve of the rest of it :D
I am not a sheep ... I am the Shepherdess .. An it harm none .. so mote it be ..

User avatar
Shep
LRA
LRA
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:11 pm
Location: UK

Re: Advisory Popular Consultation Commission RE: RA Size

Post by Shep »

What did'nt you understand .. maybe I can help you ...
Last edited by Shep on Sat Oct 04, 2014 3:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I am not a sheep ... I am the Shepherdess .. An it harm none .. so mote it be ..

michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Re: Advisory Popular Consultation Commission RE: RA Size

Post by michelmanen »

That's the point, Shep. I don't want to say anything bad about your post. We have a good working relationship on the COI Commission. I want to keep it that way ;) Besides, i like you. ;) So, no, I won't go there ;)

michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Re: Advisory Popular Consultation Commission RE: RA Size

Post by michelmanen »

I strongly recommend to anyone who wishes to put in perspective Pat's attacks on this Advisory Commission and on the current Executive Team to read an article he penned about CDS in April 2008, entitled "Virtual Zimbabwe", that can be found on his, blog, here: http://slpatroklus.blogspot.ca/search?q=zimbabwe. In it, he asserts that CDS is "... turning into a 'Virtual Zimbabwe'; elections take place but they are rigged in advance to support the incumbents. The opposition (who won the election) are routinely abused, personally attacked and hounded from office." The most relevant passages (worth comparing with his positions as LRA in 2012 and as past - and possibly future - Chancellor) to the workings of this commission is as follows:

"In the past few weeks members of the RA have either proposed or passed the following:

1. The RA has changed the election rules so that voters cannot eliminate factions they don't approve of. This means the by-election will be fought under different rules from the January election. We do not know who of the incumbent factions will be running in the by-election. We know that the DPU intend to stand and that Simplicity and NuCARE have said they won't. We shall see. The point is that the incumbents have changed the rules and this could benefit them should they choose to stand in the by-election. Sadly, the Scientific Council, the defenders of the Constitution and citizens' human rights, have chosen to allow this to happen.

2. The RA has raised the minimum faction size from 3 to 10% of the population which means the bar has been raised so that the minimum faction size is now 7. (I can't find a link to this on the CDS Forums page so this may have been decided by the RA without any public debate at all.) There's been a ridiculous smoke screen raised around this one. The change has allegedly been made to prevent the CSDF from splitting into two or three 'micro-factions' and gaming the electoral system which favours smaller parties. There is no CSDF plan to do this; it's an invented rumour to build support for this anti-democratic change. What it does though is prevent any new factions from forming on the same basis as the ones that fought the election in January. The incumbent factions only needed three members then, so why should the bar be raised now? There were, apparently, rumours that other people were going to start up a new faction to run in the by-election hence the need to raise the bar and prevent them from being able to stand; the Beathan/NuCARE coalition currently running the RA will brook no opposition. Again, the SC has failed to prevent this and has consequently failed in its duty to protect the Constitution and the founding documents and the human rights of CDS citizens. This is clearly an abuse of the powers of the RA. By sanctioning this change the SC has given carte blanche to the RA to rig this by-election and future elections. Now that they've been given their head I shudder to think what oppressive laws this Unrepresentative Assembly will come up with.

3. The RA seriously considered changing the Constitution to eliminate the two vacant seats the CSDF won in the January election 'for the time being' to pretend that there were 5 and not 7 seats. This would have made it easier for the Rump Assembly to achieve a quorum at meetings and pass further constitutional amendments. This would have completely ignored the January election result and disenfranchised the voters who chose the CSDF in the January elections. Fortunately the RA did not pass this outrageous proposal (I've christened it the 'Zimbabwe proposal') but it indicates the complete lack of democratic temperament in some members of the RA.

This Unrepresentative Assembly is out of control. They are passing legislation on a whim and most of it never appeared in their election manifestos. They claim to 'fear the CSDF' despite the fact that we resigned our seats and gave up any power we had. They have moved to rig the by-elections in such a way that the CSDF, and any other opposition, will be disadvantaged. The Scientific Council has, inexplicably, allowed this to happen. In the face of legislative tyranny we have a toothless judiciary incapable of defending the citizens' rights."

Six months later, in another one if his articles, entitled "Four Years of Virtual Democracy", also to be found on his blog here: http://slpatroklus.blogspot.ca/2008/10/ ... cracy.html Pat was updating us on the progress of CDS:

"So, how is the CDS? Six months ago I was comparing it to Zimbabwe, how is it faring now? Well, things are certainly quieter than they were six months ago! The last set of elections, held in July, returned three representatives each from the Citizens' Social Democratic Faction (CSDF) and the Democratic Pragmatists' Union (DPU) and one from NuCARE to the Representative Assembly (RA) - our legislature. The RA has met approximately fortnightly since then but I think it would be fair to say that attention has shifted elsewhere; the RA is no longer 'the only game in town'. For most of the CDS's history, if you wanted to get something done you went to the RA. This was partly due to the nervousness around executive power and the unwillingness to grant any kind of power to an executive branch which could potentially be abused. The CDS didn't even have an executive branch for much of the time with executive-type powers being shared between the RA and the (old) Guild (a quasi-corporatist structure with powers over building and finance). The establishment of the Chancelry as the institution with executive power, and in particular the active stance taken by the current Chancellor, has shifted attention away from the RA. It's no longer the RA that 'gets things done' but the Chancellor and his very capable team. This has been a positive development so far. It allows those who are interested in events organisation, for example, to work with a team that can get things done and who have the legitimate authority to do so. This is not to denigrate the work of previous Chancellors who have also made their contribution, it's just clear that the institution is really showing its promise now that we have had time to get used to it.

So, Zimbabwe no more :) Perhaps the CDS is more like a country recovering from a period of temporary insanity? Like France after the excesses of the Revolution, the Terror and the guillotine? Or Britain after the industrial strife, power cuts and three-day working week of the 1970s? Or the Venezuelans when they wake up from the disaster of Chavez's Presidency?"


Verba volant, scripta manent...
Last edited by michelmanen on Sun Oct 05, 2014 1:42 am, edited 11 times in total.

AbbyRose
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 7:38 pm

Re: Advisory Popular Consultation Commission RE: RA Size

Post by AbbyRose »

I have no problem with our RA being five people.
I think those five can represent the rest of the population.
We need quality, not quantity.
Do Good. Be good. Try to be happy.

User avatar
Shep
LRA
LRA
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:11 pm
Location: UK

Re: Advisory Popular Consultation Commission RE: RA Size

Post by Shep »

Note to Cleo ... facts wrong again ... at the time you are referring to, Pat was NOT LRA .. you will find it was Anna Toussaint ...
I am not a sheep ... I am the Shepherdess .. An it harm none .. so mote it be ..

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”