Requests to the RA from the SC

[Callipygian]

Requests from the SC:

Item 1) Regarding byelections:

The Constitution currently reads:

"Vacancies in RA positions will be filled by by-election administered on a schedule set by the Scientific Council consistent with other applicable CDS law."

A by-election requires a timeframe of from 4 to 6 weeks, depending on when the vacancy occurs, to ensure that the process is performed consistent with applicable CDS laws: the citizenry must have a reasonable amount of time to be notified of the census and byelection, to declare to run, to challenge the candidate or Citizen lists, to campaign and to place polls and conduct the voting. This timeframe for byelection can mean a seat is empty for 2 or 3 meetings of the RA; with a RA of only 5 seats this can seriously impair the function of government.

Therefore, the SC requests that the RA consider a law that addresses filling vacant seats on RA in a more timely fashion, whether it be automatic appointment of a candidate in the previous election cycle, based on the voting of that election, or by specifying shorter timeframes for the steps in a byelection cycle, or by some other method that the RA identifies."

Item 2) Regarding documentation

As has been discussed before, the current documentation of laws, RA history, and even the Constitution contain archaic and contradictory language, are often difficult to locate through searches of the Forums or the CDS portal. The journals of the 11th, 13th, 14th, 17th and 19th RA are partial or non-existent.

It is important that citizens, RA members (new and old), and members of the SC be able to locate accurate, up-to-date information as easily as possible.

While Patrolkus made some headway on this during his time as archivist, there is still extensive work to be done, and if done by volunteers may be done inconsistently and take an extremely long time.

We request that RA consider contracting a qualified writer/editor/reviewer - hired and paid a reasonable real-life contracted rate - to:

*review all laws and the Constitution and identify contradictory and archaic language
*draft appropriate wording to correct these issues
*locate all RA transcripts and add them to the RA journal page of the portal
*review all transcripts and ensure that all laws are accurately recorded in the CDS laws page of the portal
*create a summary of each transcript in the RA Journals, where none exists, to allow efficient review for citizens and members of government. ( Patrolkus did such summaries during his time as archivist, and the current RA will have minutes for this)

This is not a small task, thus hiring someone who is willing to do the work and can be given a reasonable deadline for completion would ensure that the work is done in a timely and consistent fashion.

An SC member suggested that Delia Lake might be asked to consider doing this work, but of course it is the choice of the RA whether to hire internally or put out an RFP.

Callipygian

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

I have deliberately waited a bit to see if anyone else piped in on this request

I guess not. *sigh*

As for point #1 — the issue of by-elections — in my own manifesto for the 20th RA election I proposed a simple mechanism to deal with them: restore factions as valid groups of citizens with similar ideas (adhering to the same manifesto), and as soon as one of them leaves a seat vacant, put the next one in place. The order of replacements can be easily determined by STV — after all, most RL countries using STV also have political parties, and the voters simply list their preferences using STV. Thus, there is no need to change anything in our election system. All we need to re-establish is the right for RA candidates to affirm their affiliation to a faction. Citizens will still rank them according to preferences, so everybody will know who will replace whom in advance, as soon as the election votes are publicly announced.

It's simple and effective. So I still stick to my own suggestion.

Point #2 is both easier and harder. I subscribe to the view that we cannot be a functional democracy if nobody knows where the laws are and which ones are in effect, and constantly require to tap citizens' memories to 'remember' what we're supposed to have approved as laws. Clearly, the role of the Archivist is a fundamental one in our system. And perhaps the tiny incentive of L$1000/month is truly not enough to find candidates to do the hard work.The principle, however, is sound: we have long ago established that this work is too important to be done by 'volunteers', but requires an ongoing commitment of effort and time.

The issue, then, is how much we can afford to pay for that kind of work.

Doing a rough calculation, I'd say that looking at the state of affairs — a complete mess! — we'd need to pay at least for some 30 hours/month for hard work which requires a degree of expertise (but probably not necessarily a degree in political science or law ). I'd consider that something around US$30/hour would be a fair payment for that, but... I'm not sure if the CDS can afford to pay US$1k/month for that kind of work! That amount of money would easily deplete our funds and, worse than that, completely stop all other activities which require money — namely, events, sim rebuilding, and so forth.

The only suggestion I can do so far is to announce a 'public bidding', made in secret, by willing candidates to the role of Archivist. This would mean that each candidate would present a closed bid, stating how many hours they are willing to work on this per month, and how much they expect to be paid for it, and perhaps a small bio (revealing only as much about one's RL as they feel to be necessary to establish their credentials). The RA would then select the candidate that proposes the best solution. Note that some candidates might charge more per hour but feel confident that they can do a great job even with less than 30 hours per month, and they might be selected; while someone claiming to be able to work 100 hours for free per month on this might be rejected, because we have had that experience in the past — volunteers tend to be too optimistic about the insane amount of work they have in front of them and quickly tire and give up.

As for the Job Description, I'm sure there is one posted 'somewhere' (see here, approved in 2006; some more matches can be found on this forum by searching for 'archivist job description'; the description was originally hosted on Aliasi's CDS Wiki, which used to be available at http://aliasi.us/nburgwiki/ but is currently down (duh!)), but I'm fine with using Calli's suggestion as a starting point.

[Rosie Gray]

Gwyn, you might want to read the Minutes and transcript of the last RA meeting that you missed, in regards to this. Since the appointed archivist didn't do them, I've just posted them now.
Minutes here: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4267
transcription here: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4266

[Callipygian]

I have deliberately waited a bit to see if anyone else piped in on this request

...

Clearly, the role of the Archivist is a fundamental one in our system. And perhaps the tiny incentive of L$1000/month is truly not enough to find candidates to do the hard work.The principle, however, is sound: we have long ago established that this work is too important to be done by 'volunteers', but requires an ongoing commitment of effort and time.

The issue, then, is how much we can afford to pay for that kind of work.

To clarify here Gwynn - I think an honorarium of 1000L per month is probably plenty for the ongoing role of RA archivist - to *maintain* the collection and filing of transcripts, posting of laws etc. - once the current mess is fixed.

Doing a rough calculation, I'd say that looking at the state of affairs — a complete mess! — we'd need to pay at least for some 30 hours/month for hard work which requires a degree of expertise (but probably not necessarily a degree in political science or law ). I'd consider that something around US$30/hour would be a fair payment for that, but... I'm not sure if the CDS can afford to pay US$1k/month for that kind of work! That amount of money would easily deplete our funds and, worse than that, completely stop all other activities which require money — namely, events, sim rebuilding, and so forth.

Here is the clarification - the hiring of someone with qualifications etc ( and as Rosie points out, there was action in this direction at RA) is a *one-time* contract, with payment for the number of hours required to bring everything up-to-date and with the expectation of it being completed within a reasonable timeframe of a couple of months. A large number of hours certainly for this contract, but not an ongoing monthly expense.

The only suggestion I can do so far is to announce a 'public bidding', made in secret, by willing candidates to the role of Archivist. This would mean that each candidate would present a closed bid, stating how many hours they are willing to work on this per month, and how much they expect to be paid for it, and perhaps a small bio (revealing only as much about one's RL as they feel to be necessary to establish their credentials). The RA would then select the candidate that proposes the best solution. Note that some candidates might charge more per hour but feel confident that they can do a great job even with less than 30 hours per month, and they might be selected; while someone claiming to be able to work 100 hours for free per month on this might be rejected, because we have had that experience in the past — volunteers tend to be too optimistic about the insane amount of work they have in front of them and quickly tire and give up.

Again, I believe the ongoing role of Archivist is a separate role than the position to do this one-time update. I am all for bringing back an honorarium for the Archivist position, especially now that the role will require the creation of Minutes for each transcript, but I don't believe the Archivist needs either the qualifications or the time available that the job of updating requires.

As for the Job Description, I'm sure there is one posted 'somewhere' (see here, approved in 2006;...

Claude's original description of the job of Archivist there still seems fully appropriate to me, if the reference to summaries were changed to 'create Minutes itemizing..' .
This might also be an excellent time to create a 'handbook', with job descriptions for all of the gov't roles and positions collected in one document. Some of the gaps in the records result from archivist's not realizing what they should be doing,and no one pointing it out . A handbook describing the expectations of Archivist, PIO, RA member, SC member etc. would be useful for any citizen considering standing for, or taking on, one of those positions. Some of these descriptions already exist, some would need to be written.

but I'm fine with using Calli's suggestion as a starting point.

One final clarification: while I indeed drafted the description of the work that needs to be done, it is a reflection of a need that has been discussed by previous Deans , RAs, citizens and the current members of the SC. The suggestion/request comes from the SC as a whole, not just from me

[Rose Springvale]

I have both a degree in political science and a law degree. I would be happy to bring the laws up to date, based on published archives, within a two month period, as a volunteer. My offer does not include posting current RA minutes, though I have no problem updating the code of laws after transcripts are posted.

Rose

[Rosie Gray]

I have both a degree in political science and a law degree. I would be happy to bring the laws up to date, based on published archives, within a two month period, as a volunteer. My offer does not include posting current RA minutes, though I have no problem updating the code of laws after transcripts are posted.

Rose

That's a very kind offer Rose. I'll bring it forward at the RA meeting today (Saturday, Jan 11/14) at 3:00 pm slt. If there's any way you could attend the meeting, you'd be welcome to speak to this.

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

My apologies to Rosie, I should indeed have read that before!

Rose, I cannot even describe my happiness in reading that you're volunteering for that job! Now I should tell my fellow citizens that I'm very, very biased towards you so, YES, I'll be VERY GLAD if you'd take that role

This is just because I'm not 100% sure yet that I'll be able to be around by 3 PM SLT for a formal vote. But I'm more than happy to let everybody to know beforehand what my vote will be. It will be an AYE in glowing neon signs

And thanks so much for stepping forward, specially because now you know what a mess you're going to step into

[Rose Springvale]

Thanks for the confidence Gwyn! Rosie, I will not be able to attend the RA meeting/s. Sorry.

[cleopatraxigalia]

Ditto to what gwyn said. Cleo

[cleopatraxigalia]

by Rose Springvale » Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:32 pm
I have both a degree in political science and a law degree. I would be happy to bring the laws up to date, based on published archives, within a two month period, as a volunteer. My offer does not include posting current RA minutes, though I have no problem updating the code of laws after transcripts are posted.

Thank you for your generous offer Rose ! As always you go above and beyond the call of duty. Unless some one as qualified as you offers to do this work for us on a volunteer basis, I am quite keen on having you do the work. That being said, I cannot imagine there is someone better suited for the task who will be so generous with their time, hurray ! What a blessing to have you step up to the plate for CDS. AGAIN

Much appreciated. You have my total support.

Cleo

[Patroklus Murakami]

We appear to have solved the second issue, which is fantastic. It's great to see Rose volunteer to help with sorting out our code of laws. I'm sure she will do a great job and it is a job that is very much needed.

There is still the question of dealing with RA members who resign mid-term with an STV system. There are several ways we could tackle this:

• 1) Do nothing. We already have a way of dealing with this, we run a by-election. If the problem is that sometimes people resign then change their minds, we should amend the RA Rules of Procedure to make this a 'one shot' deal. I would make it so that resignation only takes place when an RA member sends a notecard to that effect to the LRA (or the Dean or some other suitable official) and that such a resignation cannot be taken back. The only problem would be if someone resigns close to the end of term. In those circumstances I say, let's not get too upset. We can live without one member at the end of a term. This solution would be my preference.

  2) Let factions control seats. This is what we used to do. People vote for factions, not individuals, and factions control the seats. If someone resigned, they would be replaced by the faction with someone with a similar ideological frame of mind. Problem was, this meant you had to be a member of a faction to get elected and some factions were, ahem, less than democratic in their mode of operation. To go back to this way of working, we would need to institute rules so that factions behaved themselves better and we would have to accept that individuals who do not want to join a faction would never be represented. I think we have left this kind of politics behind so it would not be my first choice.

  3) Do what other systems do. There are three other options here (apart from by-elections which are also what other people do). They are described here.

  3a) Go back to the original ballot papers and work out what would have happened if the resigning candidate had been eliminated and the votes they gained reallocated. This can work but it can turn out that none of the original candidates is available to serve.

  3b) Have the RA or some other body (SC or Chancellor) appoint someone. This does not really respect the voters' choice so perhaps not the best solution for us.

  3c) Replacement list. We could make it so that, when an individual gets elected they nominate a list of people who would replace them if they resigned. Factions could list other faction members but it would also allow individuals to stand and to say who would replace them if they were to resign. This way, everyone knows what they are voting for and there should be no surprises. If we had to make a change, I would go for this option but I have some worries about people 'playing the system'.

First of all though we should think about whether this is really necessary and, for whichever option is favoured, we should work out what the options are for 'gaming' the system.

[Rosie Gray]

We appear to have solved the second issue, which is fantastic. It's great to see Rose volunteer to help with sorting out our code of laws. I'm sure she will do a great job and it is a job that is very much needed.

There is still the question of dealing with RA members who resign mid-term with an STV system...

Pat, it might be useful if you reposted in the thread that our LRA Shep started on this topic, here - http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4269, so we can continue the discussion there.

[Patroklus Murakami]

I thought there was another thread! Will do.

[cleopatraxigalia]

Pat, you said..

There is still the question of dealing with RA members who resign mid-term with an STV system. There are several ways we could tackle this:
1) Do nothing. We already have a way of dealing with this, we run a by-election. If the problem is that sometimes people resign then change their minds, we should amend the RA Rules of Procedure to make this a 'one shot' deal. I would make it so that resignation only takes place when an RA member sends a notecard to that effect to the LRA (or the Dean or some other suitable official) and that such a resignation cannot be taken back. The only problem would be if someone resigns close to the end of term. In those circumstances I say, let's not get too upset. We can live without one member at the end of a term. This solution would be my preference.

I agree with you in that the by election is in place, and that is fine, even the best solution. Shortening the time frames seem appropriate for a by election. The problem of resignation procedures still needs to be addressed. The only part I disagree with is using a notecard to the LRA as the form of notification. I would prefer the notice to be PUBLIC, i.e. posted on the forums and/or an Inworld "notice" via the group. I would also prefer a Public statement that has a very limited ( maybe 24 hours) time that it can be recanted.

Also if we had more than five people in RA losing one might not be so drastic. But in a four member RA .. quorum becomes what ? 2 ? I find that unacceptable. Even if quorum stays 3 with a four member RA .. does that mean 2 people voting can change law. I also find that unacceptable. I highly recommend we reinstate raising the size of the RA with the growth of the population. This term would have had 7 people in RA .. if that was the case now the ongoing concern of a RA that doesn't function becomes less of an issue.. cleo