DRAFT Guidelines for Potential Nominees to the SC

Forum to discuss issues pertaining to the organisation and operations of the judiciary.

Moderator: SC Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Delia Lake
Dean of the SC
Dean of the SC
Posts: 608
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:12 pm
Contact:

DRAFT Guidelines for Potential Nominees to the SC

Post by Delia Lake »

During the SC meeting of December 12, 2011, I raised the need for the SC to have guidelines for nominating and selecting new SC members from among our CDS citizenry. My fellow SC members agreed and asked me to draft the guidelines.
http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3675

We decided to post this draft to the Judiciary Discussion section of the Forum to encourage open discussion. Given their experiences, we particularly hope that former members of the SC will contribute their thoughts as to what would be important regarding SC nominees.

We hope to have the final draft completed in January to bring to the SC for a decision then implementation as published SC policy.

We do not need nor want a lengthy set of qualifications such as the one that was developed for potential judges during the CDS’s “Judicial Project” but we do need a clear set of guidelines as to what a citizen who might be interested in joining the SC will be expected to know and to do. Also, it is only fair to give interested citizens an idea of the level of time commitment they should expect to be making in order to carry out duties on the SC.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Article III – The Philosophic Branch
Section 1 – The Scientific Council
The Scientific Council (SC) is a self-selected meritocracy. Its governmental role is to interpret and enforce the constitution. Its service roll (ed. note: sic) is to resolve citizen disputes and moderate user forums and events.

That the sitting SC members recommend new members from among the citizenry and submit those nominations to the SC, then vote on the nominations does not mean that the SC should be a club of friends. As a meritocracy though it does mean that in order to be considered for a seat on the SC, a citizen must demonstrate familiarity with our laws specifically and our community in general, and show that by the “merit” of their commitment to the CDS they would contribute value to the SC. Although a group of citizens may submit a citizen’s name for membership on the SC, it is the sitting members select the body’s new members.

Once selected, new SC members are affirmed by the RA, specifically that the RA has confidence that the new SC member will uphold the CDS Constitution and Laws.

Article I
Section 7 – Powers of the RA
In regards to the Philosophic branch:
The RA provides a vote of confidence on candidates to the Philosophic branch. This vote is in regards to their perceived likelihood to uphold the constitution.

In accordance with NL 4-8, Scientific Council Affirmation Procedures Act http://portal.slcds.info/index.php/cds- ... e-of-laws/, the RA affirms new SC members within 30 days of selection by the SC.

In addition to knowledge about the laws of the CDS, it is important that potential nominees have some idea as to the time commitment expected of them in this volunteer position of SC member. As Calli said in the last SC meeting, “especially [as]to the time it takes to get a grounding in the history and precedents.” Whereas the work of the RA is primarily done during public meetings, a good amount of the work of the SC is research and reading done in preparation for the public meetings. Citizens who do not like doing that kind of research would neither enjoy being on the SC nor would they be particularly effective contributors.

Because 1) it does take relatively a lot of time to become familiar enough with not only the law and its application but also the precedents contained in CDS archives that are relevant to the SC job, and 2) it is advisable that there be some continuity and consistency in the of application of the laws, it would not serve the SC well nor the community to have the SC member turn over every 6 months. We are recommending that citizens who wish to join the SC be prepared to make at least a 1 year commitment to this body. It is of benefit to have a mix of former politicians and citizens who are not so inclined. Given that it takes about 6 months of reading and exploring not only the laws but also the logs and transcripts before a member at least knows where to find what is not quite remembered, having a politician who is just sitting out the term before running for elected office again would be a drag on the SC.

Since the Article III, Section 2. of the Constitution charges the SC “to uphold the constitution without bias,” it is important to distinguish between "neutral" v. “ without biased.” In order to be carry out duties without bias, it is important for SC members to be up front about their own biases, AND, to base all findings of the SC in law and precedent, NOT in personal preferences or personal opinions. A member of the SC must be able to set aside and not act from their personal biases.

DRAFT: GUIDELINES FOR POTENTIAL NOMINEES TO THE SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL (SC)

The Scientific Council (SC) is a self-selected meritocracy. Its governmental role is to interpret and enforce the constitution. Its duties include: review and ratification of Bills passed by the Representative Assembly (RA); hearing any impeachment proceedings brought against Executive Officers or RA members; resolving citizen disputes; moderation of user forums and events.

To be considered for nomination to the SC, a citizen:
1. Must be conversant regarding the content and application of the CDS Constitution and Code of Laws (http://portal.slcds.info/index.php/cds ... stitution/ AND http://portal.slcds.info/index.php/cds- ... e-of-laws/ ) and the Terms of Service (ToS) for Second Life (R).
2. Must be willing and able to devote the time necessary to be informed on the issues relevant to the duties of the SC and how the existing laws, precedents and policies relate to those issues.
3. Must be able to set aside personal biases in order to carry out SC duties fairly in accordance with the laws and applicable precedents of the CDS community .
4. Should be willing to commit a year to this service.

Post Reply

Return to “Judiciary Discussion”