Third Electoral Commission Meeting, August 30, 9 AM SLT

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

Hello all,

As per the discussion on the Second Electoral Commission Meeting, we will meet this week on Saturday, August 30rd, at 9 AM in the Praetorium in Colonia Nova.

The point on the agenda will be "Discussion: Direct Chancellor election by the citizens".

See you later!

- Gwyn

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

[9:13] Gwyneth Llewelyn: *sigh* well...
[9:13] Gwyneth Llewelyn: if you're up to it,
[9:13] Gwyneth Llewelyn: we can still exchange a few ideas.
[9:13] Jon Seattle: very true
[9:14] Gwyneth Llewelyn: They will be posted on the forums anyway, for people to comment and discuss
[9:14] Pip Torok: yes
[9:14] Jon Seattle: I am not sure what a quarum would be in this case, but it seems we would not have one no matter how defined
[9:14] Gwyneth Llewelyn: haha
[9:15] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Actually, since the commision is not a policy maker
[9:15] Gwyneth Llewelyn: but just an extended forum so to speak
[9:15] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I suppose that the worse we can do is to re-discuss the same topic some other day?
[9:15] Jon Seattle: true,
[9:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, some bit of history perhaps... more for Pip's sake.
[9:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Jon, I think that we had no Chancellor when you moved in to the CDS
[9:16] Pip Torok: <listens>
[9:17] Gwyneth Llewelyn: So why do we have a Chancellor elected as it is right now?...
[9:17] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Freakness of a certain paranoia The CDS started having now Head of State and no Executive — deliberately so.
[9:17] Jon Seattle: Ah, good question. The RA was trying to run the sim
[9:17] Jon Seattle: make everyday decisions
[9:17] Gwyneth Llewelyn: That too
[9:17] Jon Seattle: its not the best body for that
[9:18] Gwyneth Llewelyn: When it was clear that the RA took too long to do the day-to-day chores...
[9:18] Jon Seattle: And the old guild had just collapsed
[9:18] Gwyneth Llewelyn: ... yes exactly
[9:18] Gwyneth Llewelyn *nods*
[9:18] Gwyneth Llewelyn: So there were several choices available... delegate to a non-elected body for instance
[9:18] Jon Seattle: Pip, the old guild used to do a lot of day to day work
[9:18] Jon Seattle: but it had become a kind of closed club.
[9:18] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes.
[9:18] Jon Seattle: No one could join
[9:18] Gwyneth Llewelyn: And rarely met, etc
[9:18] Gwyneth Llewelyn: That too
[9:18] Jon Seattle: yes, and that.
[9:19] Pip Torok: mmm
[9:19] Gwyneth Llewelyn: A mixed approach was picked, which is not uncommon in some Parliamentarian systems
[9:19] Jon Seattle: Pip, the old guild was a government body -- not like the new guild.
[9:19] Gwyneth Llewelyn: ie. we vote for factions, and the winning faction gets to form a "Cabinet" with a "Chancellor"
[9:19] Gwyneth Llewelyn: AH yes, that's a good point
[9:20] Gwyneth Llewelyn: The Old Guild was really a Government branch, with the same powers as the RA or the SC
[9:20] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Just not elected
[9:20] Jon Seattle: Yes, it was a synthesis of european and US systems.
[9:20] Jon Seattle: (That is the Chancellor )
[9:20] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes... a strange mix
[9:20] Gwyneth Llewelyn: The idea behind it was that the winning faction
[9:20] Jon Seattle: We were trying to fill the gap left by the collapse of the old guild.
[9:21] Gwyneth Llewelyn: should collaborate closely with a "friendly" Executive, so they should be able to "elect" it.
[9:21] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Also it allowed individuals (not necessarily part of a faction) to be part of Government,
[9:22] Jon Seattle: The idea was never that the Chancellor would make policy herself -- rather that the RA would stop trying to do things like approving the moving of a fountain from one location to another.
[9:22] Gwyneth Llewelyn: one thing that the CSDF always promoted hehe — "more avenues of participation", even outside the faction system. Granted, a candidate for Chancellor needed always faction support, since they would be elected in a RA session by the RA members...
[9:22] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, so the RA would be "strategy" (policy) and the Executive woulf be "Tactics" (executive acts)
[9:23] Jon Seattle: Pip, at that time Moon and I were the CDSF reps, the minority, Claude, Justice, and Pel were DPU
[9:23] Jon Seattle: so it was a bit of negotiation to work out an agreement that would work
[9:24] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Now things started to become a bit more confusing when suddenl we found out that the Leader of the Representative Assembly, by setting the RA's agenda, would wield a lot of political power too. We seem to have "two heads of state" these days: the LRA and the Chancellor. None are directly elected by the citizens, but indirectly through the representatives.
[9:24] Pip Torok: i see
[9:24] Gwyneth Llewelyn: This is something that this Commission is set to review. Does it still make sense? Should we change the system? If so, what would we recommend?
[9:25] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Notice that the major reason why we don't have a directly elected Chancellor is mostly because of "confusion of powers"
[9:25] Gwyneth Llewelyn: An example... imagine that the Executive and the RA are at odds about something: is it "policy" or "executive action"?
[9:25] Jon Seattle: Well, its still a complex topic
[9:26] Pip Torok: mmm
[9:26] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Both RA and Executive would claim, if directly elected, that both have the citizen's trust through the universal vote.
[9:26] Jon Seattle: Pip, where are you in RL, that is the country?
[9:26] Gwyneth Llewelyn: So it could become... tricky
[9:26] Gwyneth Llewelyn: UK
[9:26] Pip Torok: right ...
[9:27] Gwyneth Llewelyn: So in case of doubt, the Queen decides
[9:27] Gwyneth Llewelyn *chuckles*
[9:27] Jon Seattle: lol
[9:27] Pip Torok: in efeect
[9:27] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah, that's my old plan — postponed for another term
[9:27] Gwyneth Llewelyn *giggles*
[9:27] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Anyway...
[9:27] Jon Seattle: Its interesting, I wonder where DPU would stand today -- back then there were no european members.
[9:28] Gwyneth Llewelyn: The current setup makes the Chancellor quite powerful in terms of executive action, BUT they're totally dependent on the RA.
[9:28] Pip Torok: should that make a difference?
[9:28] Gwyneth Llewelyn: As we have seen on the past term — the RA can kick the Chancellor out at any time, without giving a reason.
[9:28] Jon Seattle: Pip, I think it does in that people are most comfortable with the system they are used to.
[9:28] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sometimes it does, Pip... different cultural approaches.
[9:28] Pip Torok: I see
[9:29] Jon Seattle: It took me a while to get used to a more european perspective
[9:29] Jon Seattle: when I did I learned quite a bit that was new to me
[9:29] Gwyneth Llewelyn: ... which is also hardly uniform, Jon... just ask our Swiss citizens what they think of our system
[9:29] Jon Seattle: yes
[9:30] Gwyneth Llewelyn: The Swiss don't elect their presidents either... in fact almost nobody knows that they *have* one. They rotate presidents every year I think, they have three, one for each language area
[9:30] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Anyway... but pooling in ideas from several different systems is actually a good idea
[9:30] Pip Torok: what ive noticd is that the RA assumes there is only one level of sanction: impeachment as opposite to levels of reprimand
[9:31] Jon Seattle: Its sort of the government to have if people are very civilized? Or so they argue a lot?
[9:31] Jon Seattle: *do they
[9:31] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes — there is a "vote of confidence" on new SC members, but that's all
[9:32] Jon Seattle: Pip, in theory the RA could exersize finer control over the Chancellor via the budget -- but our budget process is not well developed. It could use some development.
[9:33] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I'd say that our issues are basically: 1) How does the Executive gets in power? (elected/appointed... and by whom?) 2) How is a balance of powers guaranteed between the Executive and other branches? 3) How do we avoid overlapping roles, and who will be the arbitrer when some other branch believes the Executive is trespassing?
[9:33] Pip Torok: But the whole point of a chancellor is to _devolve_ work away from the RA
[9:33] Gwyneth Llewelyn: originally, yes, Pip
[9:33] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well... we can think on what is "weakest" in the CDS: we're slow at making decisions
[9:33] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Example: a griefer comes in and deletes things
[9:34] Jon Seattle: Pip, true, but of course not to make policy -- since the Chancellor is not part of the legislative process today.
[9:34] Gwyneth Llewelyn: It takes weeks or months until we decide what to do about it
[9:34] Gwyneth Llewelyn: The point of having an Executive was that day-to-day operations should be dealt *immediately* BUT could always be reviewed later at a slower pace.
[9:35] Gwyneth Llewelyn: e.g. dealing with events, land sales, griefers
[9:35] Gwyneth Llewelyn: all these should be dealt with "immediately"
[9:35] Jon Seattle: Pip, if you could choose a model, what would it be?
[9:36] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, good starting question!
[9:36] Pip Torok: mmm id need notice on such a question
[9:36] Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe
[9:37] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Perhaps we can start from the other way round... given the current system, what faults do you see with it?
[9:37] Jon Seattle: I thin we all would, but its good to start thinking about it
[9:37] Jon Seattle: Good question
[9:37] Pip Torok: well weakness in decision making (as gwyns pointed out)
[9:38] Jon Seattle: yes
[9:38] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Because the Executive doesn't know what powers they've got? (Jamie will change this hehe)
[9:38] Pip Torok: always the need to make decision "on the hoof" without adequate thought
[9:38] Pip Torok: *also
[9:40] Pip Torok: I thimnk the Chancellor plus Exec should have wider day to day powers (eg griefers etc) but that there shd be set policies over say land-sales
[9:40] Gwyneth Llewelyn: So perhaps what we need is just a list of powers.
[9:41] Pip Torok: at the same time they _shd_ be visibly accountable to the RA
[9:41] Pip Torok: but that the RA have a flexibilty of sanctions ...
[9:41] Gwyneth Llewelyn *nods*
[9:41] Jon Seattle: I would agree with all of that
[9:42] Pip Torok: (yes i know this is very like the PM system in the UK!)
[9:42] Jon Seattle:
[9:42] Gwyneth Llewelyn:
[9:42] Pip Torok: in many ways two principles shd be have primacy
[9:43] Pip Torok: 1 quick firm consistent decisions (right or wrong!)
[9:43] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, I agree.
[9:43] Pip Torok: 2. the visibitlity of accountability
[9:43] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Actually, I'm for a very strong and efficient Executive...
[9:43] Gwyneth Llewelyn: ... and totally so, Pip: the citizens need to know what the Executive is planning to do
[9:44] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Right now hmm I think that the Executive isn't even "required" to publish their Acts or decisions — unlike the RA
[9:44] Pip Torok: quite ... you know that the problem with all electorates is apathy ...
[9:44] Gwyneth Llewelyn: We had a problem in the past... let me give you just this example...
[9:44] Gwyneth Llewelyn: The Chancellor has the power to overrule covenants, at their whim.
[9:44] Jon Seattle: I definitly agree with you there Pip
[9:44] Pip Torok: !!!
[9:45] Gwyneth Llewelyn: So, if someone wishes to do a building that does not conform to a Covenant,
[9:45] Gwyneth Llewelyn: they ask the Chancellor for permission.
[9:45] Gwyneth Llewelyn: This is the "City Hall" role of the Executive (inherited from the Old Guild)
[9:45] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Now...
[9:45] Gwyneth Llewelyn: in the past, this was quite used (and abused!)
[9:45] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Specially,
[9:45] Gwyneth Llewelyn: because it was NEVER published who got permission to do this or that
[9:46] Gwyneth Llewelyn: So we have lots of cases of a Chancellor coming up to a citizen,
[9:46] Gwyneth Llewelyn: and saying: "hey, you cannot have non-Roman houses in COlonia Nova"
[9:46] Gwyneth Llewelyn: and the citizen answering: "oh, I asked the FORMER Chancellor for permission and got it"
[9:46] Gwyneth Llewelyn: ... and if the former Chancellor isn't available,
[9:46] Pip Torok: <phew!>
[9:46] Gwyneth Llewelyn: or forgets about that
[9:47] Gwyneth Llewelyn: ... well, the current one tends to get along with it
[9:47] Gwyneth Llewelyn: So, of course, this should NOT happen
[9:47] Gwyneth Llewelyn: All "waivers" should be mandatorily published somewhere, even if it's just on a forum thread!
[9:47] Pip Torok: agree
[9:47] Jamie Palisades grins - solved our political issues yet?
[9:47] Gwyneth Llewelyn: That way, we can check on them, and the RA, if they think the Chancellor is being "too permissive", can change the COvenants
[9:47] Gwyneth Llewelyn: oh hiya Mr. Chancellor Sir!
[9:48] Jon Seattle: At the moment we are having trouble finding something to disagree about
[9:48] Pip Torok: <bows low>
[9:48] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well put, Jon
[9:48] Jamie Palisades smiles - small groups can find that sometimes. I suppose you will post resuilts and we'll get more input on the forums
[9:49] Pip Torok: but then ... _how do we elect the Chancellor_ ...<main point!>
[9:49] Gwyneth Llewelyn: To recap for Jamie's sake — instead of tackling the question of "how should the Chancellor be elected" we're actually saying that it's more important to list the powers of the Executive; demand transparency; have the RA get more sanctions besides just kicking the CHancellor out of office.
[9:49] Gwyneth Llewelyn: You're right, Pip
[9:49] Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe
[9:50] Jon Seattle: I find I don't care that much -- as long at the chancellor is not in the role of a US president -- promoting legislation
[9:50] Jamie Palisades smiles - well we had a fine demo of that issue last term, didn;t we?
[9:50] Jamie Palisades: That's an interesting comment Jon, but before rising to the bait -
[9:50] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah yes, Jon — again that's another approach: what should the Executive NEVER be able to do. I agree on one thing: NO ability to pass legislation.
[9:50] Gwyneth Llewelyn smiles back at Jamie
[9:51] Jamie Palisades: some would argue that the original design of teh CDS system anticipated that the chancellor woudl be transparent .. or not .. and that the RA would like it .. or not .. and then act to whack the Chancellor if they did not
[9:51] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, well argued indeed....
[9:51] Jamie Palisades: that system arguably works if three thigns are prsent
[9:51] Pip Torok: In theiry that shd be a working agreement between Chancellor and LRA
[9:51] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes.
[9:51] Jamie Palisades: 1. chcanellor candidates
[9:51] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Or at least Executive and RA (slight difference!)
[9:51] Jamie Palisades: (can;t thraten to kick the person out if there are no feasibale alternatives)
[9:52] Jamie Palisades: 2. an ra willign to act! heh heh
[9:52] Jamie Palisades: as opposed o, say, one terrified of its own sanction power
[9:52] Jamie Palisades chuckles
[9:52] Jamie Palisades: and finally
[9:52] Jamie Palisades: 3. an RA who in fact gives a dman and listyerns to its electorare and is plugged into its citizens
[9:52] Jamie Palisades chuckles again slightly
[9:53] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Aaaah
[9:53] Jamie Palisades: I will refrain from saying anythign about factions today
[9:53] Jon Seattle: 3 is vitally important I think.. though perhaps a topic for another day?
[9:53] Jamie Palisades: and really to sum up my point is that the Chancellor-works-"at -the-pleasuyre-of-the-RA" system only works if there's practialy, intillegent replaceability
[9:53] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Jamie, with 1. you mean that we should have more candidates (something that the RA can't do much about!...) or that the candidates should be announced properly, have some time for campaigning, etc.?
[9:54] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (because on 2 and 3 this commission cannot recommend much )
[9:54] Gwyneth Llewelyn: It's philosophy
[9:54] Jamie Palisades: Gwyn I am nto sure if #1 is a problem .. just pointing it out as a precondition.
[9:54] Jon Seattle: nods
[9:54] Pip Torok: Jamie ... how about the principle of an elected vice Chancellor ready to step in "in case ..."
[9:54] Jamie Palisades: Empirically, I have seen n>1 plausible cnadidates for chancellor ever time there's been a vacancy for several years now. I think.
[9:54] Gwyneth Llewelyn: The precondition is that there are candidates?
[9:54] Jon Seattle: Gwyn, surly we can do something about #3.
[9:55] Gwyneth Llewelyn: So what happens if there aren't? The last Chancellor stays in power?
[9:55] Jamie Palisades: ooh that's an idea Pip ... but would that person get the job automatically, so the RA knows who they get it they fire the bad guy? Or is it just a "l;ady in waiting"?
[9:55] Pip Torok: whicj is what happens today
[9:55] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Jon: philosophically — as part of faction's manifestos — I'm sure we can! But in terms of *legislation*, what can you do? "If a RA is not reflecting the citizen's wish, they get a public dunking session?"
[9:56] Jamie Palisades: @Gwyn @ PiP: yes, that's my point, you would not wan t an RA to feel they can NOT hold a Chancellor unaccountingable becaue they have no other options.
[9:56] Pip Torok: it makes the RA cautious about their choice of Chancellor (and vice-C)
[9:56] Jamie Palisades nods
[9:56] Jamie Palisades: afk a sec
[9:56] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok, I like the Vice-Chancellor idea!
[9:57] Jon Seattle: Gwyn, my point about 3 is that we need to have effective ways for the citizen's views to end up having an influcnce on election and reelection
[9:57] Jon Seattle: (as I said, we may want to discuss that some other time..)
[9:57] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh, the election of the *Chancellor*?... or of the RA?
[9:57] Jon Seattle: But one of the weaknesses of a system that does not allow such messages to be sent and that RA members do not have to worry that much about elections.
[9:57] Pip Torok: in the end its the citizens _commitment _ to democracy ... can anyone influence that? <i think not>
[9:58] Jon Seattle: Gwyn, RA
[9:58] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ahhh
[9:58] Gwyneth Llewelyn: No, we can't, Pip
[9:59] Gwyneth Llewelyn: but a mechanism where citizens can somehow get together
[9:59] Gwyneth Llewelyn: and demand that either the CHancellor or the RA steps down...
[9:59] Jamie Palisades: I copmpletely agree, Jon. Teh RA is EXTREMELY unexposed to the threat of siapproval from citizens
[9:59] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, every six months it gets "exposed"
[9:59] Jamie Palisades: membed can go on rampages wiht very little fear of their gov't, faction or position
[9:59] Jamie Palisades: and do
[9:59] Jon Seattle: Gwyn, not really.. given the sandpaper of our electoral system
[9:59] Gwyneth Llewelyn: There is ONE mechanism right now ...
[9:59] Jamie Palisades: but 6 months is a long time by SL ADD measures
[10:00] Jamie Palisades: so there is Gwyn - empirically it seems not used
[10:00] Pip Torok: agree
[10:00] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Imagine a very unpopular, autistic RA.

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

[10:00] Jamie Palisades is shocked! imagine!
[10:00] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Now, people can rally around a friendly and charismatic Chancellor,
[10:00] Gwyneth Llewelyn: and have them veto the decisions of the RA; one by one
[10:00] Gwyneth Llewelyn: That will make the RA suddenly realise that they have a proble,
[10:00] Jamie Palisades mutters and looks nixonian .. sort of Sarko with a four day beard and no girlfriend
[10:00] Gwyneth Llewelyn: *problem
[10:00] Gwyneth Llewelyn: pfft
[10:01] Gwyneth Llewelyn *shakes head*
[10:01] Pip Torok: thats right ... the UK equuivalence of "balance and checks"
[10:01] Gwyneth Llewelyn: you're just jealous of Sarko
[10:01] Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe
[10:01] Jamie Palisades: Not in RL I;m not ,... dear In SL my only true love is theh Confederaion
[10:01] Jon Seattle: Pip, we do in fact have that already -- Jamie can veto any decision by the RA
[10:01] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, Pip.... similarly, a ruthless and unpopular Chancellor can be kicked out if the citizens approach the RA (or even enter the RA and present a bill, since any citizen can do so!) to kick out the Chancellor.
[10:01] Pip Torok: ah! never knew that
[10:02] Gwyneth Llewelyn: YEs exactly
[10:02] Jamie Palisades: Jon, like I said to Gwyn, Chancellors have not in fact used that veto much ... that 'chakce/balance" presumaes an active, engaged chancellor
[10:02] Gwyneth Llewelyn: This is what we have now, Pip.
[10:02] Jon Seattle: Jamie, surely
[10:02] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Totally so, Jamie, but it's (IMHO) not a fault of the system which DOES allow it.
[10:02] Jamie Palisades: fair enough
[10:04] Jon Seattle: which I suppose gets back to having good candidates
[10:04] Pip Torok: Point of Informaton Madam Chair ... how many executives does a chancellor have and what are their funntions?
[10:04] Gwyneth Llewelyn: If we have a model where the Chancellor is directly elected, I guess that we'd have to remove the RA's power of kicking then out of office without proper impeachment procedures.
[10:04] Jamie Palisades: One question this commisison may wish eventually to conbsider what was the underlying risk or flaw that drive the RA to recommend that this quetsion be studied. In other words, colloquially, where's the fire?
[10:04] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Excellent question, Pip … undefined!
[10:04] Jamie Palisades: OOOO Gwyn good point
[10:04] Jamie Palisades: Can;t have them immediately vetoing a public choice
[10:05] Jamie Palisades: which means you;d hmmm have less checks on the Chancellor
[10:05] Jamie Palisades: hm or maybe I should like that
[10:05] Jon Seattle:
[10:05] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah, the 'flaw' was mostly twofold: 1) that the Executive has a lot of power but is not directly elected; 2) that the RA has too much power over the Chancellor and can effectively curb initiative by refusing the CHancellor to act ("threatening" with legislation if teh Chancellor doesn't do what the RA wants)
[10:05] Gwyneth Llewelyn: haha Jamie — well, no
[10:06] Gwyneth Llewelyn: there could be "several sanctions" as Pip suggested
[10:06] Gwyneth Llewelyn: eg a vote of no confidence
[10:06] Gwyneth Llewelyn: and impeachment at the SC Courts is always a last recourse.
[10:06] Gwyneth Llewelyn: and, well, removing the budget... hehe
[10:06] Gwyneth Llewelyn: "no money, no fun"
[10:06] Jon Seattle: Well, as I see it, because the directly elected chancellor was brought up quite a bit last term -- it is something worth discussing.. not sure it would be the first issue on my list, but there it is.
[10:06] Gwyneth Llewelyn *nods*
[10:07] Pip Torok: but all the argues for/against referendums apply here, no?
[10:07] Gwyneth Llewelyn: From the lack of direct input on this meeting, I guess it's not on any of our "lists"
[10:07] Jon Seattle: I think the things we are discussing, roles, accountability, are far more important.
[10:07] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah yes, we'll talk about those on a further meeting, Pip!
[10:07] Gwyneth Llewelyn seconds Jon on that....
[10:08] Gwyneth Llewelyn: So hmm
[10:08] Jamie Palisades: hmmmmmm to Gwyn's two points, #1 is a pure subjecie opinion. Not sure I have seen Chancellors run amok recently, though. #2 on the other hand is a measurablr risk. Do we have any evidence of that risk being strong? I have not seen too much bullying of chancellor by RA either over sya the lkast 4 terms. (And, yes, Jon, but by goign back to first principales a moment, I am trying to intuit whether all that talk was actually about a design flaw, or just the personalities at the time. So I think you and I end up in the same place on that conclusion.)
[10:08] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh, you're right, Jamie
[10:08] Pip Torok: agree
[10:09] Jamie Palisades: Referenda ) Is that within this commission's charge madame chair? (smile)
[10:09] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I'm *personally* not convinced that the issue is really a design flaw; I'm almost sure it's just a question of personalities.
[10:09] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (technically, just marginally so, Jamie ... but I'll avoid it hehehe)
[10:09] Jamie Palisades: OK when we are ready as CDS to talk about THAT I suspect other people will wan tto see it coming, and chime in
[10:09] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Then again, one of the purpose of this commission was to gather more input from many citizens to see if they think it's a "flaw" or "personalities in conflict".
[10:10] Jamie Palisades tentatively voted for (b)
[10:10] Gwyneth Llewelyn *nods*
[10:10] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I'd certainly say that everybody here agrees with the following:
[10:10] Pip Torok: *nods too*
[10:10] Gwyneth Llewelyn: - that the current system is not that bad
[10:10] Jamie Palisades: .. but I am the PRODUCT of the old system so my view shoud be treated as biased
[10:10] Jon Seattle has to think long and hard about that
[10:11] Gwyneth Llewelyn: - that however we need a lot more transparency; that the RA should pass bills to clarify the roles and duties of the Executive
[10:11] Pip Torok: (but then you ARE a minority here!:)
[10:11] Gwyneth Llewelyn: ... mostly regarding to accountability; what 'executive acts' have been passed; etc
[10:11] Gwyneth Llewelyn: we're all biased by definition, Jamie
[10:11] Jamie Palisades: when this is officially over I have three quick questions for you folks
[10:12] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Any comments on the two major points that would be the conclusions of this meeting today?...
[10:12] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Or any other "major point" we should add as recommendation?....
[10:12] Pip Torok: propose another point : this _precludes_ the question of how the Chancellor is elected...
[10:12] Gwyneth Llewelyn: True
[10:12] Lincoln Beck: welcome
[10:12] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hi Lincoln!
[10:12] Pip Torok: hi linc
[10:13] Jon Seattle: Hi Lincoln
[10:13] Jamie Palisades: Gwyn I agree about that transparency part strongly ... but there's some issue with how closely one branch tries to rein in another I was planning to try and MODEL a different clearer path, not have it strapped on like a girdle, personally ... I wonder if this commission would like nme to bring it some of the procedural changes I am planning, as a starting point for discvussion?
[10:13] Gwyneth Llewelyn: You're right at the end
[10:13] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sure thing, Jamie
[10:13] Gwyneth Llewelyn: In fact, that's a good point... we have in CDS the tradition of "each organisation sets its own procedures without interference from the others"
[10:14] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I'd much rather prefer to see the RA pass a bill on "guidelines" but let the Executive draw its own procedures on how they will accomplish those guidelines.
[10:14] Pip Torok: agree
[10:14] Jon Seattle: agreed also
[10:14] Gwyneth Llewelyn: well, in that case, we'll recommend it too.... hehe
[10:16] Jamie Palisades: what's the lifespan of this commission expected to be? time to bring more data to it to elaborate that at a future meeting? or not?
[10:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn: mmmh
[10:16] Jamie Palisades: "not: is OK too
[10:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I believe we have 4 more meetings to go
[10:16] Jamie Palisades: o ho! The Bataan Death Meeting
[10:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn: one topic per meeting, so we can do just one-hour-long meetings
[10:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn: rofl
[10:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn: So I'll suggest that we listen to your ideas, Jamie,
[10:17] Gwyneth Llewelyn: and then adjourn — although we started late, we've been here for an hour
[10:17] Jamie Palisades: Gwyn I was not proposing to do so today
[10:17] Jamie Palisades: just driopped in
[10:17] Jamie Palisades: I can post, insrtedam if you like
[10:17] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh that would work for me
[10:18] Jamie Palisades will hold his "interesting but not relevant" stuff for adjorunment
[10:18] Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe ok
[10:19] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Shall we adjourn then?
[10:19] Jon Seattle: sure
[10:19] Pip Torok: SURE!!!
[10:19] Jamie Palisades: sounds like my cue