Setting a size for the RA

[Rose Springvale]

For as loud a proponent of representative government as you are Pat, i find this proposal suspect. What is wrong with everyone who wants to participate in the government having a seat?? Isn't that really the case we've always had? Usually our elections turn OUT willing volunteers, and then someone appoints someone else who didn't run in the first place instead. That's the problem with the faction system, and so long as we have enough people running for election as we have seats, hopefully that abomination won't happen again.

As our population grows, we will have more diversity, not less. That's a great thing, and each of those voices deserves to be heard on the RA. 10% is a good number. We don't, after all, buy our reps second homes, moats or duck houses.

[Patroklus Murakami]

For as loud a proponent of representative government as you are Pat, i find this proposal suspect. What is wrong with everyone who wants to participate in the government having a seat??

In that case, if more is always better, why not set the RA size at 20%, 30%, 50%?

We could even set it at 100% and have a direct democracy. How about 110%? That would certainly be interesting

10% is a completely arbitrary percentage as are all the others. The purpose is to set it at a size that works. I don't think the current size works, that's why I've proposed changes.

I say what I mean and mean what I say. What about the proposal is 'suspect'? What could my 'hidden agenda' be this time?

[Patroklus Murakami]

Well, given that only 6 candidates have come forward for the 7 seats on the next RA, I think it's time to revive this proposal. The only difference is that I think there is no need for the legislature to scale with the size of the population (I never really liked that idea too much anyway).

Let's just set it at 5 and have done with it. We have too many Government posts and civil service positions as it is. Let's find other ways for people to volunteer and contribute to the community beyond the RA, SC and Executive. The plethora of Government jobs and intervention makes it difficult for a real 'civil society' to develop in the CDS. I've proposed elsewhere that the SC should be reformed into a 3-member body chosen by the Chancellor and confirmed by the RA. With this reform we would be down to 9 people as the 'Government' of the CDS (not counting civil service positions). That's more than enough for a community of our size (or our community at any of it's historic sizes, or any other SL community).

[Patroklus Murakami]

I would like to put this on the agenda for the next RA meeting.

We are about to hold a set of elections where (I think) we will have a 7 seat Assembly. I doubt we will get enough candidates to have a proper contest. So I'd like to revive my proposal to fix the size of the Assembly at five members.

As this is a Constitutional Amendment, it will need four out of five votes to pass.

[Trebor Warcliffe]

Why don't you add the abolishment of term limits as another action to put on the agenda. It seems rather counterproductive to have term limits in place when we can't get enough citizens to stand for office in the first place. I'm all for giving everyone a fair opportunity but why handicap ourselves by not allowing citizens who want to stand for office just because they've already served two terms in a row. I know most of the active citizens who are hindered by term limits would probably step aside if more citizens showed an interest in holding office but why should we punish the willing especially considering there are so few of them.

Trebor Warcliffe

[Callipygian]

Why don't you add the abolishment of term limits as another action to put on the agenda. It seems rather counterproductive to have term limits in place when we can't get enough citizens to stand for office in the first place. I'm all for giving everyone a fair opportunity but why handicap ourselves by not allowing citizens who want to stand for office just because they've already served two terms in a row. I know most of the active citizens who are hindered by term limits would probably step aside if more citizens showed an interest in holding office but why should we punish the willing especially considering there are so few of them.

Trebor Warcliffe

The term limit for RA seats was already removed; term limits for Chancellor still apply.

Motion to amend CDSL 13-07
http://portal.slcds.info/index.php?id=422

from:
No directly elected office in the CDS Government can be held by the same citizen more than two terms in succession
Anything over 13 weeks, or half a term, constitutes a term for purposes of the term limit law

into:
No elected office of the Executive branch in the CDS Government can be held by the same citizen for more than two terms in succession
Anything over 13 weeks, or half a term, constitutes a term for purposes of the term limit law

4 aye
1 nay
0 abstain
2 non votes

This has not been updated on the portal, but was passed April 10, 2011.

Calli

[FernLeissa]

Calli,

We do have term restrictions for the RA. This from the transcript of the RA meeting of October 30, 2011:

[13:50] Trebor Warcliffe: Id liek to point out two elections ago
[13:50] Trebor Warcliffe: We didnt have enough candidates to run for RA BUT
[13:51] Arria Perreault: do you have a proposal, Fern?
[13:51] Trebor Warcliffe: we didnt know this until after the deadline to submit
[13:51] Vespasian Cortes: thinks about Lobbying (also lobby) is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials in the government, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies.
[13:51] Trebor Warcliffe: was over with
[13:51] Sonja Strom: Would anyone like to propose the actual text for a motion?
[13:51] Fern Leissa: Can we vote on reinstating or not reinstating CDSL-13-07 "No directly elected office in the CDS Government can be held by the same citizen more than two terms in succession
Anything over 13 weeks, or half a term, constitutes a term for purposes of the term limits law"
[13:51] Trebor Warcliffe: Maybe if people declared earler thqan teh deadline
[13:51] Trebor Warcliffe: it woudl give others time to decide if they want to run or not
[13:51] Trebor Warcliffe: I know both Guill and I were new back htan
[13:51] Guillaume Mistwalker: I was the only RA member who was elected that term, Trebor.
[13:51] Guillaume Mistwalker: Yes.
[13:52] Sonja Strom: Good text, Fern, thank you.
[13:52] Trebor Warcliffe: and both of us would have stood for the regular election if we kneow there wansnt enough candidates
[13:52] Guillaume Mistwalker: We both were the only ones to be voted on ㋡
[13:52] Arria Perreault: any second?
[13:52] Tor Karlsvalt: True, we had to have a special election
[13:52] Sonja Strom: I second.
[13:52] Arria Perreault: vote
[13:52] Fern Leissa: aye
[13:52] Sonja Strom: aye
[13:52] Pip Torok: nay
[13:53] Arria Perreault: aye
[13:53] Guillaume Mistwalker: Classic CDS.
[13:53] Arria Perreault: motions carries. this vote is submitted to a 7-day vote

And here is the entire transcript of that meeting if you want to take a look at the discussion proceeding that vote. http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... mit#p18114

It appears that we have a fairly serious legislative record-keeping issue. We may want to look again for a solution of how to keep the postings of legislative changes up to date.

Fern

[Patroklus Murakami]

We have strayed a bit from the topic of this thread (I hope to discuss the issue of the size of the RA at the next meeting on 28 April) but this has highlighted an area where I have been delinquent - updating the portal with our code of laws and constitutional changes. The ones referred to are before the time I took over as RA Archivist but, even so, I had intended to go through previous RA transcripts and update the information.

The problem I have is that I'm not clear how to go about it now. With the old wiki I could go in and work out how to post new laws as they came up and amend the Constitution in line with any changes. How would I go about doing this for the new portal? Can anyone point me in the right direction?

[Callipygian]

Calli,

We do have term restrictions for the RA. This from the transcript of the RA meeting of October 30, 2011:

...
And here is the entire transcript of that meeting if you want to take a look at the discussion proceeding that vote. http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... mit#p18114

It appears that we have a fairly serious legislative record-keeping issue. We may want to look again for a solution of how to keep the postings of legislative changes up to date.

Fern

Thanks you Fern - I recalled the first reversal but not this one so wasn't looking for it when I went back to check. I suggest we rename this the YoYo Act since it's in constant flux

Seriously, the issue of record keeping *is* a challenge. Pat's method and some previous posters of transcripts helps - putting a summary at the start of major points and motions, but that still requires going back through transcripts until you find what you are looking for.

To me it would be logical to have someone go through and check all the entries in the Code of Laws etc, make sure they are current and accurate (probably not a stunningly innovative idea, I think it's been brought up before ), but also listing a 'Date amended' . So the entry for this act might look like this:

CDSL 13-07 Term Limits Act
No directly elected office in the CDS Government can be held by the same citizen more than two terms in succession
Anything over 13 weeks, or half a term, constitutes a term for purposes of the term limits law

Enacted (date)
Amended April 10 2011
Amended October 30 2011

This would make life much easier for RA and SC members researching the background of laws and generally assist citizens who want to see the progression of things over time. As an example, the RA Journals on the portal are non-existent for the 13th RA, and i don't have tome to go through every transcript on the Forums to find the enactment date.

Maintaining this would be a simple task for the RA archivist once its updated - RA doesn't pass that many laws, acts or amendments, but it might be worth hiring someone to ge the updating done.

Calli

[Rosie Gray]

We have strayed a bit from the topic of this thread (I hope to discuss the issue of the size of the RA at the next meeting on 28 April) but this has highlighted an area where I have been delinquent - updating the portal with our code of laws and constitutional changes. The ones referred to are before the time I took over as RA Archivist but, even so, I had intended to go through previous RA transcripts and update the information.

The problem I have is that I'm not clear how to go about it now. With the old wiki I could go in and work out how to post new laws as they came up and amend the Constitution in line with any changes. How would I go about doing this for the new portal? Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Pat you have an account on the CDS website that allows you to log in and edit the pages. You can go to the appropriate page and update the constitution there. Is there something else you'd like to do? If you're not sure how to do this I can help you with it.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Thanks Rosie. I will look in to that. I don't think I've ever logged in to the portal and I think it may require more skills than I have to modify it but I will give it a go.

The RA voted at its last meeting to amend the Constitution to set the size of the Representative Assembly at five seats. The transcript is here.

[Cindy Ecksol]

The RA voted at its last meeting to amend the Constitution to set the size of the Representative Assembly at five seats. The transcript is here.

Wow, what were you thinking? I mean, what fun is an RA of only five people???

Cindy
<nostalgic for the days of the 13 member RA....not!>

[Patroklus Murakami]

The SC has decided to invalidate the 28 April RA meeting. I propose that the RA revote on this item at the next meeting on 12 May. If anyone has further comments on this proposal, please post them here. I propose that the RA does not spend much of its time debating a proposal it has passed once already.

[Patroklus Murakami]

The RA voted (again) to amend the Constitution to set the number of RA seats at five at its meeting on 12 May 2012. Transcript here.
Ayes - Anna, Patroklus, Rosie, Shep.
Beathan has a 7-day vote but, with four votes, the Constitutional Amendment passes.

[Beathan]

I would prefer a larger RA, but an RA of 5 is workable -- and we barely had enough candidates to run for the seats as it is.

I vote "aye" -- noting that the RA can always increase its numbers in future terms if our population and civic involvment so warrant.

Beathan