RA Hearing Proposal

[Beathan]

In aid of both its governmental role and its service role, under the Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 1, the Representative Assembly shall have the right to hold RA hearings to engage in fact-finding and investigations of matters of public concern.

Any member of the RA, on his or her own authority, may call such a hearing, and may issue an order to any citizen or official of the CDS that he or she provide three available times for appearance at such a hearing within the three weeks following notice of required attendance. The member of the RA may call multiple citizens or officials to testify at the hearing, and the hearing may be convened and reconvened as necessary to allow for such testimony. Testimony may be staggered such that the hearing is not completed within three weeks of its being called, but every hearing shall terminate on the starting date for campaigning for the next term of the RA, whether completed or not.

Any such hearing shall be scheduled by member of the RA who convened it at one of the available dates provided the person called to testify at the hearing. If no mutually agreeable date is found, then the member of the RA may request additional available dates and may extend the time for setting the hearing by three additional weeks.

At any such hearing, the person or persons called to testify shall take an oath or affirmation that the testimony they give shall be true. Further, if emails, notecards, or other recorded communications are requested in the notice of hearing issued by the member of the RA who convened the hearing, the person called to testify shall provide those at the hearing and shall take and oath or affirmation that they are accurate, that no other relevant communications exist, and that he or she has not destroyed or discarded any such relevant communications (or shall provide an explanation for the destruction of any such communications and testimony about the contents of the destroyed communication).
Any citizen may attend any such hearing, but shall not participate in that hearing. Any member of the RA may attend and participate in the hearing. Each member of the RA shall have ten minutes to question the person called to testify at the hearing, and may yield their time to any other member of the RA, whether or not the yielding member personally attends the hearing.

No person may be called to testify more than once in any hearing process unless the RA, in regular session, votes to recall that person by a 2/3 vote.
All such hearings shall be recorded and the recording of all such hearings shall posted on the RA Announcements forum.

Any citizen or official of the CDS who fails to appear at a hearing scheduled under this provision, or who fails to provide dates for the scheduling of a hearing under this provision, shall be referred to the SC for adjudication of their nonappearance. Unless the SC finds, by clear, cogent and convincing evidence, that the nonappearance or nonparticipation was innocent, was the result of lack of proper notice, or was the result of an unavoidable technical problem or compelling real life conflict, the person who failed to appear or participate shall be penalized by a the SC. The minimum penalty shall be a one-term bar on voting or participating in CDS government. The maximum penalty shall be exile. The SC shall, in its discretion, fashion any penalty within this range.

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

I like that as a matter of principle. Sure, the SC always had the opportunity to do something similar, but in the convoluted discussion around the Judiciary System in 2006/7, we sort of lost our way — apparently, these days, the SC can only start an enquiry if someone requests it (although, in theory, one SC member could start it, so long as that SC member would not be a party to the enquiry...).

This bill would somehow "mirror" the capacity of the SC and also allow the RA to do pretty much the same. It's a good mechanism which is more "formal" than a meeting/discussion, but not as dreadful as an "impeachment". I like the overall idea, and I'm looking forward to see what comes out of it. Perhaps it needs a bit more polishing so that public enquiries do not degenerate into "witch hunting" or outright ostracism, but used in moderation, under circumstances that demand such enquiries, having a formal model to establish them can be useful in the future.

[Beathan]

Witch hunting is a fair concern. This is modeled on Congressional Hearings -- which (in the McCarthy era) were certainly abused.

The concept here is that the hearings are information gathering only. There is no penalty except for refusal to participate or deliberate obstruction of the process, and then the penalty is not imposed without its own hearing and by the SC, which is the appropriate, adjudicative arm of government for imposition of penalties.

My concern is that the RA often operates on less-than-complete information, and there needs to be a mechanism that can be used to develop that information. Secondarily, Congressional Hearings, even if they don't produce actionable legislative information, often cast light on problems that improve or resolve merely by being put into light. Third, in the immediate term, I am very confused and quite shocked by the mess of this election. I declared my candidacy in the belief that the election would be a regular one and that, if elected, there would be no cloud over my election. That is not the case. I want to know why -- both because I want to figure out how to avoid the problem in the future and because I want to resolve the conspiracy theories, for better or worse, once and for all.

That last point is larger than this last problem. The CDS, for as long as I have been involved in it, has been rife with accusations and conspiracy theories. I would like to have some mechanism to either reveal or disprove those conspiracies -- and I think we would all be better off in for such light.

Beathan

[Pip Torok]

I like that as a matter of principle. Sure, the SC always had the opportunity to do something similar, but in the convoluted discussion around the Judiciary System in 2006/7, we sort of lost our way — apparently, these days, the SC can only start an enquiry if someone requests it (although, in theory, one SC member could start it, so long as that SC member would not be a party to the enquiry...).

This bill would somehow "mirror" the capacity of the SC and also allow the RA to do pretty much the same. It's a good mechanism which is more "formal" than a meeting/discussion, but not as dreadful as an "impeachment". I like the overall idea, and I'm looking forward to see what comes out of it. Perhaps it needs a bit more polishing so that public enquiries do not degenerate into "witch hunting" or outright ostracism, but used in moderation, under circumstances that demand such enquiries, having a formal model to establish them can be useful in the future.

.

I agree, Gwyn. Polishing is needed.

Here are two proposals to define the terms used by Beahan, terms which are not found within the constitution .... as far as I know.

"Matter of public concern" : an issue backed by the explicit consent of nine citizens supporting the plaintiff and made within seven days of the issue being placed.

"Exile" : An exile set during any one term will have deemed to have lapsed at the start of the succeeding term. During the period of exile, tier still needs to be paid, and objects will remain in place. In addition, the citizen will be able to sell, but not to buy, land.

Pip Torok

[Beathan]

Pip -- I left "Matter of public concern" rather vague on purpose. If pressed, I would prefer a broad interpretation -- and would change it to "on any matter on which the RA can lawfully legislate." That might prevent individualized witch hunts or hearings that ask "are you now or have you ever been a member of the Simplicity Party," which are things to avoid.

You are right -- exile is not a great word. I do note that that is the recognized highest penalty in the CDS and has been imposed. However, I would accept "permanent loss of voting rights." If that is too severe (and it might be), I would accept a penalty of "loss of voting rights within a range of one to five RA terms."

Beathan

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

Just a comment... although Ashcroft had a very comprehensive Judiciary Branch which tried to define some of the possible penalties, we truly don't have many of them explicitly stated in the current legislation. Maybe this bill could be complemented with another one defining what words mean.

The highest penalty in the CDS, by precedent (and not law), is the "removal of the right of a person to become a citizen ever again". This strangely-sounding wording came into effect because you could ban avatars, but anyone can create an alt and come back; in fact, we have several examples of former "banned" citizens who returned with alts. So something stronger than "banning" was necessary. The "removal of the right of becoming a citizen ever again" applies to the person, not to the avatar. I'm fine in using the word "exile" for this, but it should be made clear somewhere.

The next-highest penalty is "banning and confiscation of property". As noticed, this doesn't prevent a person from registering a new alt and coming back. And that's ok: in some cases, people learn the lesson and behaved better under the new alt, and we all benefitted from that. That would be like going to jail but coming back under a new identity and with better motivation, and, unlike RL, not facing the stigma of being an ex-convict

For people disturbing the peace — mostly visitors, not citizens — the highest penalty is usually "banning". There are procedures for banned avatars to submit a plea to the SC to revert their decision, and nothing prevents them from joining the CDS afterwards. Some of those procedures were codified in law under NL 4-24 Defense of the Republic Act.

In the past it was mentioned that "fines" could also be applied. In practice this never happened.

Government officials can be "impeached". Impeachment is not the penalty for committing a crime; just for failing to uphold the Constitution or the Code of Laws in some manner while in office. Of course, in some cases, CDS officials might both commit a crime and severely abuse their powers, and in that case they might be impeached as per the impeachment procedures and get tried for the crime they committed. Exiling implies impeachment if the person exiled was a member of the CDS Government at that time.

For visitors disturbing the peace, but not in a manner requiring banning; or for citizens violating the covenants, this was always handled as a "minor offense" and usually just a reprimand was in order, which could be more or less formal. The formal ones usually got a notecard, and sometimes — very rarely — a forum post mentioning the offense.

Now, I really don't want to get back to the old days of discussing the Judiciary, but because there might be an opportunity to introduce here some information related to public offenses, crimes, and penalties, I think it would be worth to submit a separate bill identifying the many options — perhaps we need more than the above-mentioned ones, or some are obsolete and unnecessary — and codify them in law.

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

The concept here is that the hearings are information gathering only. There is no penalty except for refusal to participate or deliberate obstruction of the process, and then the penalty is not imposed without its own hearing and by the SC, which is the appropriate, adjudicative arm of government for imposition of penalties.

Thanks for the clarification; that was pretty much what I thought after reading the proposal for the first time, but I started having some doubts if that was the intention after reading it a second time

The clarification is important because, well, this discussion will remain on the forums as an aid to future interpretations