Bill proposals: Citizenship and Electoral Reform

[Shep]

Very illuminating Sudane .. thank you

[FernLeissa]

Hi Sudane,

Thanks for clarifying the mechanics of citizenship. I'm wondering if we can't ditch the land scan by simply relying on a Hippo system to establish current tier payment on day X. Wouldn't I have to own at least one piece of land in order to register a tier payment? I don't mean to say that land ownership would not remain a requirement; this is purely a question of the mechanics of establishing ownership prior to an election.

I don't have any idea how you monitor citizenship established through land sponsorship. Is this something that could also be managed by the Hippo system?

Fern

[Sudane Erato]

Thanks for clarifying the mechanics of citizenship. I'm wondering if we can't ditch the land scan by simply relying on a Hippo system to establish current tier payment on day X. Wouldn't I have to own at least one piece of land in order to register a tier payment? I don't mean to say that land ownership would not remain a requirement; this is purely a question of the mechanics of establishing ownership prior to an election.

Consider:

Newcomer W decides that they would like to participate in the next elections, but has no serious intention of owning land of staying any longer than the elections. They arrive in the CDS, go up to a "For Sale" Hippo box, and pay one month tier. Nothing else. They never feel any need to buy the parcel itself, since they are now in the Hippo list.

Two significant impacts to this. (1) If Rudeen (the CDS state) owns the land, it is deprived of the sale revenue. (2) If a private citizen owns the land, they are deprived of the sale revenue, while at the same time having no way to renew their tier payments, since now Newcomer W possesses the tier box.

We COULD do this. We could abandon the idea of the technical ownership of parcels, and define citizenship as purely a matter of payments to the Hippo box. The "state" could technically own all the land. But this would create a new nightmare of administration, since the constraints of parcel ownership, such as allocated prim limits, prim placement, etc, would be removed.

I think that we must adhere to the functionality of private parcel ownership. And until the mechanism exists which ties tier payments to the "owner field" of About Land, we are stuck with a two-part system in which the two essential parts, "land ownership" and "tier payment" are utterly isolated.

I don't have any idea how you monitor citizenship established through land sponsorship. Is this something that could also be managed by the Hippo system?

This could actually be done fairly easily, following along with the issues I've just explained. There IS NO essential connection between land ownership and tier payment, except in our minds. Therefore, if we have no intention of giving the tier-paying citizen any "control" over the land they are paying for, such as in the case of the sponsorship of a public building, we can certainly simply set up a Hippo box anywhere, label it "Sponsorship of the Thermae", and let a citizen make payments to it. When no sponsor is paying for it, we really SHOULD change the text on the sign, to be instead of "For Sale" to something like "Sponsorship Available".

Now, that said, this concept of citizenship ALSO departs from the concept noted above of the technical ownership of parcels. I personally adhere to Gwyn's very appealing vision, that a citizen be an owner of land in the CDS. What really is the benefit of sponsorship? If it's an existing citizen simply wishing to expand their support of the community, then great! But if it's a newcomer hoping for a cheaper way of citizenship... why not simply make sure that we have sufficient small parcels to meet the demand?

Sudane........................

[FernLeissa]

Hi Sudane,

Thanks for explaining. I agree we don't want to do just Hippo payments, I just didn't think it through all the way. So, it does look like we need a two part citizenship/voter test.... Hippo payment on at least one plot AND land ownership.

I agree also about sponsorship. Small, very affordable plots (which we have in NFS) make more sense in terms of keeping the process simple and consistent.

Fern

[Patroklus Murakami]

We continued this discussion at the second meeting of the Citizenship Transparency Commission. A summary and transcript are here.

[Sudane Erato]

To follow up a bit on some of the issues raised at the March 4 meeting....

A lot of discussion about the aspect of my suggestion which proposes that only ONE parcel owned by a citizen need be current in their tier in order that that citizen qualify as a voter.

I agree this is counter-intuitive. Common sense says that a citizens entire "tax payment account" should be in order for them to qualify. With the old system this went without saying... all your parcels were paid with one payment. But with the Hippo system, each parcel is paid for separately, and the exact status of a given parcel is not necessarily known. A Hippo box could be in arrears for any of the following reasons:

1. The person forgot to pay by the expiration day (but has every intention of keeping the parcel).

2. The person decided to give up the parcel, but then did nothing about it.

3. A person told the box that they will "Terminate" at the end of the already paid period. Even after that period is over, it takes a few days before the box ejects the person and removes their name.

4. The person decided to leave the parcel by telling a staff person, but the staff person hadn't had time to remove them from the Hippo box... or maybe even forgot, since this was a "verbal transaction".

I think that the only way we can have a citizenship criteria which requires that ALL parcels be current is to include a criteria which people MUST follow if they wish to be disassociated from a particular parcel.... i.e.... so that the payment status on that parcel no longer affects their citizenship qualification. This makes the whole system more complex.

Regarding the actual land ownership issue (where the name of the citizen must appear in at least one parcel's "About Land"). Please recall Gwyn's original proposal (at the top of this thread). Group ownership of a parcel would NOT qualify a person for citizenship. The individual could own, if they wished, 5 parcels through group ownership and only 1 parcel in their own name... and that would qualify them. A complicating factor which my suggestion ignores is if that person owns a parcel in their name, but someone else actually pays tier to its tier box. That parcel owner might be paying tier to some of the group owned parcels. If so, their name appears in the Hippo list and in the parcel ownership list. So they are qualified.

The Land Scanner has no way of reading owners for parcels owned by a group. If we are going to rely on a Land Scanner report, we must require that at least one parcel be owned by the individual. Tech note... it can be "Set To Group" but not "Deeded To Group".

Sadly, this is all so complicated. If only we could talk Hippo into developing a Hippo box product which collected tier only from the parcel owner, so that buying the parcel automatically set that person up as the Hippo box payer.... things would be so much simpler!

Sudane....................................

[Beathan]

Sudane,

I don't find your proposal counter-intuitive at all. The opposite in fact.

My reasoning -- if a person owned a single parcel and was current on tier, that person would be a citizen. A person current on at least one parcel is current on a single parcel. That should be the citizenship qualification.

The penalty for nonpayment of tier on other parcels should have a consequence -- loss of the land -- but not the consequence that strips a citizen of the benefit that should flow to them by virtue of being a current landowner with current tier.

Beathan

[Sudane Erato]

Beathan, I agree. That's my reasoning as well. It seems fair and appropriate.

Still, I think some find it counter-intuitive, which was a theme in the hearing last Sunday.

Sudane.....................

[Patroklus Murakami]

Now that we have held two Commission meetings to discuss these issues, and held this discussion here on the forums, I propose that we pass legislation to put the relevant changes into effect at the next RA meeting on 17 March. Anyone affected by these changes will then have time to get their own plot of land and retain citizenship (if they should so wish) before the qualifying date for the next set of elections.

These bills owe a great deal to the work which Gwyn and Sudane have already done in this thread to clarify the issues and draft appropriate legislation. They could no doubt be improved further before we discuss them at the next RA meeting.

Bill #1: Citizenship Establishment

Preamble

CDSL 13-10, Citizenship Bill, attempted to define more precisely the link between citizenship and land established as a fundamental principle in the Constitution of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators (CDS) in its Article VI – Citizenship, by establishing guidelines on how to incorporate the citizenship grant made to citizens who used previous laws to become citizens without a direct relationship with land ownership.

However, in subsequent events, it was made clear that the extraordinary amount of legislation covering all possible cases for citizenship complicated the establishment of an official List of Citizens as per the requirements of NL 5-15, Citizen Information Act. As a result, this list is rarely updated and requires individual validation of each and every member on the list.

Therefore, this bill provides a new and easier method to validate citizenship by keeping to the guidelines set forth in the Constitution.

• 1. "Granting title to land" is henceforward defined as being listed as the sole proprietor of a parcel of land, as shown by the About Land tool (or whatever technological feature of the official Second Life Viewer shows the ownership of a parcel).
  2. Citizens shall be entitled to vote in CDS elections and/or stand for office if, on the date set by the Scientific Council in accordance with the Constitution for this purpose, they own at least one parcel of land and are current in their tier payments for at least one parcel. A citizen shall be an individual avatar whose name appears on both the Hippo list as being current in the tier payments and on a list of current parcel owners.
  3. Private land can optionally be set (but not deeded) to any group, but that does not entitle any member of the group a grant to the title of the land. Mistakenly deeded land should be reverted, optionally with the assistance from the Estate Owner or any similar role with the appropriate land management powers.
  4. Public land, or land owned by organisations incorporated in the CDS, can be deeded to a group. As per the previous article, this does not grant members of the group any title to the land.
  5. "Sponsored locations" in the terms previously defined under CDSL 13-10 are abolished. Land set or deeded to groups under the provision of CDSL 13-10 will revert to public land status and claimed by the appropriate land management group set by Government for the region.
  6. Citizenship derived solely through membership of a group or through being the partner of a CDS citizen is hereby abolished.
  7. Membership in any "waiting list" for acquisition of a first parcel in the CDS, to be sold by Government as soon as new regions or parcels are opened for sale, does not confer citizenship status to those members, since it does not effectively confer grant title to land.
  8. Any citizen that loses their citizenship status due to the passage of this bill is encouraged to purchase a parcel of land in the CDS and shall be entitled to a waiver of the land ownership/transfer cost, only in the case that the parcel bought is the property of the CDS Government, and only for the first parcel purchased under this provision.
  9. Citizens losing their status due to the revocation of CDSL 13-10, when buying their first parcel of land in the CDS, will have priority in applying for any paid Civil Service role (under the provision of NL 5-7, Civil Service Act, and subsequent legislation), in case any such new role is announced or an existing role has a vacancy, provided that the candidate has the adequate competences and skills required to apply for that role.

----------------------------------------------------------
Bill #2: Citizenship membership publication for election purposes

Preamble

In previous terms, the risk of a large amount of Second Life residents suddenly acquiring title to a land in the Confederation of Democratic Simulators (CDS) in order to swing the vote towards a candidate, and immediately abandoning their title to the land afterwards, encouraged legislators to establish a rule that only citizens which held the title to their land for over 28 days were allowed to vote and be elected. However, due to the complexities of the electoral calendar, the validation of that requirement was unnecessarily complicated.

Similarly, NL 5-15, Citizen Information Act, was a mechanism to adequately provide citizens and the election overseeing agencies (namely, the Scientific Council) with a way to publicly validate any resident claims to a title to land in the CDS, and therefore being a full citizen. Such a list has traditionally been hard to obtain, even though NL 9-3, Land Sales Listing Improvement Act, improves upon it.

Since NL 5-15 mandates that the list is published at least once every month, this bill mandates the following:

• 1. The Citizen List shall be published by the CDS Executive Branch, through either an automated system under the responsibility of the Estate Owner or such similar role with equivalent administrative and technical powers.
  2. The Citizen List shall contain the avatar names of all citizens entitled to vote and/or be elected.
  3. On the cutoff date, at the cutoff time, CDS personnel will generate both a Hippo list of tier payors and a Land Scanner list of parcel owners. They will then compare these two lists to determine that a given name appears on both lists, and that that given name is current in at least one parcel tier payment.
  3. Nobody outside the published list shall be entitled either to vote or to be elected in an upcoming election, subject to appeals to the Scientific Council (in the case of list compilation mistakes or unaccounted payments made in time).
  4. This bill revokes NL 5-17, Census Scheduling Act. The number of seats in the Representative Assembly shall be calculated on the day the Citizen List is published for the express purpose of determining citizen eligibility to vote.
  5. This bill applies to all elections and by-elections of Government members, representatives, or any official polling act called by any of the Government Branches (such as referenda or public consultation) that may have legislative power.
  6. This bill does not revoke any other right of citizens, specifically NL 5-21, Citizen Involvement Act, or any public contest without the force of legislative power, such as proposing a new theme for an upcoming region to be publicly opened, redesigning the CDS official presence, or similar non-legislative acts.

[Trebor Warcliffe]

I’d like to thank everyone who contributed to the creation of this legislation. My response will be brief. I disagree that an owner of multiple parcels only has to be current on one parcel of land in order to vote. I have a hard time agreeing that a citizen delinquent on some of their tier would be considered a citizen in good standing.

This citizen list that is to be published at least once every month; are we only listing the avatar names of all citizens entitled to vote and/or be elected or are we also including any parcels with delinquent tier whether or not they are entitled to vote? Shouldn’t both eligible and ineligible be included that way we know the status of each and every citizen?

Those are the only two concerns or points of interest that I have.

Trebor Warcliffe

[Patroklus Murakami]

Trebor

I share your concerns but here is the rationale...

We can go two ways on the qualification for citizenship (and nomination) issue. There's a 'minimal' route and a 'maximal' route.

I've proposed legislation in line with the minimal route - the requirement is to own at least one parcel and be current in tier in at least one parcel. This is simpler and easier to administer and less prone to the creation of difficult 'edge cases' which will need complex adjudication from the SC. On the relevant date we generate a 'land owners' list using the (adapted, updated) Land Scanner tool and a Hippo rental list to say who is current in tier. If a name is on both lists then they are entitled to vote (or stand for election).

Since the remit of the Commission was to improve transparency I think this proposal has a lot going for it. If someone has more than one parcel and is delinquent in their payments for some, but not all, of them then they are still a voting citizen and able to run for office but the delinquency is a separate issue for resolution by payment of arrears or forfeiting the parcel. (We could consider separately whether we are too lenient with non-payment of tier and develop a harsher regime if people think there is abuse currently).

The alternative is the maximal route which was favoured by a number of people at the second Commission meeting. Here, if you own more than one parcel you must be current with tier payments on all of them or you won't be able to vote (or stand for office). While this makes intuitive sense - we should all be current in our payments all the time after all - I think the associated problems could make this very difficult to implement.

As well as generating the 'land owners' list and the Hippo rental list *someone* (for whom this will be a fresh burden) will have to check that all the parcels owned by each citizen match up with currently paid tier on each parcel on the Hippo list. If there is a mismatch then the citizen will be disqualified for voting (or standing for election).

The problem is, as Sudane has pointed out in this thread and at the Commission meeting, we have no way of knowing from generating the lists what the person's intentions are. Are they delinquent in tier? Or are they planning to sell/abandon the land and haven't got round to it? Have they sold the parcel and the new owner has paid tier but not transferred ownership? There are countless ways in which this could lead to someone being disqualified and feeling (perhaps rightly) that they should be entitled to vote/stand. The SC would then have to spend some considerable time sorting out the disputes in order to finalise the list.

We are trying to solve the problem of making citizenship more transparent so the qualification should be clear and unambiguous and less likely to create disputes. I think the 'minimal' option is more likely to achieve this.

[Beathan]

Pat,

Good analysis and response to Trebor. I will say that I will vote against any change in citizenship in line with what you call the "maximal" route, but will likely support legislation (such as the proposed legislation -- which I am still thinking through) on the "minimal" route. There should be a penalty for nonpayment of tier -- loss of land. However, that penalty should result in loss of citizenship only when it results in the avatar owning no land. Otherwise, we penalize multiple estate owners who have an equivalent claim to citizenship as single estate owners (payment of tier on a property) if the multiple estate owner, through oversight or otherwise, misses a payment. Loss of land is sufficient penalty, especially as loss of all land would result in the ultimate penalty, loss of citizenship.

Beathan

[Delia Lake]

The SC would then have to spend some considerable time sorting out the disputes in order to finalise the list.

We are trying to solve the problem of making citizenship more transparent so the qualification should be clear and unambiguous and less likely to create disputes.

From my perspective as a member of the SC, making citizenship qualifications well-known, clear and unambiguous, and citizenship status easy to determine, is a huge plus.

[Anna Toussaint]

I thank Pat and the commission for all their hard work; the legislation will be on the agenda for tomorrow's RA meeting.

While I share Trebor's concern about the "minimal" approach to qualification, weighing all the arguments I agree with that approach.

Here's hoping we have a productive debate in RA tomorrow!

Anna

[Callipygian]

Pat, thank you for getting this posted early enough for review and thought before the RA meeting. My apologies for such a late response, but RL has been a priority this week.

...
Bill #1: Citizenship Establishment

...
8. Any citizen that loses their citizenship status due to the passage of this bill is encouraged to purchase a parcel of land in the CDS and shall be entitled to a waiver of the land ownership/transfer cost, only in the case that the parcel bought is the property of the CDS Government, and only for the first parcel purchased under this provision.
9. Citizens losing their status due to the revocation of CDSL 13-10, when buying their first parcel of land in the CDS, will have priority in applying for any paid Civil Service role (under the provision of NL 5-7, Civil Service Act, and subsequent legislation), in case any such new role is announced or an existing role has a vacancy, provided that the candidate has the adequate competences and skills required to apply for that role.
[/list]

While the wording here says 'encouraged to purchase', it continues on to state that no purchase price will occur if the land bought is owned by the CDS. I believe the principle of tying land ownership to citizenship implies that to be a citizen, one should have invested in the CDS by purchasing and maintaining tier on a parcel. Land that is free has no investment attached, and additionally, I feel the precedent of giving free land is a poor one, whether it is to one person or a dozen.

While one might say 'but we are stripping this person of citizenship!' the reality is that they have been a citizen for whatever period of time without ever making that investment that every other citizen has made. If we really need to lessen the cost of acquiring citizenship then offer a discount on tier for a few months perhaps, or sell the land at a nominal price of 1L per sq. metre, but follow the principal of asking anyone affected to invest in CDS. I also question giving priority for civil service roles; there may be a number of citizens for whom tier payments may be difficult and those civil service roles might be a method to cover some tier costs - to give special status to an avatar who has already maintained citizenship for a time at a 'discount' rate of 100 or 250 lindens per month seems quite unfair.

If the free land is to stay as part of the legislation proposed, could a parcel size be included at least, and a statement that the land can only be resold to the CDS for the original purchase price.

Bill #2: Citizenship membership publication for election purposes

Preamble

In previous terms, the risk of a large amount of Second Life residents suddenly acquiring title to a land in the Confederation of Democratic Simulators (CDS) in order to swing the vote towards a candidate, and immediately abandoning their title to the land afterwards, encouraged legislators to establish a rule that only citizens which held the title to their land for over 28 days were allowed to vote and be elected. However, due to the complexities of the electoral calendar, the validation of that requirement was unnecessarily complicated.

Similarly, NL 5-15, Citizen Information Act, was a mechanism to adequately provide citizens and the election overseeing agencies (namely, the Scientific Council) with a way to publicly validate any resident claims to a title to land in the CDS, and therefore being a full citizen. Such a list has traditionally been hard to obtain, even though NL 9-3, Land Sales Listing Improvement Act, improves upon it.

Since NL 5-15 mandates that the list is published at least once every month, this bill mandates the following:

• 1. The Citizen List shall be published by the CDS Executive Branch, through either an automated system under the responsibility of the Estate Owner or such similar role with equivalent administrative and technical powers.
  2. The Citizen List shall contain the avatar names of all citizens entitled to vote and/or be elected.
  3. On the cutoff date, at the cutoff time, CDS personnel will generate both a Hippo list of tier payors and a Land Scanner list of parcel owners. They will then compare these two lists to determine that a given name appears on both lists, and that that given name is current in at least one parcel tier payment.
  3. Nobody outside the published list shall be entitled either to vote or to be elected in an upcoming election, subject to appeals to the Scientific Council (in the case of list compilation mistakes or unaccounted payments made in time).
  4. This bill revokes NL 5-17, Census Scheduling Act. The number of seats in the Representative Assembly shall be calculated on the day the Citizen List is published for the express purpose of determining citizen eligibility to vote.
  5. This bill applies to all elections and by-elections of Government members, representatives, or any official polling act called by any of the Government Branches (such as referenda or public consultation) that may have legislative power.
  6. This bill does not revoke any other right of citizens, specifically NL 5-21, Citizen Involvement Act, or any public contest without the force of legislative power, such as proposing a new theme for an upcoming region to be publicly opened, redesigning the CDS official presence, or similar non-legislative acts.

Some rewording suggestions here for clarity.

Is it absolutely certain that the only reason the 28 day residency was instated was the 'sway the vote'? While that may have been the primary reason, other benefits of having such a rule may have been perceived in it's debate and passing. So I believe the preamble could be simplified to read:

It is the law of the CDS that citizens must hold the title to their land for more than 28 days, and have tier payed in full to qualify to vote or to run for office. However, due to the complexities of the electoral calendar, the validation of that requirement is unnecessarily complicated.

Regarding the Citizen List, can we be clear that this is the list produced for election purposes and certified as correct, in specific dates related to the election? Possible wording:

The Citizen List shall be the certified list of CDS citizens eligible to run for office or vote in CDS Elections. The Citizen List will be created in the following manner:

1. At 12 noon on the dates designated by the Scientific Council, the Estate Manager or his or her designate, will generate both a Hippo list of tier payors and a Land Scanner list of parcel owners. They will then compare these two lists to determine that a given name appears on both lists, and that that given name is current in at least one parcel tier payment. The Estate Manager or his or her designate will use these lists to create one list of the citizens who are qualified to run for office or vote, the Citizen List.

2. Within 24 hours this List will be delivered to the Chancellor, who will publish the List on the CDS Forums, by notecard to the SL group 'CDS', by notecard available at the Praetorium and any other public location the Chancellor may choose, and on the CDS web portal.

3. Only those citizens whose names appear on the published Citizen List may run for office or vote in the CDS elections.

4. Any citizen may challenge the inclusion or omission of an avatar on the Citizen List by petitioning the Scientific Council. Any such petition challenging the Citizen List must be received by the Dean of the SC no later than midnight, 21 days after that Citizen List is published. The SC will make every effort to resolve such challenges within 7 days, so that nominations and elections can proceed with an accurate Citizen List.

5. This bill revokes NL 5-17, Census Scheduling Act. The number of seats in the Representative Assembly shall be calculated on the day the Citizen List is published for the express purpose of determining citizen eligibility to vote.

6. This bill applies to all elections and by-elections of Government members, representatives, or any official polling act called by any of the Government Branches (such as referenda or public consultation) that may have legislative power.

7. This bill does not revoke any other right of citizens, specifically NL 5-21, Citizen Involvement Act, or any public contest without the force of legislative power, such as proposing a new theme for an upcoming region to be publicly opened, redesigning the CDS official presence, or similar non-legislative acts.[/list]

I think having the Estate Manager confirm the accuracy of the list (since he or she is the only one with the information available to do so) and having the Chancellor publish, is an excellent improvement. This places the mechanics of the process with the people it should be with and allows the SC to hear challenges without having been part of confirming the list.

I have also inserted a time deadline for such challenges of the List. The rationale for this is twofold. Transaction records of tier payments and land purchases are easily available for one month through any citizen's SL account information, but after that period of time there may be no record available at all, other than the records held by the Estate Manager. Since most challenges can be easily dealt with when this transaction history is available the deadline makes sense to ensure that both parties to a challenge can provide their own documentation. Requiring challenges to be filed and dealt with within the 28 day citizenship requirement period also means that nominations and elections can proceed on time, without concern or outcry about their validity. The reasons for this are no doubt obvious to anyone who was awake during the last election cycle

Calli