An Act Concerning Official Stipends

[Beathan]

In addition to my by-law proposals, I would like the nest session of the RA to consider the following proposed legislation:

Stipends for CDS Government Officials
1. No government official shall be paid a stipend except as expressly authorized by the RA;
2. The Chancellor shall not pay any CDS official from Chancellory discretionary but shall only pay stipends from funds budgeted and authorized for payment of stipends;
3. As part of its budget process, the RA shall set the maximum stipend to be paid to any CDS official and may set specific stipends for any CDS office;
4. The maximum stipend to be paid to CDS officials in office during the 16th term of the RA shall be L$1500 per month, as reflected in the approved budget for that term.

Beathan

[Bromo Ivory]

So the Legislative is going to try to take back some of the "power of the purse" from the Executive? Interesting.

You know, down that path are a bunch of government pay grades...

Just sayin'

[Beathan]

I don't want the RA to take over administration of the budget, but I do want the RA controls on the budget to be more substantial and respected. The budget we passed capped stipends at L$1500. That was a debated matter and that cap was set as a decided policy. I have heard (I won't say "learned" because I don't have solid confirmation) that the Chancellor intends to appoint his predecessor to a position with broad authority at a rate of pay of L$2600. I think that the appointment of a predecessor to essentially continue as chief executive under a new title and at a rate of pay nearly twice that maximum pay of other officials, as set by the RA, is a terrible policy. I hope the plan is not true -- but the possibility that such a thing could happen is a matter of concern and this legislation is intended to prevent it in part.

Earlier I joked that the CDS could choose to follow the path of Putin. I did not have in mind a Chancellor essentially continuing in office after his term expired by taking on a new position that is, in name, subordinate but, in practice, supreme. I think that is a horrible policy and a horrible precedent. However, I'm not sure the RA can prevent that given the Chancellor's broad authority to appoint and empower deputies to fulfill some or all of the duties of the office of the Chancellor.

What the RA can control is the purse-strings. If we exercise that power, we might discourage such a practice by limiting stipends. Even if that weren't the case, sound fiscal discipline requires such oversight -- and requires that when the RA exercise it (as we did in this budget) it can't be circumvented by unilateral action of the Chancellor.

Beathan

[Patroklus Murakami]

While I tend to agree with point 1 of this proposed act, I'm reluctant to engage in micro-management of the budget. We have agreed a budget now and I see the RAs ongoing task as monitoring and, if necessary, course correction. But I'd rather do that through discussion than preemptive legislative action.

[Tor Karlsvalt]

Beathan,

Somebody is lying to you. It is also interesting that you propose policy based on hearsay and innuendo. I suggest you distrust your unnamed source in future matters.

I imagine that I would be the first to know if the Chancellor were to suggest a pay raise for the PIO. Trebor has not offered me a pay raise nor intimated that I would get one. Nor has he through any intermediary offered me a raise. Nor has he even broached the subject of stipends with me or through an intermediary.

Nor have you or anyone in CDS asked me if I was offered a raise. It might have been a good idea if you had asked me or the Chancellor about this subject before your posting.

I suggest that your source is stringing you along. I hope this was a person of normally solid integrity and you were reasonably duped. Otherwise, you are a fool.

I should note here that the PIO stipend has been reduced in the budget passed by the RA this December 10th. If the Chancellor were to suggest a pay raise, I would advise him against such an action. I am sure however, he would not increase stipends without consultation with the RA.

I further note that the budget process has been more open and regular under myself and Trebor than under most chancellors. Judging from his actions regarding the budget, he shares my sense of duty in matters concerning the budget. Granted in large part this is due to the work of the 13th RA which passed the Budget Accountability Act.

But I don't intend to blow my own horn.

I do not see any need to put in law, the amount of the stipend. Stipends should be reviewed at every budget. Codifying the stipends will merely put another knot in the decision making process. If we must increase stipends, then we will have to change a law as well as pass a budget. Possibly we would have to change the law, then pass an amended budget as the exec is required to submit a budget quickly at the beginning of the term. Codifying stipends is just bad policy.

Given that the proposal is on the table, I wonder if you intended to reduce Sudane's stipend? Im certain that Sudane loves the CDS and does all the work she does out of love and duty to the project. She would no doubt continue serving with a reduced stipend or none at all. Still, I am amazed at how easily some belittle the contributions of volunteers like Sudane much less myself. The Treasurer's stipend is currently $L2000.00. This was a reduction from the last three terms when it was set at $L2700.00. Perhaps you would like to make the cap $L2000.00?

I am also curious as to why your proposed act singles out the officials of the 16th Term? If this cap is needed at all, it should extend to future terms as well. Clearly your proposal and subsequent post points to your belief that there is some conspiracy between Trebor and myself. Nothing is further from the truth. Also it is not only based on hearsay, but on what I can assume is a vindictive nature that would base the policy of the CDS on the mere whim of who one dislikes.

I might add that I am not continuing to act as Chief executive after my term has expired. Trebor is his own man. I realize that you expressly point out that you are not suggesting that I am following the Putin example. I am reminded of the old political line, "I will not mention Chappaquiddick." Really Beathan? Do you mean this stuff or do you just like to hear yourself talk?

Hoping you get better sources,

Tor

P.S. I feel sort of bad posting this without consulting the Chancellor, because I am his servant in the work of CDS. Alas, nobody is perfect.

[Bromo Ivory]

I am not sure that stipend level would prevent the scenario you outlined. I am pretty sure Tor would do what Trebor was considering even if the stipend was zero.

The RA has options beyond the purse strings - you could pass a law (which in my opinion would be a bad law) expanding the term limit laws - saying that an ex Chancellor cannot serve in the staff of the following Chancellor. It would be a far worse cure than the disease in my opinion - but the RA has a ton of options. Given the recent penchant for overly specific laws and amendments - you could specifically bar Tor from doing this if you were fearful of him being a SL Putin. But also you could simply watch carefully for abuse (which is the root fear) and then act if you feel it is abuse.

While I share the potential for abuse, I do not see abuse right now. Though I agree that a high rate of pay for this position is a bit alarming.

I don't want the RA to take over administration of the budget, but I do want the RA controls on the budget to be more substantial and respected. The budget we passed capped stipends at L$1500. That was a debated matter and that cap was set as a decided policy. I have heard (I won't say "learned" because I don't have solid confirmation) that the Chancellor intends to appoint his predecessor to a position with broad authority at a rate of pay of L$2600. I think that the appointment of a predecessor to essentially continue as chief executive under a new title and at a rate of pay nearly twice that maximum pay of other officials, as set by the RA, is a terrible policy. I hope the plan is not true -- but the possibility that such a thing could happen is a matter of concern and this legislation is intended to prevent it in part.

Earlier I joked that the CDS could choose to follow the path of Putin. I did not have in mind a Chancellor essentially continuing in office after his term expired by taking on a new position that is, in name, subordinate but, in practice, supreme. I think that is a horrible policy and a horrible precedent. However, I'm not sure the RA can prevent that given the Chancellor's broad authority to appoint and empower deputies to fulfill some or all of the duties of the office of the Chancellor.

What the RA can control is the purse-strings. If we exercise that power, we might discourage such a practice by limiting stipends. Even if that weren't the case, sound fiscal discipline requires such oversight -- and requires that when the RA exercise it (as we did in this budget) it can't be circumvented by unilateral action of the Chancellor.

Beathan

[Beathan]

Tor,

First, let me say that I noted that this was an uncertain concern in this instance. However, even if the concern does not apply here, my review of our current practices indicate that it could apply -- and I would rather head that off than face it in the future. This is good policy-making, not bad policy-making, as it takes what may not be a problem now and, by scrutinizing implications, sees that it might be a problem in the future and seeks to address that.

Second, before I doubt by source, please tell me how much you understand your stipend to be and what activities, in addition to the traditional PIO duties, you are taking on. Is your stipend more than L$1500? If so, we have a problem. Does your portfolio include more duties than the normal PIO portfolio? If so, I have a concern about that (although it is not illegal and may not be a problem). Do you justify a higher stipend by taking on these added responsibilities? If so, what we are looking at is "purality of office" (in which one person holds multiple offices) -- and that is a serious problem. Plurality of office was, in fact, one of the principle complaints of the American Colonists prior to the American Revolution. To address this I would add:

"5. No person shall hold more than one paid office at a time."

That said, I understand that the situation of Tia accidentally deleting her house was brought to you as PIO without proper response from you -- and that forced citizens to try to address the situation through private action. That is also a concern. If you have duties other than the traditional PIO duties, you should either give up those duties to allow you to perform the PIO duties properly or you should give up the PIO duties in favor of those other duties.

With regard to Sudane's stipend, I must have misread the budget. I thought that the highest stipend paid to anyone was L$1500. If the highest stipend is L$2000,then I would use that number for my proposal rather than L$1500.

Bromo --

I don't want to restrict the Chancellors from serving in other functions after their terms. In fact, if we do decide to restrict Chancellors from other offices for the term immediately after their Chancellorship, I would rather create some new functional office (perhaps non-partisan chair of the RA) for the Past-Chancellor to fill.

Beathan

[Bromo Ivory]

That said, I understand that the situation of Tia accidentally deleting her house was brought to you as PIO without proper response from you -- and that forced citizens to try to address the situation through private action. That is also a concern. If you have duties other than the traditional PIO duties, you should either give up those duties to allow you to perform the PIO duties properly or you should give up the PIO duties in favor of those other duties.

*DON'T* use the bit of fun we had twisted in purpose and intent into some sort of politcal agenda for reducing pay rates or adding some sort of additional regulation. Tor was there, actually, and the house got placed the next day which awas as soon as they could get Jon to come in world. YOU were there and saw the "private actions" were more joking around than some sort of serious attempt at rebuilding the house. PLacing a few grubby counches, a carboard box and a lighted palm tree is not an indication of failure, but success of Tor and the community as Tor was central to the whole thing.

I cannot believe you twisted this from a bit of fun and an improptu welcome party into some sort of crass and base political end. This reduces my opinion of your integrity by several notches.

I also deeply regret TPing you in if I had known you would attempt to twist this and take a few cheap shots.

Stop it. Now.

I don't want to restrict the Chancellors from serving in other functions after their terms. In fact, if we do decide to restrict Chancellors from other offices for the term immediately after their Chancellorship, I would rather create some new functional office (perhaps non-partisan chair of the RA) for the Past-Chancellor to fill.

Just saying the RA has a ton of options well beyond some sort of purse power if you choose to use it. Use your imagination and I am sure you can come up with more.

[Tor Karlsvalt]

Beathan,

I think the appropriate response to an uncertain concern would be to do more fact finding, not offering legislation. Further, your review of our current practices motivated only a proposal limited to the 16th Term officers. This is hardly a well intentioned review of the Chancellor of CDS and stipends.

I serve the CDS with only the stipend as PIO. There is no plurality of office. Further I think Trebor would not mind me stating that others have been offered positions in the exec, but alas, declined them. I am sure Trebor would will continue to look for volunteers to serve the CDS. I note he posted such a request on the forum some weeks ago.

I will only take one stipend from the CDS. I am not in the habit of acquiring titles and stipends.

Keep in mind that I served two terms as CDS Chancellor without a stipend. That does not make me special as others have served before me as well. However, I do know all the hard work involved in running these sims and do not think stipends are unjustified. I note that some who declined positions probably think it is too much work for a mere title and sense of doing good for the community.

I have had no complaint from Tia on her matter of the house. I addressed the problem as soon as I was able. I note that it was my efforts that restored her house. Another had little success. Also, I ensured that content archivist gained a copy of the house. On a bright note, I took the opportunity to meet Tia and later arranged for some of our citizens to meet her. We had quite a nice time of it.

I should note that others in CDS may be available when I or Trebor are not. I would hope they would all, in the spirit of community, pitch in and help another citizen out. Alas, I have seen help offered only to later manipulatively accuse another of not performing their job.

I note that you continue to refer to what you understand or what you have heard. Then you make accusations and policy proposals based on this gossip. Beathan, whose water do you carry? Who is the AV who cannot be named? I would hope the RA would like to know that you base your proposed Act on more than hearsay and gossip from an unnamed source.

I think Beathan you have the wrong villain. You need to look in another direction.

I would hope the RA can address the issue of a new sim and get past all this devil mongering.

Your PIO,

Tor

[Trebor Warcliffe]

Beathan,

I have heard (I won't say "learned" because I don't have solid confirmation) that the Chancellor intends to appoint his predecessor to a position with broad authority at a rate of pay of L$2600. I think that the appointment of a predecessor to essentially continue as chief executive under a new title and at a rate of pay nearly twice that maximum pay of other officials, as set by the RA, is a terrible policy. I hope the plan is not true -- but the possibility that such a thing could happen is a matter of concern and this legislation is intended to prevent it in part.

I could blow this “accusation, assumption” whatever you’d like to call it out of proportion but I will not. I am rather surprised though that if this scenario did concern you why you didn’t reach out and ask me personally about it. One thing I have learned while being a citizen of the CDS is that if you don’t get the information directly from the horse’s mouth it’s probably not good information.

I bring to your attention my thank you posting in the forums on November 27th and specifically the second paragraph.

On a side note I'd like to thank Tor Karlsvalt for accepting my request for him to be my PIO. This was a difficult decision as there were a few people, including my opponent, who I thought would be excellent for the position. Over the past year Tor and I have worked together on various ideas and projects and even though we didn't see eye-to-eye on everything we treated each other with the utmost respect. It is this respect, trust, and experience that Tor brings to the table that ultimately led me to make this crucial decision.

So as you can see Tor was appointed PIO before you obtained your information and I note before the budget of the 16th term was approved. His accepting of the position wasn’t based on a set salary. At the time of his acceptance there was even speculation that the budget would have no salaried positions in it. The budget was approved with the salaried position of PIO being set at $1,500 a month, a $1,100 reduction from previous administrations. That is the salary the RA approved and it is the salary Tor will receive.
Unless I have overlooked it I have been unable to find an official CDS job description for the PIO position. If you or anyone else has this official information, please let me know.

When I was speaking with Tor about me running for the Chancellor’s position, long before I ever approached him about the PIO position, he was kind enough to give me a document he made on his own that covered the basic responsibilities of the Chancellor and a description of the executive positions. Below is the description of the PIO position.

Public Information Officer L$2,600
Creation and dissemination of notices, advertisements, regulations
Manages any CDS wide kiosk
Hosts events – setup, greeting, secondary contact with musicians or first contact as needed, clean-up after events, relays payments to artists if chancellor is not available
Advices Chancellor
Manages land under the direction of the Chancellor
Sets land for sale
Able to set terms of sale of land

The RA does control the purse-strings Beathan, by approval of the budget. If the Chancellor has a need to go over budget on a particular area he must meet with the RA for approval. I see no need for your proposed legislation because what you’re proposing is basically already in existence.

I would also like to confirm a statement Tor made in his response to your earlier posting. There is no conspiracy between Tor and myself. I bring to everyone’s attention Tor’s strongly recommending and urging me not to enact the Chancellor’s veto which I did anyway.

Beathan,

I now address your reply to Tor’s reply. Why aren’t you asking Tor or me these questions yourself either in person, IM, or email if they are of such great concern to you? By posting these questions in the forum it seems you’re trying to discredit or cast a shadow of doubt over both myself and Tor.

That said, I understand that the situation of Tia accidentally deleting her house was brought to you as PIO without proper response from you -- and that forced citizens to try to address the situation through private action.

Beathan, was this information provided to you by Tia herself, or is this once again a case of heresy? You seem to have a bad habit of posting information in the forums that you feel are true and correct that aren’t. I remind you of your post made November 16th containing false accusations directed at Tor concerning violations of his job as Chancellor that weren’t violations in the first place. I’m not telling you how to conduct your business, but it may benefit you to spend the time you do in writing these posts to first spend the time researching or confirming what you are posting.

Thank you,
Trebor Warcliffe

[Beathan]

Bromo --

The "barn raising" was a fun event and I do appreciate that you tped me. I'm not trying to take away the fun of the event or abuse it for political purposes. I'm sorry you take what I said that way.

However, I have learned (not heard, but learned) that Tor was informed of the problem in his capacity as PIO and did not respond. That is a matter of public concern. He has indicated that he responded "as soon as he was able." That is an answer of sorts, although it raises the question of whether he should have been able to respond sooner. I acknowledge that this requires some more looking into before criticizing Tor or anyone else further on this point.

That said, one of my duties as a member of the RA is to scrutinize the activities of public officials in the CDS, raise concerns about poor performance, and propose legislation to improve performance as appropriate. I take that duty seriously and will not fail to discharge it (even though it seems that other members of the RA, and members of past RAs, don't even see this as a duty of a member).

Tor --

If you are only serving as PIO, with the ordinary mix of duties of the PIO, are discharging those duties diligently, and are receiving no more than the stipend authorized by the RA for that work, then I have no problem with you. I should also note that I am not taking issue with your performance as Chancellor. I note that the CDS went from decline to growth during that time -- and I applaud the wisdom and courage of your decision to tap Cleo to publicize and sell the CDS and bring in new citizens.

However, treating the case I was presented as a hypothetical (rather than as a live case), I still think the RA should move forward with my proposed legislation. Even if the problem I raised does not exist at the present, there is nothing stopping it from coming up in the future, and I think that we would be well-advised to pass some reasonable preventative legislation on that point.

Trebor --

If I am wrong, tell me the particulars. As to why I did not "reach out and contact you" -- you have made clear that such conversations cannot be safely initiated by CDS citizens inworld. Based on your own stipulations as to how you will treat inworld communications, I will confine my interaction with you to to public forums -- either the RA sessions or these forums.

I also believe that matters of public concern, even if the particulars are imperfectly understood, are best addressed in public discourse. That allows a full range of ideas, insights, and voices to participate -- and, in this case, even if I am wrong on the actual facts, the issue presents a hypothetical problem we should address before it ever becomes a real problem. That is one reason why I tend to post in this location -- rather than the part of the forum restricted to the RA (I want to engage as many people as possible and allow all citizens to speak and contribute).

In fact, my original post was just a piece of proposed legislation. I only raised the "hearsay" issue (noting that it was hearsay myself) when asked why this was necessary and not RA over-reaching. I think that the argument for my proposed legislation is just as compelling on the hypothetical case.

I also don't think that there is any conspiracy between you and Tor. I think that you are delegating duties as Chancellor to people who have a proven track record of competence. I have no quarrel with that. In fact, I think that is wise. However, delegations of power are not without risk -- and the RA should recognize the risks, and prevent possible resulting harms, as the policy-making arm of government.

Beathan

[Delia Lake]

Beathan,

In two posts above you said:

That said, I understand that the situation of Tia accidentally deleting her house was brought to you as PIO without proper response from you -- and that forced citizens to try to address the situation through private action.

And,

The "barn raising" was a fun event and I do appreciate that you tped me. I'm not trying to take away the fun of the event or abuse it for political purposes. I'm sorry you take what I said that way.

However, I have learned (not heard, but learned) that Tor was informed of the problem in his capacity as PIO and did not respond.

I really do hope that when you say you “understand” that Tor as PIO did not respond properly to Tia, and “have learned” that Tor was informed and did not respond, that you have some direct knowledge for your assertions such as being party with Tia and Tor to a group conference, or being part of an email conversation between Tor and Tia where you were a “To” or “CC.” Or even being inworld all together in Local Chat. I for one would be interested to hear what support you have for the assertion that you make made twice in this thread about Tor’s lack of responsiveness to Tia's loss of her house.

I did not personally get a request from Tia regarding the accidental auto-return of the house on her land. I had not yet had the pleasure of meeting Tia at that point. I did however get an inworld IM as well as an email from Tor asking if I could help in getting a hold of Jon Seattle, the builder of the house, or Aliasi, the Content Archivist because Tor knew I did have email access to both of them. A number of us rallied around to 1. get the house back for Tia as soon as we were able to make it happen, and yes “as soon as we were able” is a most appropriate term here because none of us actually had the house or a copy of it, and 2. see what we could do inworld to make this unfortunate occurrence the least upsetting that it could be. When I arrived at Tia’s plot that evening, Tia already had her “sleeping box” out on her land. Tor was there and so was Bromo. Tia gave us a tour of her new digs, introduced us to her “pet mouse” there and invited us to try out her stinky mattress. We all started laughing. Then began the rummaging through our own inventories to see what grubby discards each of us might have to donate, a filthy chair, a bench, a flashing Christmas palm tree, a bag of trash, a fire in the snow… We took pictures and posted them on flickr. We talked, we listened to music together. It was fun. More people showed up, you, Sudane, Anna, Rosie, Kellie, Lilith, Soro, and probably some others as well that I did not see.

Sometime in the middle of the SL night when Jon woke up, and Aliasi got out of work, the house was put back on the plot once more.

I’m not sure what you think would constitute a proper PIO response in the hypothetical, but in this actual case from my perspective as someone who was involved, not only was Tor responsive in gathering people who could in some way help but also our CDS community was responsive and welcoming to Tia. It certainly seemed to me that the best of CDS community spirit came shining through.

Delia

[Beathan]

Delia,

If Tia is happy, Tor's speed of response is a non-issue. I saw the house today and think it is very nice. I am very happy to see the community spirit that pulled together over this issue, and I regret raising the PIO responsiveness question as it seems that my doing so has diminished that.

My source on this is not Tia, and I do not have access to any of her direct communications. However, I received this information from two other people who were involved in this event, each of whom said basically the same thing (apparently independently). That coupled with Tor's equivocal statement that "I addressed the problem as soon as I was able" made me confident that there was some delay in response.

I don't know if the delay was unreasonable (in general). However, given that Tia seems satisfied, all seems good.

Beathan

[Trebor Warcliffe]

Beathan

If I am wrong, tell me the particulars. As to why I did not "reach out and contact you" -- you have made clear that such conversations cannot be safely initiated by CDS citizens inworld. Based on your own stipulations as to how you will treat inworld communications, I will confine my interaction with you to to public forums -- either the RA sessions or these forums.

ROFLMAO , ok Beathan I’ll give you that one, you got me. I would like to officially renounce my post earlier this month stating that all private conversations with me in-world as Chancellor need to be held in public chat. I will explain that post was made out of frustration due to actions very similar to your actions here in the forums of posting information without checking the facts. My frustrating situation was being misquoted and having my words twisted. My statement earlier should actually be “if you don’t get the information directly from the horse’s mouth it’s probably not good information and if you do get it from the horse’s mouth make sure you quote it correctly.”

That said, one of my duties as a member of the RA is to scrutinize the activities of public officials in the CDS, raise concerns about poor performance, and propose legislation to improve performance as appropriate. I take that duty seriously and will not fail to discharge it (even though it seems that other members of the RA, and members of past RAs, don't even see this as a duty of a member).

Beathan you are also a public official and I as a citizen don’t feel that your continued posting of misinformation is a good example of a public official’s performance.

However, treating the case I was presented as a hypothetical (rather than as a live case), I still think the RA should move forward with my proposed legislation.

and, in this case, even if I am wrong on the actual facts, the issue presents a hypothetical problem we should address before it ever becomes a real problem.

Beathan you don’t get it both ways. You don’t lay out accusations or post misinformation, especially as aggressive as you do, and then change the discussion to a hypothetical situation because your facts are indeed incorrect. You are laying real charges at real people. Next time please save yourself and the rest of us the aggravation and just simply verify your information before you post it in the forums.

I have to agree with Delia on the need for you to have some direct knowledge of situations before you bring them up for public discussion. I can say from experience to be very careful which birds you let chirp into your ear, some sing a pretty song while others just squawk.

Thank you,
Trebor Warcliffe

[Beathan]

::Sigh:: This really has gotten silly and sideways. I have made a legislative proposal. It addresses an area in which the Executive could circumvent the clear will of the RA. I want to plug that hole. There was a suggestion that such circumvention was happening. It seems that it was not. That is good. It would be better if we actually changed things to prevent such circumvention from happening.

There is a rule for public service irl -- and it applies here, too -- DON'T BE THINNED SKINNED. If you can't take it -- don't do it.

Further, good policy often arises from confusion about actual facts -- and that confusion produces otherwise obscured insight. I think that happened here.

However, good policy often cannot wait on clear facts -- especially here in which things have to happen quickly (given our six month terms) or they don't happen at all.

Can we get back to debating the merits of my proposal?

Beathan