Suggestion for By-election rules

[Bromo Ivory]

I went back and studied the process logic and procedures we have used to have by elections. I'd like to submit the following idea for consideration as the RA moves forward with the new Chancellor:

1. Once an official tenders a resignation, they are given 24 hours as a "cooling off period" before the resignation is accepted - and the resignee can "take it back" by publicly rescinding the resignation at any time during the 24 hour cooling off period. At the end of the 24 hour period, the resignation is final and irrevocable.

2. A census will happen as soon as practical after the resignation is finalized.

3. The candidate declaration shall be over a period of 1 week.

4. The campaign shall take place over 1 week.

5. The polls shall be open for 1 week.

6. Swearing in of new candidate shall happen no later than 2 days after results.

6. The RA is allowed to conduct business if they have maintained quorum. If the resignee is the Chancellor, no business may be conducted except in the case of emergency, and then only to address the emergency.

I am asking the polling section to be longer, and the declaration to be shorter than is current tradition for a simple reason: The requirement of participation and being in-world on officials is greater than got general voters. We should give the voters the same amount of time to vote as they always do for any election due to RL schedules (I can say with fair certainty that at times my schedules are particularly dysfunctional and far far away from access to internet let alone SL, and I am using my example as a "worst case" scenario). I think for declarations, most of the people willing and able to serve usually have their finger on the pulse.

[Callipygian]

I went back and studied the process logic and procedures we have used to have by elections. I'd like to submit the following idea for consideration as the RA moves forward with the new Chancellor:

1. Once an official tenders a resignation, they are given 24 hours as a "cooling off period" before the resignation is accepted - and the resignee can "take it back" by publicly rescinding the resignation at any time during the 24 hour cooling off period. At the end of the 24 hour period, the resignation is final and irrevocable.

2. A census will happen as soon as practical after the resignation is finalized.

3. The candidate declaration shall be over a period of 1 week.

4. The campaign shall take place over 1 week.

5. The polls shall be open for 1 week.

6. Swearing in of new candidate shall happen no later than 2 days after results.

6. The RA is allowed to conduct business if they have maintained quorum. If the resignee is the Chancellor, no business may be conducted except in the case of emergency, and then only to address the emergency.

I am asking the polling section to be longer, and the declaration to be shorter than is current tradition for a simple reason: The requirement of participation and being in-world on officials is greater than got general voters. We should give the voters the same amount of time to vote as they always do for any election due to RL schedules (I can say with fair certainty that at times my schedules are particularly dysfunctional and far far away from access to internet let alone SL, and I am using my example as a "worst case" scenario). I think for declarations, most of the people willing and able to serve usually have their finger on the pulse.

Hi Bromo

I've been working on a draft of proposed legislation for this for weeks, so thank you for the push to get the final edit done I'll post it separately.

First, I think any legislation related to resignations should be a separate item. I think having a clear description of what is required for an official resignation is a good thing and needed, but I would hope that anyone holding office would impose their own 'cooling off' period *before* resigning and that once the resignation is published in the required way, it be final. Someone having a change of heart could certainly run again for the position, but the *act* of resignation and the impact it has may be a factor in citizens choosing to vote for them again, a choice I think the populace should have.

So on to by-elections. The main reason for lengthy by-elections is not any of the lengths of time for declarations, campaigning etc - it is the 28 day residency requirement. Your proposal has a 3 week time frame from start to finish, but that is not constitutional. This is in no way a suggestion we shorten the residency requirement, which is already far shorter than ideal in my opinion. My draft addresses this I think, but of course is a draft for discussion and alternate ways may be spotted that still protect the Constitution.

Regarding the cessation of government while there is no chancellor, I totally disagree. The Chancellor's Veto is not final - the RA can overturn it with a 2/3 majority. The actual check and balance on the laws passed by the RA is the SC. I cannot believe there was the intent, or that anyone would want, a Chancellor to have the power to halt government by resigning. Considering at least two of the current RA already feel the Chancellor has way too much power, I am surprised they are not commenting on this. The Chancellor is an elected position, but it is a position that is overseen by the RA. Giving the the Chancellor the power to hold the RA, and the whole function of government, hostage with the threat of resigning would be very poor policy.

Calli

[Bromo Ivory]

Quite feankly, I expected to have this ignored - I am flattered you took the time to read it even if you seemed to disagree with every single suggestion on it of any note! Some things in CDS haven't changed!

(One thing that I do find has changed, is we're now perfectly comfortable with the Dean of the SC drafting legislation. I suppose this is something I will have to get used to if this is the way it is done now.)

My main thing was addressing the desire, especially of you, to have an "expedited process" for a by election - which is why the 3 day polling period was proposed by you. I found a way that may require one or more bills that would accomplish an expedited process. You aren't interested in an expedited process anymore? No biggie, I was trying to problem solve. But I am not sure how you can square that with your fear of a Chancellor power play - causing an "unavoidable" secession of RA. If you make the by election swift (like under a month) with the appropriate legislation, that particular bugbear goes away. Alternatively, having a vice-chancellor would do it as well since there would be no gap AT ALL. Though the typical scenario of resignations in my experience isn't some sort of power-play, but leaving suddenly in disgust.

I didn't quite get your basis for saying the RA could do business without a Chancellor? Given the separate elections, I think it is a reach to say it serves at the bidding of the RA, the authority of the Chancellor comes form a direct plebiscite. Unless I missed something (like approval by the RA of the election or something?) - can you clarify that to me? I admit there might have been something I missed.

My point in pointing this out, is that it seems that if you were to follow the letter of the constitution, you can't actually implement laws or pass them without the RA AND the Chancellor. If CDS has decided that strict adherence to its laws aren't good - I might even argue it is an improvement, but I only know what I've seen. I am still trying to figure out any cultural shifts since my last period of activity. But I will be clear that I share your concerns, but we don't have the laws in place to avoid it is my point. And unless we want to start making stuff up on the fly rather than having some form of a "rule of law" we will have to address it explicitly.

Oh, and don't really worry too much about me in general. I will shortly submerge again given my job at my current employment tend to be rather demanding. I have no plans on running for office for a good long time, if ever.

[cleopatraxigalia]

Cally ,did you really mean to say that SC is the check and balance on the RA passing laws? I am pretty certain the ONLY check and the only thing the SC has to do or should have to do with the RA making law is to determine whether or not the law is unconstitutional . the check on the RA in general regarding laws is the chancellors veto. Splitting hairs maybe but in light of our current situation I think it's an important distinction.

[cleopatraxigalia]

Cally. I know you are a citizen as well as the Dean of the SC but you drafting legislation makes me very nervous. Very. No personal offense is intended.

The final legislation you propose I hope will sit on the forums several weeks after our new chancellor is elected before a vote is taken so please don't rush.

I'd like to see some separate legislation regarding the chancellors office and executive branch before or simultaneously with the by election law. Having an elected Chancellor, Vice Chancellor and PIO with an order of succession before we get to by election status would give the citizens a say as the slate of the executive team would be known at the time of election. This would give the chancellor more support and help from day one with citizen input into the entire team. It would also mitigate the need for as many by elections

[Callipygian]

Cally. I know you are a citizen as well as the Dean of the SC but you drafting legislation makes me very nervous. Very. No personal offense is intended.

...

Please explain why this makes you very very nervous.

Calli

[Soro Dagostino]

Too good to pass up!!

She is the epitome of a Cat on a Hot Tin Roof!!

[Callipygian]

...
the epitome of a Cat on a Hot Tin Roof!!

Ha! I had never really stopped to think about a definition of that phrase -mentally I've always just thought of it as 'jumpy' lol. But there it is in the Cambridge Dictionary - "someone who is in a state of extreme nervous worry"
Always something out there to learn!

Calli

[Bromo Ivory]

I find it curious that so many people choose to be dismissive of others who express worry, but nevermind.

I do share similar concerns to Cleo in that a member of the SC, which is supposed to ratify laws, really needs to recuse themselves form the legislative process in order to maintain sufficient objectivity to remain fair when issuing ruling and ratifying laws. In actual fact objectivity must be maintained, and the appearance of it needs to be maintained so that citizens will trust the SC is discharging its duties with fairness and objectivity, it cannot be seen that they are part of the RA's or Chancellor's part of the process.

The easiest way to do that is to remain recused from the process in the RA.

While I am somewhat surprised that you guys "don't see it" - it is a simple matter of maintaining working checks and balances on the other government functions, if further explanation is required: it would be as if a judge on a countries' high court that has the power to strike down laws were drafting legislation for their Parliament to pass. If a question about the law were to come up, some dispute, or time for the high court to ratify, you would not be able to count on the judge to remain objective to the law since it was the law THEY made, and they would have some sort of attachment to it. But even as important, any ruling would have a cloud over it because the relationship between the high court and parliament would be an incestuous one, and people would leave after a decision wondering if a fair outcome really was delivered. And since the parliamentary process involves a lot of politics, a member of the high court that would be involved in this way, would be viewed as favoring some and disfavoring others. This would also impune their decision due to the loss of objectivity through taking sides in the political process - and undermine their authority in resolving disputes - since at the end the parties must feel there is an underlying fairness that points back to an objectivity about the laws.

So you can hurl mockery and insults, but it is a real and compelling question. And I would question the objectivity of an SC that dives in and writes laws for the RA to pass. I beleive I would not be the only one, I suspect most people wouldn't feel comfortable with that state of affairs.

Cally, you said that "any citizen" has the right to draft legislation and upon that basis you felt you had the right to do so. I will submit, that as a member of the SC you aren't just "any citizen" since you provide the ratification of laws, and later their interpretation when a dispute is brought forth. You cannot afford to write laws since it ruins your and the SC's credibility, and anyone would be justified in feeling skeptical of an ordinary person of maintaining objectivity, or even someone of strong intelligence such as yourself. I would also say that given some would support and some would oppose the law you would write, they and you would likely form opinions on them that were unavoidable, and it would start becoming about the politics instead of about the law. This undermines the authority of the SC because they will in fact have lost objectivity, and also will be viewed as a political body by the population. A sort of RA without the benefit of a popular election. I'd say it looks like one now, too.

I don't want the SC to undermine their own authority. And given my status as a bit of a pariah, at this moment with the SC deeply embedded in the politics of the SIM, I do not trust that I could get fairness if I ever ended up with a dispute of some kind that required the SC. But as an aside, as SC members, mocking peopel who are worried is not refutation, but an admission that citizen concerns won't be taken seriously.

[Callipygian]

I find it curious that so many people choose to be dismissive of others who express worry, but nevermind.

...
So you can hurl mockery and insults, ...
.

I was neither dismissive nor insulting. I asked a simple question that remains unanswered.

The rest of your post I will reply to separately.

Calli

[Callipygian]

...

I do share similar concerns to Cleo in that a member of the SC, which is supposed to ratify laws, really needs to recuse themselves form the legislative process in order to maintain sufficient objectivity to remain fair when issuing ruling and ratifying laws. In actual fact objectivity must be maintained, and the appearance of it needs to be maintained so that citizens will trust the SC is discharging its duties with fairness and objectivity, it cannot be seen that they are part of the RA's or Chancellor's part of the process.

How far does this concern extend? Currently I believe I am the *only* member of the SC who has not served on RA, therefore the only one who will never have to interpret or vote on a law that I may have *voted* on - not drafted, but actually supported or opposed and been part of its becoming law.

The easiest way to do that is to remain recused from the process in the RA.

I am not sure if you mean 'don't write drafts' by this, or the expanded 'SC members shouldn't give input at all, here or at RA meetings'? Usually an SC member is in attendance at RA and one of the things I *expect* myself and other SC members to do is point out vague language, conflicts with other laws, problems the SC would face in trying to apply a law the way it is worded. The alternative (which has happened more than once over the years) is that poorly written or poorly researched motions become laws. At that point the options are 'send it back', requiring an extraordinary meeting of the SC to discuss and decide whether to do so and a number of weeks delay in adopting an amended version, or a law on the books that is contradictory or impossible to uphold.

While I am somewhat surprised that you guys "don't see it" - it is a simple matter of maintaining working checks and balances on the other government functions, if further explanation is required: it would be as if a judge on a countries' high court that has the power to strike down laws were drafting legislation for their Parliament to pass. If a question about the law were to come up, some dispute, or time for the high court to ratify, you would not be able to count on the judge to remain objective to the law since it was the law THEY made, and they would have some sort of attachment to it.

I am not sure which guys you are addressing to, so I'll answer for myself. My writing a draft for the citizens of CDS, including the RA, to discuss is just that - writing a draft. To quote your 'if further explanation is required',the SC does not make laws. We hold no vote in the RA, and in the event that the SC flags a law and votes not to affirm it, each member must give a rationale supporting their vote. The only attachment I have to these pieces of proposed legislation is an attachment to having something clear and concrete for this, and future SCs to administer.

But even as important, any ruling would have a cloud over it because the relationship between the high court and parliament would be an incestuous one, and people would leave after a decision wondering if a fair outcome really was delivered. And since the parliamentary process involves a lot of politics, a member of the high court that would be involved in this way, would be viewed as favoring some and disfavoring others. This would also impune their decision due to the loss of objectivity through taking sides in the political process - and undermine their authority in resolving disputes - since at the end the parties must feel there is an underlying fairness that points back to an objectivity about the laws.

As I pointed out at the start, in a small community like CDS the relationship is already incestuous and always has been. In fact, I believe one of the concerns of some SC members about admitting me stemmed from my lack of experience in government here.

... And I would question the objectivity of an SC that dives in and writes laws for the RA to pass. I beleive I would not be the only one, I suspect most people wouldn't feel comfortable with that state of affairs.

If most people are not happy with it, I welcome them saying so. as for 'diving in' - the SC requested this be addressed in January. When it came before the RA there was a request that it not even be discussed unless all 5 RA members were present - a rather rare event on two fronts, having a full body present considering the time zone challenges, and a desire to not discuss an agenda item at a quorate meeting. This occurred at the Jan 25th meeting, the Feb 15th meeting was inquorate and at the March 4th meeting it was not discussed at all. A few days later Bagheera resigned - and as you know, RA has chosen not to meet until a new Chancellor is sworn in. If no actual wording has been discussed it is quite likely that *no* by-election law will be voted on this term, meaning we start all over again with a new RA next term.

In addition Bromo, the first person to actually put forward some suggestions was you - and they were considered in final editing of those drafts. No one else has drafted anything, so I have to question that 'most people' would object to my doing so - if that were the case they might perhaps have done so themselves?

Cally, you said that "any citizen" has the right to draft legislation and upon that basis you felt you had the right to do so. I will submit, that as a member of the SC you aren't just "any citizen" since you provide the ratification of laws, and later their interpretation when a dispute is brought forth. You cannot afford to write laws since it ruins your and the SC's credibility, and anyone would be justified in feeling skeptical of an ordinary person of maintaining objectivity, or even someone of strong intelligence such as yourself. I would also say that given some would support and some would oppose the law you would write, they and you would likely form opinions on them that were unavoidable, and it would start becoming about the politics instead of about the law. This undermines the authority of the SC because they will in fact have lost objectivity, and also will be viewed as a political body by the population. A sort of RA without the benefit of a popular election. I'd say it looks like one now, too.

How people view 'objectivity' is of course relative. I know that some will only believe the SC to be objective if their petition is voted on favourably; I know others who will never believe the SC is objective because of those who are members, no matter th e decisions they come to; and I know others will accept that there was objective consideration, win or lose. It's the nature of the job - I've sometimes joked that I know we are doing our job when *everyone* is mad at us.

Once again, they are drafts; they offer clear wording, from the perspective of, yes, someone who, along with four others, has the task of implementing whatever the law looks like in the end. The irony of this discussion is that, when you read through them, I think you will find they place very strict restraints on the SC in conducting by-elections, specifying dates, timeframes, and removing most of the flexibility the SC has under the current laws.

I don't want the SC to undermine their own authority. And given my status as a bit of a pariah, at this moment with the SC deeply embedded in the politics of the SIM, I do not trust that I could get fairness if I ever ended up with a dispute of some kind that required the SC. ...

I don't consider myself deeply embedded in the politics here - if I were interested in being so I'd have run for RA, not joined the SC. On the SC I have laws and the Constitution as the basis for evaluating anything I have to deal with, not my feelings about it.
I freely admit to having my opinions on most things here, and I would consider it dishonest to pretend I don't have preferences and biases as everyone does. The relationship of bias to objectivity however, is that bias only allows one viewpoint to be discussed, and objectivity allows all viewpoints to be discussed. I invite anyone with concerns to go back and read SC transcripts over the years and decide for themselves if that has occurred.

I regret that you believe you would be treated unfairly Bromo - and I wouldn't use the term pariah. You believing you will be treated unfairly doesn't make it so, however, just as my saying you will be treated fairly isn't going to convince you otherwise. Hopefully there will be no situation arising where either of us has to find out we are wrong.

Calli

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

Ideally, I would prefer an "automatic" system to handle vacant seats. The reasoning behind that is that in SL, unlike RL, rotativity is always high.

Calli's proposal certainly addressed that — when a seat in the RA is vacated, the software to determine seats via STV from the previous election is simply run again, as often as necessary, and each person selected is asked if they wish to serve. If none accept, then — and only then — by-elections are called. A similar suggestion is made for the Chancellor.

Personally, I'm not against that system, I think it's a good compromise. You know that I prefer a system based on factions, where each presents a list of potential candidates, and the next person in the list is selected to fill a vacant seat. But that system doesn't address the Chancellor's election (it predates the existence of an Executive branch!). Maybe Cleo's suggestion of having a mandatory Vice-Chancellor, presented by the candidates themselves during their campaigning (so that everybody knows who they are!), could solve that issue automatically.

Re-creating factions, however, might take a bit longer in terms of discussion; and, in that case, I would certainly prefer Calli's "automatic" model instead.

[cleopatraxigalia]

I am not sure about the "automatic" refill of seats. It takes out of the equation a few things.

1. Has there been a population change since the initial census pulled for the first election
2. Have there been issues and happenings during the term that would change people's votes from say 4 months earlier?
3. Would this process incentivize so many people running for office that it gets silly? Or is that a good thing?
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

I think increasing the size with the population growth .. ( back to the old bill on this issue..10% of the population rounded down) would save some of the concern. Perhaps if we had 7 RA seats we don't call the by election until we get 2 seats down, I also believe the new bill put forward to keep people from running in a by election they cause may decrease by elections in general.

I also do agree with gwyn agreeing with me.. about a chancellor's succession .. Chancellor , Vice, PIO... maybe

Seems at the moment some sort of by elections will be inevitable. You know how I hate bringing up big issues. But maybe we need a secondary method to Jon to do elections, since it does seem to be quite a big thing to ask one person to do over and over... ? Is that possible.

I really do not like the auto refill for the reasons 1 and 2. above

[Callipygian]

I am not sure about the "automatic" refill of seats. It takes out of the equation a few things.

1. Has there been a population change since the initial census pulled for the first election
2. Have there been issues and happenings during the term that would change people's votes from say 4 months earlier?

...
I really do not like the auto refill for the reasons 1 and 2. above

Quoting from the draft:

"...Section 1 - Resignations from the RA or Chancellorship:
Where an official resignation is received on or before July 31st or January 31st, and the regular elections for the sitting RA and Chancellor had excess candidates who did not attain a seat, the regular election software will be run again using the data from the regular election, to establish the order in which the unsuccessful candidates would have been elected,..."

The draft only allows for automatic refill if a resignation occurs in the first 8 weeks of a term. This reflected the discussions that expressed concerns about automatic filling of seats late in the term , along with a method to allow a new RA to be fully seated in the early part of the term.

Once again, if on rereading, the bill does not address your concerns please post an edited version, so that when Gwyn presents it to RA it has been reviewed and discussed and can be dealt with in a timely manner.

Calli

[cleopatraxigalia]

Yes my example was 4 months ... But even 6 weeks after a term starts is a long time from when the term begins. The citizen list is taken 28 days before ...so I stand by my concern # 1 about auto refill.

My first choice is to Strike the auto refill for my taste, all together what you are calling 8 weeks to have an auto refill I am calling 3 months.

In the spirit of compromise . I might, possibly go for 2 weeks or less which would indeed be almost 2 months since the last citizen list was pulled, especially if we were to give a weeks notice for the citizen list to be pulled. (Which I think we should since some people can see who is in arrears and some cannot now. So some can inform friends to come in and pay up quick and some cannot ) In cds 2 months is a long time and citizens change their minds and citizens change