Bill to be discussed: Land Powers of the Chancellor Act

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

Please, don't see this as a personal attack on any Chancellor, past or present. These are just some topics from my own manifesto — concerns I have regarding the vague definitions of powers of the Chancellor and the Executive, as set in the Constitution.

In my mind, these were kept deliberately vague to allow for further legislation to make them clearer.

Here are a few examples:

Art II, Sec 2. (a) to determine the use to which any and all land in CDS shall be put;

I read this to give the Chancellor power to deal with land sales, parcel empty land, determine compliance with covenants and the overall theme, and deal with abuse (i.e. prims over limit, and so forth). But obviously it can be read as much more than that, specially by anyone who has not been present during the discussions of this Constitutional amendment, and now sees the Chancellor as being all-powerful regarding to land use (except as bounded by Section 4 — "Nothing in this Act shall give the Chancellor of CDS any power to change the overall theme of Neufriestadt or any other sim or administered component of the CDS."). So we need some clarification!

I propose that we have a bill explaining in fuller detail what this "power" means and how it is bounded:

Land Powers of the Chancellor Act

Preamble

The Constitution of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators left the powers of the Chancellor and its Executive deliberately vague relatively to its scope of application, thus allowing its detailed significance to be determined by further legislation. Moreover, as 'land rules' are defined (and modified) by Linden Lab without advance notice, the Constitution needed to be ready for a future where land is completely differently administered than at the time the Constitution was written. This bill attempts to clarify and explain the actual meaning of the powers of the Chancellor regarding land administration in the framework that it works at the time this bill is approved.

1. Regarding Article II, Section 2 (a) of the Constitution, and taking into account the restrictions set by Section 4 of Article II, the Executive Branch, headed by its Executive, shall have the following administrative powers regarding land usage:

1. Overseeing the process of land sales, by keeping an updated list of parcels for sale, using whatever mechanisms are appropriate

2. Overseeing the process of receiving payments for land sales, reporting to the Treasurer, who will publish data about the received income at least quarterly (also see NL 4-3 Land Sales Reporting Act)

3. Overseeing the process of receiving payments for monthly tier fees, reporting to the Treasurer, who will publish data about the received income at least quarterly

4. Adjusting/maintaining any existing devices or tools to automate the process, and proposing to the Representative Assembly the acquisition and installation of new devices or tools or reconfiguration of existing ones, in order to comply with this Bill and the terms set in the Constitution

5. Managing the tools allowing delegation of functions to other members of the Executive and/or the Civil Service, namely, the Estate Management tools (creation of new Estate Managers and removal of former Estate Managers), the Group tools for land management (assigning roles to members of the Executive and the Civil Service and removing such members from the role or group), login and permission on the various tier-collecting devices (such as Hippo), and any other devices, tools, applications, scripts, or others which aid the Executive in land management

6. Reclaiming parcels of land that have been left vacant by leaving citizens, and immediately offering them for sale again in the subsequent 72 hours of vacancy

7. Publicly listing the currently used land parcels (and their ownership), as well as the vacant lots for sale, by whatever means are more adequate, in conjunction with the Treasurer

8. Parcelling terrain in a new region according to the previously approved plan voted by the Representative Assembly for that region

9. Optionally parcelling empty land in an existing region, in accord with the previously approved plan voted by the Representative Assembly for that region (limited by Section 4)

10. Overseeing compliance with the Covenants that apply to each area and region, and, in case of non-conformity, inform the citizen to correct the issue, and publically publishing the notification of non-conformity with the reasoning fundamenting the decision (as per Section 3)

11. Enforcing conformity with the Covenants, in case a citizen refuses to correct a non-conformity, and publishing the act of enforcement (as per Section 3)

12. Accepting petitions from citizens to use public land for special events or occasions, and publishing the authorizations (as well as the denials of authorization), which can be temporary or permanent (as per Section 3)

13. Regularly removing stray objects left on public land, for which no authorization exists (i.e. "litter")

14. Delegating any of the above functions to other members of the Executive and/or the Civil Service during their term of service and keeping the current list of delegated powers to members of the Executive and the Civil Service publicly updated (as per Section 2 (b) )

2. Regarding Article II, Section 2 (e), where the application of eminent domain is enacted by the Chancellor, the following shall apply:

1. When land currently held by citizens is claimed under the provision of eminent domain, as voted by the Representative Assembly for the purposes of a change of theme and/or change of the overall layout of a region, the Chancellor shall enforce the land claim under the provisions of Section 2 (e) (that is, either pay adequate compensation or offer to swap a parcel for another of equal value, with the landowner's assent).

2. The value stipulated for adequate compensation shall, at least, be not be less than the original price paid by the citizen plus the amount of tier paid since then.

--- Bill ends here ---

But, furthermore, after reading some real world constitutions, I propose something different: that the Chancellor has no powers per se, but that all powers are granted by the RA to the Chancellor. Some of the powers, like the ones already mentioned in the Constitution, are granted "automatically" each term. Others require an explicit bill by the RA to confer those powers to the Chancellor. A typical example: let's say we really start the work on Gwyn's Crazy Anniversary Region. We wish the Chancellor to deal with all executive hassles that this takes. Thus, the RA will vote on a bill granting the Chancellor the power to launch a contest for a new region, authorize it to select a winner, authorize it to expend a certain amount of L$ from the budget to get that region up, parcel the terrain, build it according to plan, activate a covenant for the land, and give a sunset clause for how long this power has been granted. Once the grant expires, the full powers over the new region and how it shall be developed return to the RA (the RA obviously might extend that grant). While the bill is in effect, however, the Executive has full powers over it.

[cleopatraxigalia]

Gwyn this is a long overdue proposal and I thank you greatly for taking the time to bring this issue up and put it on the table for us to consider. Well done.

I would like to see some input from former chancellors here first... Sonja, Trebor, Tor, Bagheera?

[cleopatraxigalia]

Gwyn ..

Simply put, I propose that reclaiming a citizen's land for the purpose of change of theme/change of region layout has to be decided by the RA, but it will be up to the Chancellor to enforce it. The Chancellor, by itself, cannot reclaim a citizen's land (unless they have been defaulting in payment; I'm addressing that on a different bill).

that's a step in the right direction gwyn , but that's not even close to enough.. ( recalls a discussion with 3 RA members and a chancellor present which would have been enough to take land)

I have a huge issue with even allowing the RA .. ( which means really three people in CDS.. ) three of the five votes can allow the chancellor to reclaim land for a sim change ! or a theme change ! No I am totally and adamantly opposed to this.

Look at our recent past.

Anyone who is creative can redesign a sim enough to make it wonderful while keeping parcel lines in tact of owned parcels. Citizens in CDS currently "own" their land Gwyn. I do not see allowing a change in theme to be a reason to allow them to be dismissed from their land.

There must be a reason far greater than a designers whim to have citizens land reclaimed. RA or chancellor, doesn't matter.

I would want to make some very specific guildelines about WHEN that can happen.

This sort of thing to clarify when seems to me could easily backfire into RA members wanting to redesign CN and uprooting all of the residents of CN and dwindling the population again. The sovereignty of citizens owning land is one I take very seriously. No , not even the RA should be able to take peoples land. The process for doing so needs to be much more involved than a vote in ONE RA.. maybe across two terms? or a referendum..

100% desire of owners of land in a sim wanting to redevelop it ?

I don't know the answer at the moment, I will think about it. But I know a simple RA vote to take land and a chancellor's desire isn't enough for me.

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

Well, one thing is definitely missing: redeveloping an existing region — changing its layout, its theme, anything that would force parcels or its content to change — should, at the very least, follow the same procedures as developing a new region from scratch! It's obvious, it's common sense, but as far as I know, it's not a law yet.

But that should be a different bill from this one. I'll be happy to draft it, as soon as we get a bit more input on what should be in it.

For instance, I have a slight problem with requiring 100% approval of all landowners. Imagine a failing region, that nobody wants to live in, except one single citizen, who utterly refuses that a single tree is removed from the entire region. That citizen could stall development forever, and the CDS would lose tons of money that way!

Perhaps we could have something slightly less demanding, for instance: if a region has had 50% or more vacant lots for a period at least equal to the reserve fund (currently three months, I believe), then the RA could vote to start a re-planning of the region. What this meant is that if those citizens in the region wished to "block" redevelopment, all they had to make sure is that they bought an extra plot so that there are less than 50% of vacant lots... and they could drop that plot on the next month... wait another three months... then buy the plot again... and so forth They would still be able to block the redevelopment indefinitely, but at least the CDS wouldn't lose so much money.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Well, one thing is definitely missing: redeveloping an existing region — changing its layout, its theme, anything that would force parcels or its content to change — should, at the very least, follow the same procedures as developing a new region from scratch! It's obvious, it's common sense, but as far as I know, it's not a law yet.

But that should be a different bill from this one. I'll be happy to draft it, as soon as we get a bit more input on what should be in it.

For instance, I have a slight problem with requiring 100% approval of all landowners. Imagine a failing region, that nobody wants to live in, except one single citizen, who utterly refuses that a single tree is removed from the entire region. That citizen could stall development forever, and the CDS would lose tons of money that way!

Perhaps we could have something slightly less demanding, for instance: if a region has had 50% or more vacant lots for a period at least equal to the reserve fund (currently three months, I believe), then the RA could vote to start a re-planning of the region. What this meant is that if those citizens in the region wished to "block" redevelopment, all they had to make sure is that they bought an extra plot so that there are less than 50% of vacant lots... and they could drop that plot on the next month... wait another three months... then buy the plot again... and so forth They would still be able to block the redevelopment indefinitely, but at least the CDS wouldn't lose so much money.

And the fact that you could 'game' the set of rules so easily, to the detriment of the CDS, makes me very wary of these kind of automatic rules which remove any discretion from the RA or Chancellor.

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

And the fact that you could 'game' the set of rules so easily, to the detriment of the CDS, makes me very wary of these kind of automatic rules which remove any discretion from the RA or Chancellor.

Quite so, Pat. So, how should we deal with that? I mean, there are a few things that seem to make sense (to me at least):

- RA figures out that a region needs to be redeveloped (similar to what happens when we start a new region)
- RA commissions the Executive to come up with a plan
- Executive launches public contest (or not...)
- Executive oversees contest and gathers information as per the laws that control all this procedure; Treasurer gives financial clearance, etc. Reports back to RA
- RA approves development plan and allows Executive to go with the changes
- Executive goes ahead with the development

This is, very roughly, a summarisation of NL 8-2, taking into account that there is no more "New Guild" as before. NL 8-2 has, for me, a problem: it doesn't "require" the Executive to consult the public. Back then, it was deemed sufficient if the New Guild was consulted, because anyone could be part of the New Guild and it had formal "advisory" status, with all meetings and decisions made public — so public complaints would go to them.

Without having such an "official advisory board" in place, it means that the current mechanism allows the Chancellor to completely side-step the public consultation, if they so wish.

I would like that to be changed — but I totally agree that any mechanism that allows "gaming" the system should be avoided. On the other hand, there should not be a mechanism in place that allows a very small group from stopping redevelopment when it's clearly necessary (meaning: the region is not making enough money, and hasn't done so in several months).

[Bromo Ivory]

And the fact that you could 'game' the set of rules so easily, to the detriment of the CDS, makes me very wary of these kind of automatic rules which remove any discretion from the RA or Chancellor.

Instead of using a 50% threshold, you could move it to 80%, and require that on average of 3 months, it maintains that. And given the current economics, anyone trying to block a redevelopment ... they would "game" the region right into the black - which is what we'd really want anyway, yes? At that point it wouldn't be so much as "gaming" as saying that as long as a region pays for itself, it won't be redeveloped en masse?

Just a thought.

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

To be honest, Bromo, that was what I actually had in mind, lol — you read my thoughts!

I love systems that can be 'gamed' for mutual benefit (in this case, the citizens owning plots and the CDS receiving income from tier). But sure, I agree that 50% might not be the best threshold, and maybe 70% or 80% is best. From the transcript of a non-official RA meeting last year, posted by Bagheera, we can see that the number of vacant plots was around 54% at that time.

Still, I'm obviously fine with whatever method that fits the purpose: making sure that the least amount of people are disturbed by some redevelopment in an attempt to increase the CDS' revenue, while at the same time not letting a whole region operate at a loss for a very extended duration.

The 'threshold' method, which implies the ability of 'gaming the system', is one way of dealing with it. Are there others? Let's hear about them and discuss!

[Patroklus Murakami]

I object the indecent haste with which Gwyn wants to pass this law. At the end of the RA term. When there has been *no* discussion of the practical impact of this set of laws with the Executive Branch.

I would hope that we could follow up on this and agree something which might work when the new RA is elected in a week or so.

Just a few points:
* demanding that parcels are immediately offered for sale within 72 hours may not alway be achievable. I don't want a future Chancellor to be impeached because the RA passed a hastily-drafted law without the proper consideration

As for the legislative power grab envisaged here which involves taking *away* powers from the Chancellor... I don't see a Constitutional Amendment here and that's what you would need.

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

'Haste'? It's ironic, I have promised to address this issue when campaigning for the 20th RA... let me see, was that 5 or 6 months ago?

There certainly was a lot of discussion back then, which has continued over most of this term... in fact, I believe that my voters ought to complain because I've only proposed this now, after so much time, and would accuse me of demagogy otherwise. It's ironic that 5 or 6 months of delay are now called 'haste'. I wonder how long we ought to discuss this, then? Half a decade? I'm sorry, I believe that 5 or 6 months are more than enough...

The reason for only proposing it after so many months of conversations are manifold, but the major reason was the Chancellor by-election. I felt it would be a bit unfair for the campaigning candidates to have the RA actively discussing the Chancellor's role; also, the opportunity of listening to what the candidates viewed as the role of the Chancellor certainly helped me to shape the final proposal. But now that a Chancellor is elected, there is no further reason to delay the discussion. Also, note that 'discussion' doesn't mean 'approval'. It just means that I consider that after having the citizens discussing this after half a year, it's more than enough time to get the RA discussing on a formal proposal as well.

The practical impact of this set of laws was most certainly discussed with the Executive Branch — just not with the one you're currently heading, Pat As said, there was no intention to make this discussion personal. When I officially published my own manifesto, stating that I would formalize the discussion around the powers of the Chancellor and propose concrete bills, not even Bagheera had been elected yet, but, more important than that, I had no idea that she would resign. These proposed laws are meant to be independent to whomever currently holds the office of Chancellor in the CDS. The RA certainly cannot consult with every Chancellor that will be elected in the future, since it's impossible to predict who will be next in place! So, after discussing it with enough former members of the Executive Branch, it's now time to discuss it at the RA level.

It matters little if it's at the end or at the beginning of an RA term. Actually, doing it at the end is politically better. Because the laws will very likely not affect the current Chancellor, but only the next one, there cannot be any accusations of 'political conspiracy' against current elected officials. Decisions which affect the current officials is uncorteous. So, by having such decisions being made at the end of term is far better — it means they will never affect current people in charge, but candidates for the next term will have to take them into account. It's just a matter of courtesy.

I don't know who you mean when you say "I would hope that we could [...] agree something which might work". Is this the "we" as in "we, the citizens"? Because certainly the RA represents the citizens — or does it not? I'm confused. Does the RA need permission from this "we" — whoever they are — to pass laws? I think not. I think that the RA is still sovereign, unless I am missing some point? The next RA, if they disagree with any set of previously passed laws, being mandated by the citizens to do so, are more than welcome to change past laws. This RA, or at least one of the members of this RA, was voted upon because she wrote in her manifesto that she would address the issue of the powers of the Chancellor. So, before my own term ends, I certainly intend to fulfill the promises I made during my campaigning for the 20th RA.

Now to the "few points".

Please explain why a parcel cannot be offered for sale within 72 hours after being claimed. In my own experience outside the CDS, parcels take a few seconds, minutes at most, to be offered for sale after being claimed. Because I understand that a land sale might require setting up a Hippo box, and because technical difficulties might prevent that from happening instantly (although every other land-renting community certainly manages to do it "almost immediately"), I proposed 72 hours as a minimum. But if there are outstanding technical reasons that prevent that from happening, I would be fine in extending that period. 72 hours means 10% less monthly rent on a parcel. How far shall we allowed to go?

As for the "power grab", the problem is the differing interpretation. In the past few terms, Chancellors have decided to interpret the Constitution as giving them far more powers than it was actually intended (if you wish, you can read the discussions leading to the current writing of the Constitution; that's what I did). As explained at the very top, the current Constitution intended to confer the Executive powers to act immediately when there is griefing, covenant abuse, and speedily dealing with land sales. It also deliberated that the (technical) powers to implement a development plan for a region would be given to the Executive, to distribute among builders, so that there was no ambiguity who was ordering something to be done (the RA) and who was actually going to implement those orders and held responsible for carrying them out (the Executive). Over time, however, the vague wording of the Constitution has been interpreted by successive Chancellors as having full powers to dictate who had access to land in the CDS, who would be allowed to overstep the covenants, who would be allowed to sell land privately without anyone noticing, and so forth. Because citizenship is so closely tied to land, this was interpreted as somehow granting the Chancellor powers to decide who could be a citizen or not!

Clearly there was a "power grab" — but not by the RA! — underway, one that somehow allegedly granted the Chancellor dictatorial powers over citizens' lives. This is a perversion of the original intent of the Constitution; but, in all honesty, it can indeed be read in that way. While, by contrast, the whole point of turning the administrative function of the Executive into a political role was to allow the Chancellor to have better management tools at their disposal, without the need to confer on a daily base with the RA. And, obviously enough, to allow the Chancellor to do some strategic planning as well, regarding events and other activities, which are within their powers.

Because of all the abuse of the Chancellor powers — an abuse justified by a certain interpretation of the Constitution — it is now time to set matters right. The Constitution deliberately did not elaborate in minute detail what exactly the Chancellor is supposed to do or not; that was left for legislation to decide, because legislation is easier to change and to be adapted according to needs. The Constitution also made it clear that only the Executive would have powers to parcel land or enforce Covenants; this was to prevent the creation of "shadow groups" with special powers, not accountable to anyone, who might also have some powers regarding land. The point here is to have some accountability: the RA has a single point of communication regarding land powers — the Chancellor — and, reversely, the Chancellor has a single authority to reply to — the RA. There are no "hidden groups" or "special interest groups" that can interfere in this process.

But of course we all know that this isn't the case. There are people with group/estate powers who are not members of the Executive. They answer to nobody. Past Chancellors had to assume that these people would work with them — but also had no way of controlling who they were, since they had not been elected, nor appointed by them. They were prevented to assign other people to those land management roles, and some people were able to engage in covenant violations just because they had the (technical) power to do so, but not the Chancellor's agreement.

Besides all that, with the years, we moved from a situation where we had a full list of all citizens and what parcels they owned and how much they were paying for them (and which of those were unpaid), with a list of vacant parcels, and a waiting list of potential citizens (or citizens wishing for more land). All those were public and known by all. Over the years, and with all sorts of plausible explanations, each of those were removed and hidden from public eyes. We still get a list of citizens every now and then, because they are a requirement for elections. But although we moved from a relatively crude land management system to a sophisticated software like Hippo, which has a fantastic web backend with all sorts of statistics, the public cannot be made aware of anything. Covenant violations stopped being publicly posted. Decisions about covenant enforcement were made in private, and only rumours abound.

This won't do. It's a complete travesty of the way the Executive is supposed to work.

This bill at least tries to turn back the trend and return some measure of transparency and fairness to the citizens. I fail to understand your objection regarding "practical issues" that somehow "cannot be implemented". If by that you mean that the current system (Hippo) is unable to provide all that we need, then we need a new system (or an upgrade of the current one). As stated elsewhere, the CDS is fortunately more than able to pay for that. There is no technical excuse for not having a better system, if we can afford it. There is no excuse whatsoever for turning the office of the Chancellor into a travesty of democracy by interpreting the Constitution in a way that allows stamping upon democracy and forgetting what it's supposed to be about.

Cleo, among others, has complained that "this bill is not enough". I fully agree. Nevertheless, it is just a first step. If it's already being so heavily contested, when this "clarification" bill merely re-states what the Executive is supposed to do, without adding much nor subtracting anything — just rewording the duties and rights in a less ambiguous way — then it means that the whole system is already so rotten at the core that it requires going in much deeper; let's just hope that the patient doesn't die from the surgery!

[Patroklus Murakami]

I would like to respectfully request that the Representative Assembly, when contemplating the passage of laws which affect the other branches of Government i.e. the Chancellor or the Scientific Council:

• *invite the incumbents in the relevant branch(es) to the meetings where such discussion will take place
  *schedule them for a time which the others can make and
  *provide adequate notice that the items are up for discussion and/or passage as laws

I would respectfully wish to point out that four and a half hours is not adequate notice of such intent.

[cleopatraxigalia]

Pat please go back to your own thread called reforming land sales to see how long this conversation had been held.

I do not like the part about immediately setting land for sale gwyn. I'll discuss this in a bit....

I would like the chancellor to have to make public which land is in arrears by how much. And announce before he or she reclaims the land so that everyone has a chance to either contact the citizen at large and or say in public, if it's up for sale o want it. The chancellor and estate managers have inside knowledge now as you point out and can orchestrate land sales, giving parcels to the person of their choice. Once on public market if a citizen does this .. buys a parcel with no insider trading knowledge .. That's totally different .. we can discuss that too. But in past admin of chancellor and possibly pats we now see chancellors deciding with no transparency who loses land and who also is worthy ...

Not cool.

[cleopatraxigalia]

Things are different once we have a sold out set of Sims than they are when the land is half empty. Buyers market vs sellers market. Let's make sure our laws cover both scenarios

[Patroklus Murakami]

Pat please go back to your own thread called reforming land sales to see how long this conversation had been held.

I do not like the part about immediately setting land for sale gwyn. I'll discuss this in a bit....

I would like the chancellor to have to make public which land is in arrears by how much. And announce before he or she reclaims the land so that everyone has a chance to either contact the citizen at large and or say in public, if it's up for sale o want it. The chancellor and estate managers have inside knowledge now as you point out and can orchestrate land sales, giving parcels to the person of their choice. Once on public market if a citizen does this .. buys a parcel with no insider trading knowledge .. That's totally different .. we can discuss that too. But in past admin of chancellor and possibly pats we now see chancellors deciding with no transparency who loses land and who also is worthy ...

Not cool.

Please don't tell lies Cleo and please be clear about what you actually want. Do you want land put up for sale 'immediately' or do you want there to be some kind of notification system? What do you propose the Chancellor should do when more than one person wants to buy the same plot?

And why are you continuing to control access to land in CDS by buying up plots and then flipping them for your friends? Evidence here, here and here.

[cleopatraxigalia]

Please don't revert to your old ways, Pat.

When I look at the land scanner data.. I see a few parcels you happened to buy up right before the citizen list was pulled.. ones I didn't buy, but you did, ones I could have if indeed I was doing what you say I do .......which I don't. if the best you can do as chancellor is ask an RA member why they promote CDS and encourage us to grow ..which is supposed to be your job ! ....

then why don't you just admit the truth and tell them CLEO's great, vote for CLEO !