Repeal of NL8-4 - Private Development Act

Proposals for legislation and discussions of these

Moderator: SC Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Tor Karlsvalt
Pundit
Pundit
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:56 am
Location: Eagle Rock Cabin, Alpine Meadow
Contact:

Repeal of NL8-4 - Private Development Act

Post by Tor Karlsvalt »

NL8-4 - Private Development Act

Fiduciary oversight and approval of covenants are always the responsibility of the RA.
By permitting any person or group working with the Chancellor to add sims to CDS, this law
impairs both the functioning of the RA and their ability to act within the law. NL8-4 conflicts with NL 5-8 Covenant Revision Act

Background & problems with NL8-4

When NL8-4 was written, the Executive was appointed by the RA.
NL8-4 expanded the capacity of CDS to bring new sims online and supplemented the workings of the New Guild, as sim developer.
NL8-4 doesn’t require budgeting region acquisition; setting tier rates; projecting tier; or for such information to be presented to the RA for approval or rejection. (Specified in the Budget and Accounting Law which was in effect at that time.)
There is no specification that, prior to accepting the sim, the Executive must draft and submit to the RA the covenant for that sim. The New Guild (and subsequently, RA Commissions) wrote the covenants, which were rejected, modified, and/or approved by the RA before becoming law. (See NL 5-8 Covenant Revision Act.)
The self-selecting citizen involvement provided for in the law was lost with the dissolution of the New Guild. (see Article 2, Section 3 - Public Oversight)

The Powers Commission recommends 1. Repeal of NL8-4. Repeal of NL8-4 is not retroactive and would not affect Dougga, which is currently under development. 2. We recommend that the RA write and adopt a new law addressing private sim development.
Citizen
AbbyRose
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 7:38 pm

Re: Repeal of NL8-4 - Private Development Act

Post by AbbyRose »

Yes, please repeal NL8-4 so it will never be used like it has for Dougga, again in the future.
Do Good. Be good. Try to be happy.
User avatar
Gwyneth Llewelyn
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Neufreistadt
Contact:

Re: Repeal of NL8-4 - Private Development Act

Post by Gwyneth Llewelyn »

Tor, that is not quite correct. NL 8-4 implied that the Executive would budget for additional tier payments at the beginning of the year; so the Executive could plan ahead on how many new regions they were willing to add (using either act), and the RA would approve, or not, that budget.

Unfortunately some misguided RA members passed a law that made tier payments not subject to the budget. Gah! That's why this is a mess; not because of 8-4, but because there is a stupid law removing the RA's ability to evaluate budgets, and removing the need for the Chancellor to present a budget regarding regions.

I don't endorse this repeal; instead, I propose that we amend the law that unfortunately allowed tier payments to be outside the budget, which, in my mind, was one of the most reckless and nonsensical laws ever passed in the CDS and the root of all future problems...
"I'm not building a game. I'm building a new country."
  -- Philip "Linden" Rosedale, interview to Wired, 2004-05-08

Image
User avatar
Tor Karlsvalt
Pundit
Pundit
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:56 am
Location: Eagle Rock Cabin, Alpine Meadow
Contact:

Re: Repeal of NL8-4 - Private Development Act

Post by Tor Karlsvalt »

No Gwyn,

The tier owed to LL was never approved by the RA. I have seen budgets from Jamie and Sonya. RA never considered approving tier owed to LL. If this were so, then we would likely have been late in our tier at the beginning of every term while the Chancellor and RA discuss the budget.

Certainly, you can't be suggesting that we allow CDS acquire regions only via Chancellor action and then have the RA later refuse to amend a budget to include tier for the new region and thus leave open the possibility that RA will force the CDS to default on its tier payment for an unwanted region? I am told, in such a scenario, our EO would even be banned by LL until payment were made.

NL8-4 does not make the addition of a new region contingent on any RA action let alone an appropriation of tier. It is an undemocratic law and an example of an RA ceding too much power to the executive.
Citizen
Post Reply

Return to “Legislative Discussion”