Resignation from the CDS Representative Assembly

[michelmanen]

Hello All,

The CDS RA intends to restrict even more than now new citizens from joining us, and to interfere even more in the private life of its citizens.

I no longer believe that I can make a positive difference in the RA, and cannot in good conscience continue to be associated with individuals promoting such acts.

I therefore resign from the RA with immediate effect. CARE will also abandon its RA seat, and no CARE member will sit in the RA to take up this seat under the CARE banner.

Michel Manen

[Patroklus Murakami]

Michel

The RA has decided to *open* up membership even more to new citizens. There is no proposal to interfere in the private lives of citizens. I challenge you to back up both accusations with evidence.

In discussing amendments to the Group Land Ownership Act (both of which are posted on these forums) the RA decided that we should allow couples to join the CDS together rather than force them, under current legislation, to join separately and then form a group after they've separately become citizens. I'm working on the modification to the amendment I submitted to the RA and which Sudane largely drafted. How is that 'restricting' anyone? It's a liberalisation of the rules!

On your final paragraph, how did CARE reach the decision that no member will take the RA seat that you've resigned? You posted this about 6 hours after the RA meeting; did you have a meeting? Some CDS citizens voted for your faction in the January election and you got a seat (just) as a result. Don't those voters deserve to expect that you'll follow a democratic process to choose a replacement?

[Justice Soothsayer]

The procedures for filling a vacancy require Gwyn to review the rankings of the CARE members in the last election, and then the CARE seat would be offered in turn to each of the CARE candidates in order of their ranking by the faction. If none of them want it, then we'll have a special election.

I for one hope that one of the CARE faction will seriously consider accepting the seat.

[Beathan]

Moderators --

I think I am now in the RA, but don't yet have access to the thread.

Michel --

I don't think that your resignation really counts as an "event" in the CDS.

That said, I do wish that you would reconsider. I don't see the legislation concerning citizenship through membership in groups to be a restriction on citizenship or immigration. Rather, it is intended to expand citizenship and liberalize the rules concerning immigration. As I understand the situation, currently only citizens can join CDS recognized groups and retain citizenship, under limited circumstances, by virtue of group ownership of land even if that citizen ceases to own his or her own land. The proposal was to allow immigrants to join citizen groups to some extent and to become citizens by virtue of that membership in a group that owns land. The debate has concerned how far we should liberalize our immigration and citizenship policy.

I understand that you think that the liberalization efforts don't go far enough. However, it is unfair to characterize lukewarm reform as reactionary. It is reform -- and a loosening of standards -- not the opposite. It seems silly to resign just because the RA is moving in your direction -- but too slowly for your taste.

Further, even if you choose to resign, I don't think that you can dictate whether CARE fills its seat. The factions in the CDS are not like totalitarian parties (on the Lenin-Stalinist model) which are under the strict control of a Secretary-General who can dictate party policy and political activity to its members. The factions are far ore like the Western European and American model. That is, they are relatively loose assortments of like-minded people. Such parties allow for mavericks. Such parties also do not restrict individual political action or participation in government at all.

If you do resign, I hope that the next-highest vote getter will fill your seat. I look forward to working with CARE on the RA, no matter who fills the seat.

Beathan

[Claude Desmoulins]

Michel,

I too a am a bit perplexed by your characterization of all the proposals as anti immigrant. As PAt and Beathan point out, the proposals now being considered would allow pairs of citizens to join CDS together, a less restrictive policy than is now in place.

I would also offer the thought that, if you're unhappy with the way things are moving in the CDS, disengaging yourself and CARE from the process is the least effective way to encourage the community to change direction. Although there is much you and I don't agree on, I do think your and CARE's presence has been a benefit to the RA and CDS.

[michelmanen]

In order for CARE in general -and me in particular- to re-consider our engagment with the current RA, we would need to see the following consultative bodies being set up by the RA within the next 2 weeks:

1. A Citizenship Commission with wide popular consultation (as opposed to 3 or 4 individuals on the forums) designed to define what we all mean by CDS citizenship and what we could do to become a more open and inviting community, rewarding all those who wish to join us and put their time and effort in building our community (possibly chaired by Claude);

2. A Public Service Commission with wide popular consultation (as opposed to 3 or 4 individuals on the forums) designed to discuss the issues of non-cumulation of public functions and of term limits in all public institutions (possibly chaired by Aliasi);

3. A Constitutional Convention with wide popular consultation (as opposed to 3 or 4 individuals on the forums) designed to address the unacceptable current state of our institutions where the Scientific and Judiciary branches cumulate in effect in only one individual, and re-establishing these branches as real and active institutions in the CDS, based on democratic principles and the rule of law (possibly chaired by Gwyn).

4. A Public Servants' Ethics Commission with wide popular consultation (as opposed to 3 or 4 individuals on the forums) designed to set up new standards of public behaviour for all public servants, addressing in particular personal accusations, attacks, insults, insinuations and negative campaigning in all public fora of the CDS (possibly chaired by Sudane).

The Commissions would submit reports and draft legislations on their particular topics to the RA by June 15th and resulting legislation would be tabled and voted on by the RA by June 30th.

Unless such steps are undertaken by the RA, CARE as a whole and I in particular do not intend to take any further part in the governance of the CDS. Although individuals who currently are CARE members and whose names were on the ballot in the last elections may well choose to join this RA if offered a seat, the CARE Excutive has decided that they would not be able to do so under the CARE banner.

[Beathan]

Michel -- I am not opposed to the idea of citizen commissions with the scopes of work you describe (with the possible exception of the Public Servants' Ethics Commission -- which is described as having, as its sole purpose, the curtailment of free speech and which, therefore, probably has a purpose that violates the UDHR and is, therefore, unconstitutional). However, I think that such commissions have proven to be rather ineffective and have proved to produce more division and consensus.

I think that the better route to your goals is to propose legislation as an RA member on these subjects. I would welcome a change of RA policy to include the public in RA debate on all subjects by insituting town-meeting style public meetings on all proposed legislation as a pre-requisite to RA consideration of the Legislation except on an emergency basis. (Emergency actions would require a finding of the emergency; a short-term sunset clause on the legislation; and a requirement to have a town-hall as soon as feasible after the fact.) I think that such a policy of intentional and formal inclusion of the public in RA debate would broaden public involvement in the process -- which I think is your goal -- without subverting the process and without unnecessarily multiplying the number of CDS institutions by creating toothless advisory commissions ad nauseum.

Beathan

[michelmanen]

Beathan,

CARE would agree to consider alternative forms of public consultation provided the following critical aims would be met:

1. all 4 major topics outlined above must be addressed clearly and unambigously;

2. wide citizen inclusion and participation from the beginning must be encouraged on each prospective piece of legislation (as opposed to a yes/no discussion on a text drafted in advance by 3 or 4 individuals);

3. following such a process, legislation on all 4 topics must be introduced in the RA and voted on by June 30th.

If these substantive matters are met, CARE ( and I) would be willing to participate in any specific type of legislative process agreeable to the current RA.

[Dnate Mars]

This sounds like a very dangerous area that you are treading into Mickel. You are making demands of the RA that you could not get while you are a member. If I recall correctly, what you are doing is in direct violation of our constitution.

You are holding over the entire sims head what you want and are saying that if you don't get your way you are going to leave. How could our government function if everyone did that? What if DPU said they were going to leave unless this law was passed by this date? What id CDFS decided that if what you want is not agreeable to them and if it passed they would leave? Demands of this nature cannot be done. If you are unhappy with the way things are going then you can leave or you can try to change the direction through the process that is set up. You will be missed, but pulling tactics like this cannot be tolerated.

For reference, I am talking about Article VI, Section 3 - Departure Ultimatums

"Citizens are may not issue departure ultimatums to members of
the government. In return the government will not issue discharge
ultimatums to citizens."

[michelmanen]

I did not threaten to leave the CDS, nor did I require a specific legislative text to be adopted by the RA.

However, it is very clear to me that the current state and direction of the CDS institutional structure and decision-making process no longer correspond to basic principles, of democracy, legitimacy, active public participation, diversity, separation of powers and the rule of law.

I (and CARE) are just as entitled to withdraw our consent and participation from the acutally existing political process as any democratic party would be in a community no longer governed by the principles outlined above.

Refusal to remain a consenting party to a community veering towards effective oligarchical dictatorship and exclusionary policies, including hate speech, is not only a right, but a duty of any truly democratic political organisation. CARE chooses to exercise this right and assume this duty, in accordance with its own Code of Ethics and Statement of Values and Principles, unless the fundamental issues outlines above can be fully and openly addressed by as wide as possible a number of CDS citizens, and be effectively dealt with by the RA before the next election.

[Dnate Mars]

You have every right to leave the RA, but you don't have the right to make ultimatums to the RA. You are in fact making an ultimatum. I would have hoped you would have at least stayed on the RA for the term you were elected for. People put their trust in you and your party by voting for it in the first place. I think that is a great disservice you are doing to them. I have posted else where what I think of the ways I have seen the changes in the CDS and the RA. I also see a huge hyporcicy in you leaving the RA after your post when Publius stepped down. To quote you:[quote:2z6yv0d6]You [Publius] ran in an election as your party's candidate and asked for voters to entrust you with their votes. You were elected for a period of 6 months, to which you solemnly commited by oath. [/quote:2z6yv0d6]

[Claude Desmoulins]

This thread is moving quickly.
Michel's four points...

We have widely agreed that a serious examination of what CDS citizenship means is in order. Like Beathan, I had hoped that Michel would propose legislation or otherwise indicate specifically what he wished to happen.

Accumulation of mandates is trickier, there is some duplication , but this is as much as anything because there are jobs no one else seems to want.

The current state of the SC is something Gwyn has recently posted on. Again the challenge is finding those willing to serve.

The ethics proposal bothers me as it seems to place restrictions on the speech of only those involved in government. I'm troubled by the idea that one would be asked to give up free expression rights when entering public service.

I think all of these could have been the focus of energetic and constructive debate had CARE introduced legislation in the RA.

It is absolutely Michel's right to resign from the RA and CARE's right to withdraw from it. I am not sufficiently familiar with CARE's internal workings to know whether he is authorized to make such a decision on behalf of the faction.

[Jon Seattle]

None of the CDS parties are owned by their RA representative. One very nice thing about our constitution is that it provides a structure that insures that no party can just abandon its responsibility to its constituents. A party is much more than its one leader.

It would not be in my power to disestablish the CSDF. Having set it in motion, it is its own community now. And likewise, the other members of CARE can decide what they want to do. I do think CARE can make an important contribution and I do hope it reconstitutes itself.

Respect for representative government would preclude demanding that the whole system be reconstituted just because it did not give you the outcome your preferred on one particular issue. You would have been much better off making these proposals early in the term, or even better making them the CARE platform for the election.

[Justice Soothsayer]

From reading Michel's posts there seems to be some convergence between Michel, CARE, the "CARE Executive" and CRAEDO. Perhaps some clarification would be in order to explain the extent to which these may or may not all be the same.

Meanwhile, since Michel has resigned, it is appropriate that the RA seat go to the next-highest-ranked person from the last election, just as ocurred with the resignation of the Simple party member. I remain hopeful that the next CARE member will be constructively engaged, introducting appropriate legislation for our consideration regarding the issues that Michel has discussed in this thread.

[Ranma Tardis]

I am watching this drama unfold with a sense of sadness. It would seem that my predictions of last year are becoming true.
This shows me that even being a RA member is only so helpful. What can a citizen do not being part of the government? Write messages like this one? Beg RA members to listen to them and hopefully bring up legislation?
The government of the CDS is really an oligarchical government or what Rudy would call an "electoral democracy".
My advice to the government of the CDS is to slacken up your tight grip on your citizens. The harder you squeeze the more residents will slip through your fingers and vote like I did with my feet and purse. Your obsession with having a rule for everything is chocking your citizens and hurts them in a number of ways.
My advice to Michel is that if you find the CDS so distasteful leave. I believe you and your group can make its own sim. It is either that or try and work with the neufers, ah CDS government. Leaving the RA was a mistake; you owe it to your group to be there for them. Perhaps it can be undone.
So you have a decision to make, can you listen to each other and learn how to get along, you can keep fighting with each other or you can go your separate ways, the decision is yours to make.