Michel's Latest

[Jon Seattle]

[quote="michelmanen":30f61lv0]Yes Jon I decided to file the petition on my own when I saw what you were up to. I had no intention to let you go on with what you were doing to Rose in her absence. The real issue is not that I filed the Petition, but that you first resigned as Secretary and then "suggested" your own agenda for the next Guild meeting, which would have included "discussing" matters pertaining to Rose in her absence -when you knew fully well she would be absent and would not be able to reply / comment on any issues you woud "raise".[/quote:30f61lv0]First of all, Michel, I did not know that Rose would be away when I asked DNate to chair or suggested agenda items. I invited her and you and one other person to present their case at a Guild meeting.

Second, its amazing that you do not think I have the same right that every Guild member has, to submit agenda items to the chair. I have never turned down any request to include an item on the agenda. Somehow you feel that I should not be allowed even to suggest topics for discussion.

Third your petition contains a quote from another person and assigns it to me. Your petition is inaccurate, disingenuous, and an attempt to convince people by surrounding yourself in legal trappings. Next time you want to post such things, please use one of my own damm quotes.

[Bromo Ivory]

Guys (Michel and Jon) -

No need to trade barbs at this point - everyone knows the issues - and I think you both made your points already [i:2utnf7g1]ad nauseum[/i:2utnf7g1].

We have a SIM to build here - and no need to waste time on recriminations and accusations. O.o

Right wrong or indifferent, there is a job to do! We need to UNITE under this wonderful new project - and as two pillars of the community - you should realize this is potentially a great uniting element - why spoil it?

/me ducks . . . .

[Beathan]

Bromo --

While I agree with your sentiment, it is important to note that Michel is still a candidate for public office -- and an office in which character is critical. Therefore, his misbehavior and underhanded mangling of the truth remain issues of critical public importance.

If he were not a candidate for Chancellor -- or if the Chancellor had already been elected -- I would agree with you wholeheartedly. However, until then -- Michel's misdeeds are fair discussion points in our community.

Beathan

[michelmanen]

Jon, Beathan - you are all so hilarious! It's true though- if you two have the characters required of CDS RA members, I don't belong anywhere near any public office in this community.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Guys, I think this has been done to death. No one is benefitting from this in any way. People can read what's been said, there are transcripts of meetings and several opinions to choose from. Rehashing the dispute(s) of the last couple of weeks is not going to take any of us forward or change anyone's mind at this point.

Please, let's talk about the important stuff. There are really cool threads in play with exciting ideas for our new sim. Let's develop those without rancour or just take a forum break for a while. You are all a lot better than this.

[michelmanen]

Jon has been doing an amazing job of restarting this on his own and Beathan is playing a brillant Sancho Panza to his Don Quixote. So, what's a windmill to do?? But yes, I agree - this is utterly pointless.

[Beathan]

LOL --

Michel -- you are a giant, not a windmill. As Sancho, I can tell the difference.

Beathan

[michelmanen]

Ah Beathan - flattery will take you everywhere..

[michelmanen]

John wrote:

[quote:3v6bz6f4]The idea that the secretary of the Guild (who's responsibility consists in mainly arranging meetings of the guild members) has a conflict of interest running for RA makes no sense at all. We have very few jobs that have that requirement. [/quote:3v6bz6f4]

That is sadly true. CARE have every intention to remedy this disastrous state of affairs as soon as possible by making sure than no individual will be able to cumulate two or more public or quasi-public offices ( such as Guild Secretary and RA Member) at the same time and that no individual will occupy any public office for more than two full terms. The fact that such conflicts of interest are not legally prohibited in the CDS does not make them any less real conflicts of interest -the best proof of which we been given recently by your deplorable actions as Guild Secretary and RA Candidate.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Michel

Could we see a proposal, as opposed to a thinly-disguised attack on Jon? Then we could debate the issue instead of the personalities? Then I could tell you why you're so utterly damn wrong without having to worry about a flame-fest?

[michelmanen]

Sure Pat. We're going to have a two-week consultation process with our members regarding our policy priorities, then submit the entire package for the approval of the CARE CDS faction and then be ready to present our intiatives to the RA. I realise this policy development process is slightly lengthier and more cumbersome that that of some other parties, but it is entirely in line with our principles of openness, transparency, accountability, participative democracy and inclusion, emobdied in our Constitution. As an aside, this has been CARE's position since its inception - it has nothing to do with Jon or you specifically, for that matter. It is simply unacceptable to us that the same individuals, who can be counted on the fingers of two hands, simultaneously and continuously occupy all public and quasi-public offices in our community. As we have said on numerous occasions, this results not in a democratic system of govenrnment, but in the entrenchment of an oligarchy lacking any controls, checks and balances. All citizens in our community should have the opportunity to occupy all CDS offices at some time or another in practice, and not just in theory. This clearly is not happening now - and CARE intends to remedy this as soon as possible.

As always, we look forward, in due course, to your constructive criticism of our proposals.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Thanks Michel. Issues we can deal with.

Your position is fundamentally flawed. If we were to implement such a rule then *everybody* in the CDS would need to occupy at least one form of office in the CDS. That's simply untenable. You claim that the same two handfuls of individuals hold all the public and quasi-public offices in our community. Well that's about 10 out of 76. Not bad going I would have said and much better than in RL.

What proportion do you think should be involved in public or quasi-public office? 50%? 75%? 100%?

I note also that you elide 'public and quasi-public'. Which offices are you talking about? I count 9 at the moment (3 SC, 5 RA and 1 Chancellor) held by eight individuals. What else do you count as 'public or quasi-public' office?

This 'oligarchy' point really isn't working for you The electorate saw through it at both of the last elections. Who are the members of this mythical oligarchy and how did they gain power? What is your justification for saying there are no checks and balances? These are key features of our Constution and limit all branches of government. We clearly need Aliasi to restart her Civics 101 class; that or else you need to read the constitution a little more carefully

[Brian Livingston]

Well, if I'm not FIC, than I better at least be part of this mystical Oligarchy! Hehehe...

Seriously though, all this proposal will do is to ensure that we have a lack of candidates in the near future. As it currently exists, to stand for the RA, all that one needs to do is:
a) be a member of a faction,
b) inform the Dean of your candidacy, and
c) win a seat through the electoral process.

To become a member of the SC, things get a little murkier, as it is a self-selecting body, however, to get the ball rolling, informing the Dean of your interest in serving is generally a good idea and common sense.

Becoming the Chancellor requires informing the RA.

The Civil Service positions (Treasurer, PIO, caretakers) are available to those who apply to the Chancellor, and as they open up.

I guess I simply fail to see how our system is excluding anyone from holding office. If you are interested in doing so, and I certainly encourage everyone to stand for public office at least once, you just need to follow the procedures set out in the constitution.

Instead of barring interested citizens from serving their community by imposing term limits, perhaps a better use of the time spent would be to find new ways to encourage more of our fellow citizens to stand for public office.

--BL

[michelmanen]

Pat,

I have already addressed the points you raise at one time or another. I could well provide a detailed answer once again, but I dont wish to again become the focal point of these debates. Therefore, I'd rather let the CARE policy-making process take its course, and present our policies and the reasons for them once this process is complete. Hopefully this will help de-personalise the debate and allow it to focus on issues rather than personalities.

We will post our proposals and debates in "Our Current Policies" Section of the CARE Forums here: [url:6zvy4frz]http://www.care-cds.com/forum[/url:6zvy4frz]. You (and anyone else for that matter) are more than welcome to register and contribute your thoughts, ideas and constructive criticism. Since we do believe in the force of the best argument, you may even sway the opinion of our members on some issues and - hopefully- change your mind on others should you happen to be (the horror! ) "not the rightest you've ever been" on one topic or another. . .

We call this inclusive, participative, deliberative democracy. From what I understand the CSDF is trying to practice something similar, so at least on this issue of policy-formation we shouldn't find ourselves poles apart...

[Gxeremio Dimsum]

[quote="michelmanen":2vvmlyvd]I'd rather let the CARE policy-making process take its course, and present our policies and the reasons for them once this process is complete. Hopefully this will help de-personalise the debate and allow it to focus on issues rather than personalities.

We call this inclusive, participative, deliberative democracy. From what I understand the CSDF is trying to practice something similar, so at least on this issue of policy-formation we shouldn't find ourselves poles apart...[/quote:2vvmlyvd]

I anxiously await the "CARE policy-making process" and wonder if it will (surprise!) look like your personal already-stated goal - "making sure than no individual will be able to cumulate two or more public or quasi-public offices at the same time and that no individual will occupy any public office for more than two full terms."

As to your earlier jab at Jon - "The fact that such conflicts of interest are not legally prohibited in the CDS does not make them any less real conflicts of interest -the best proof of which we been given recently by your deplorable actions as Guild Secretary and RA Candidate." - let's just say "Get a life!" as has been your standard line.