Michel's Latest

michelmanen · Post by **michelmanen** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 7:28 pm

Ah hello Gx.. glad to see you back for your regular bi-weekly 5 minute visit to the CDS, used mainly to take a jab at me... I missed you too

Bromo Ivory · Post by **Bromo Ivory** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 7:57 pm

Looking at the title of the thread it looks like it was meant to attack Michel - [b:1b0fls2e]yet[/b:1b0fls2e] - I noted that we were very close to discussing [i:1b0fls2e]actual policy[/i:1b0fls2e] - please everyone - try hard to head in that direction - please don't steer it into the weeds - don't crash the car ... please [i:1b0fls2e]RESIST[/i:1b0fls2e]!

I mean we are SO close to a substantial discussion - SOOO close.

So ... please let's pull back from attacking people and start talking about the issue:

[b:1b0fls2e]Should an officer of the government be able to hold more than 1 office at the same time?[/b:1b0fls2e]

Michel weighed in with a proposal that CARE is considering (shoudn't)

Brian weighed in with a good point (says the issue should be how to get more people interested in holding office)

Pat weighed in as well with a good perspective as well. (Too many offices to fill - and what would be government and quasi-government)

And before a second round - some started complaining about CARE and not the issue ... [i:1b0fls2e]D'OH[/i:1b0fls2e]!

So ... how about pulling it back and talking about the pros and cons of the [i:1b0fls2e]issue[/i:1b0fls2e]?

Jon Seattle · Post by **Jon Seattle** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 8:50 pm

[quote="Bromo Ivory":34ofe0cq]Looking at the title of the thread it looks like it was meant to attack Michel - [b:34ofe0cq]yet[/b:34ofe0cq] - I noted that we were very close to discussing [i:34ofe0cq]actual policy[/i:34ofe0cq] - please everyone - try hard to head in that direction - please don't steer it into the weeds - don't crash the car ... please [i:34ofe0cq]RESIST[/i:34ofe0cq]! [/quote:34ofe0cq]Bromo, it was a response to one of Michel's attacks on me in another thread that was moved here because that thread was not appropriate to the topic. It turned into a policy discussion because Pat requested specifics.

[quote="Bromo Ivory":34ofe0cq][b:34ofe0cq]Should an officer of the government be able to hold more than 1 office at the same time?[/b:34ofe0cq][/quote:34ofe0cq]It depends on wether there is a clear conflict of interest. There are cases where this could be a problem. For the most part, however it has not been an issue. In RL government this usually comes up in conjunction with awarding contracts and other situations where decisions to provide payment or loans is made by someone who is too close to the people receiving those payments or loans. Since we really depend on volunteers only and pay nothing this is not often the issue.

There are other cases in the CDS where not only is there no conflict, it is actually a good thing to have more than one role. For example Moon's administration of the Colonia Nova project, or the development of the CDS master plan (where she was an RA rep for at least part of the process). In both cases having an expert planner on the RA was really useful both in educating other RA members and helping them to make good decisions.

It seems to me by making this an issue there is some kind of worry about some specific conflict that has influenced particular decisions. Can you give me some concrete examples of decisions you think would have been made differently had there not been a shared role?

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 11:42 pm

[quote="michelmanen":jo8cis42]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.[/quote:jo8cis42]Hmm, actually I don't think you have. If you have answered my questions elsewhere could you post links? Here they are again, just for reference

[list:jo8cis42]What proportion of the community 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?

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?[/list:u:jo8cis42]If you can't answer these questions I'll be forced to conclude that these accusations are merely a rhetorical device, without any substance. And we can debate the issues without you becoming the focal point, just avoid semi-veiled attacks at individuals and wel'll be fine

Bromo Ivory · Post by **Bromo Ivory** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:59 am

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":1y7559ln][quote="michelmanen":1y7559ln]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.[/quote:1y7559ln]Hmm, actually I don't think you have. If you have answered my questions elsewhere could you post links? Here they are again, just for reference

[list:1y7559ln]What proportion of the community do you think should be involved in public or quasi-public office? 50%? 75%? 100%? [/quote:1y7559ln]

I am not sure that is the rigth question. I believe the question I would have is what is the chance of a check or balance not working out in the government when people are holding multiple offices?

I personally would love to see EVERYONE involved in one way or another - but the words "should be" are rather slippery ones.

[quote:1y7559ln] 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? [/quote:1y7559ln]

Well it isn't decided in the CARE ranks yet - and CARE will begin its process of discernment this weekend - but I think, for me, I was disappointed that the Guild issues became election issues. I was hopeful the Guild could avoid involvement in election politics - and I am sure Jon did as well. Michel and I think at this point - and CARE may end up doing a 180 if in our internal discussions show there is no CARE support for this - that the Guild is "special" as a NGO - and the Secretary of the Guild might need to not be an active participant in other branches of government. But the main reason is that the Guild could (and has!) become a "political football" and in order for it to be effective and not burn out everyone on it - some way to avoid this fate might need to be devised.

Now, there are tons of practicalities - and both Brian and Pat have shown some issues - so - the things I would be interested in is: 1) Is this a good goal - i.e. should the Guild *as an organization* avoid being a political tool during elections? and 2) If #1 is a good goal - what is the best way to achieve this?

I am not attached to any one solution, but I am pretty sure we uncovered a problem.

[quote:1y7559ln] 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?[/list:u:1y7559ln]If you can't answer these questions I'll be forced to conclude that these accusations are merely a rhetorical device, without any substance. And we can debate the issues without you becoming the focal point, just avoid semi-veiled attacks at individuals and wel'll be fine [/quote:1y7559ln]

Pat - I do not believe there is a secret Cabal, and the point being made is not a rhetorical device. But I do think we see the same crew of volunteers working the government. The question - Is this right? Is the level of turnover about right - should it be more?

Is something simple (like a 2 term limit on government posts, requiring a 1 term break before re-running) would encourage citizens who feel they have little chance of getting a seat on the government to participate? And would such a limit get people who are "on the fence" to participate. And would people who completed their term limits be able to apply their competence to other branches?

Keep in mind CARE is not married to its opening statement - and can be convinced.

Agsin, CARE has not yet completed its discernment process - so please keep up the good policy discussion!

(And as there is no majority in the RA, all facitons are served by at least some flexibility)

Gxeremio Dimsum · Post by **Gxeremio Dimsum** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:05 am

[quote="Bromo Ivory":3czpa44b][ I believe the question I would have is what is the chance of a check or balance not working out in the government when people are holding multiple offices?[/quote:3czpa44b]

I think your question has some underlying assumptions that may not be as true in SL as in RL. 1) People acting in multiple government roles are serving the same interests/goals in each of their roles and 2) Having different individuals (as opposed to different factions) in different roles serves to prevent an effective government takeover. I am not sure I agree with either of these assumptions. To put it another way, in a communist system you might have different individuals in every post but it doesn't provide a check or balance to the goals of the person/people who control those individuals. On the flip side, in a small city government you might have someone who is the sheriff also serve as a member of the hospital's board of directors, or someone who is the registrar may also be on the school board - unless there is a clear conflict of interest I don't think it presents a special danger.

[quote:3czpa44b] Well it isn't decided in the CARE ranks yet - and CARE will begin its process of discernment this weekend - but I think, for me, I was disappointed that the Guild issues became election issues. I was hopeful the Guild could avoid involvement in election politics - and I am sure Jon did as well. Michel and I think at this point - and CARE may end up doing a 180 if in our internal discussions show there is no CARE support for this - that the Guild is "special" as a NGO - and the Secretary of the Guild might need to not be an active participant in other branches of government. But the main reason is that the Guild could (and has!) become a "political football" and in order for it to be effective and not burn out everyone on it - some way to avoid this fate might need to be devised.[/quote:3czpa44b]

I highly respect your tone and your serious attention to questions, but I have to wonder under what circumstance would CARE NOT add Michel's latest pet peeve to its platform, especially if he has already discussed it with you? In other words, is it really a deliberation or an explanation/rubberstamp?

[quote:3czpa44b]Now, there are tons of practicalities - and both Brian and Pat have shown some issues - so - the things I would be interested in is: 1) Is this a good goal - i.e. should the Guild *as an organization* avoid being a political tool during elections? and 2) If #1 is a good goal - what is the best way to achieve this?[/quote:3czpa44b]

In an election of a small community like ours, everything can become a political issue - the Guild, the placement of teleports, the gradient of a slope, etc. The question for me is, should we purposely tie our hands by forbidding active and key members of the community from participating in certain civic organizations?

[quote:3czpa44b]Pat - I do not believe there is a secret Cabal, and the point being made is not a rhetorical device. But I do think we see the same crew of volunteers working the government. The question - Is this right? Is the level of turnover about right - should it be more?[/quote:3czpa44b]

This reminds me of the discussion I had with a state lawmaker once who at the time was all for term limits - how many terms have you served? His answer (7) was 5 more terms than he wanted to restrict others too. If term limits are important for you, then mandate them for your faction, but please don't tell me I can't vote for an effective and trustworthy legislator because they are TOO experienced.

Bromo Ivory · Post by **Bromo Ivory** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:35 am

[quote:3blohk6c] ... To put it another way, in a communist system you might have different individuals in every post but it doesn't provide a check or balance to the goals of the person/people who control those individuals. On the flip side, in a small city government you might have someone who is the sheriff also serve as a member of the hospital's board of directors, or someone who is the registrar may also be on the school board - unless there is a clear conflict of interest I don't think it presents a special danger. [/quote:3blohk6c]

In the US system, a Senator cannot be President and cannot reside on the Supreme court at the same time. Yet the US has managed to avoid Communism.

I think at the moment the people being in multiple offices have a great deal of integrity. This may not always be the case. I believe we saw a possible scenario with the Guild - and because Jon has a great deal of personal integrity it wasn't realized - but the possibility is there.

I am personally skeptical of a system that would allow such an arrangement being stable in the longer term. I do think the system would be subject to powerplays if someone would use the power to further a particular faction or personal agenda.

And I htink at 76 citizens - and possibly expanding to 100+ we may be at the point in SL we shortly won't be as small ...

Good points, though - small towns sometimes have multiple positions - I would like a gut check that we think we are immune to abuse the way it is even if nothing were to be done.

[quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":3blohk6c]

I highly respect your tone and your serious attention to questions, but I have to wonder under what circumstance would CARE NOT add Michel's latest pet peeve to its platform, especially if he has already discussed it with you? In other words, is it really a deliberation or an explanation/rubberstamp? [/quote:3blohk6c]

We are having a meeting and will be setting up the membership to discuss these issues - one way it won't change is if the CARE membership don't participate - but I am hopeful they will. I am dead serious about getting maximum input from CARE to shape our compromise agenda - and when in the RA I will try to open things for citizen input - especially for the big stuff.

But actions are more important than rhetoric. It is OK to be skeptical.

[quote:3blohk6c]In an election of a small community like ours, everything can become a political issue - the Guild, the placement of teleports, the gradient of a slope, etc. The question for me is, should we purposely tie our hands by forbidding active and key members of the community from participating in certain civic organizations?[/quote:3blohk6c]

I agree - it can and sometimes will. And I agree - there should be some sort of balance - I am questioning where that balance might be - the lowness of the back-and-forth and the burnout experienced by Jon was real. So I am posing the question "have we struck the right balance" and if not restricting membership between Guild and government is the best way - how can we prevent what happened? (I am assuming that what Jon went through was NOT desirable for the Guild or the government - it has placed the 3rd SIM in trouble as well so it is interfering with the task at hand - and with the fallout and human cost is likely to get even worse.)

[quote:3blohk6c]
This reminds me of the discussion I had with a state lawmaker once who at the time was all for term limits - how many terms have you served? His answer (7) was 5 more terms than he wanted to restrict others too. If term limits are important for you, then mandate them for your faction, but please don't tell me I can't vote for an effective and trustworthy legislator because they are TOO experienced.[/quote:3blohk6c]

CARE already has term limits - BUT, many many states have adopted term limits successfully. And most people, at least in the US, do not trust people who are "too entrenched" in government - as a principle at least.

And requiring a 1 term break after 2 terms in, may not be an awful thing. And might give some of the lower ranked people in some parties a chance at being an RA - perhaps they get to prove their mettle, too!

Beathan · Post by **Beathan** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:48 am

In this whole discussion, everyone is overlooking the fact that the Guild is a NGO (Non-Governmental Organization). This is critical. It is obvious to me that a person should be able to simultaneously hold government office and an office in an NGO, although that person might need to recuse himself from governmental decisions that directly involve the NGO.

This is commonplace iRL -- and in the CDS. Many members of the CDS government also own or run SL groups or companies and/or are involved in RL NGOs. Michel Manen, for instance, is involved in a NGO called CRAEDO. Pelanor Eldritch has Eldritch Financial. I have Portage Bay Ventures.

Michel tries to overleap this fact by calling the Guild "quasi-governmental". However, there is no such category in CDS law or history -- and no reason to develop such a category. Michel's creation of this category from the whole cloth -- and his placing the Guild, but no other NGO, in that category -- is a tranparent attempt to undermine Jon and prevent him from being as fully engaged in our community as Jon could and should be.

This kind of underhanded trick does us all a disservice. It should stop. Everyone, including CARE members, should oppose it. I continue to be mystified that Michel is given a continuing free pass from CARE to continue to use the CARE agenda and the efforts of CARE members to further his personal agenda of accumulation of personal power by: 1. continuing to have complete control of CARE; 2. transfering governmental projects to CARE so that power accumulates in CARE; and 3. isolating and neutralizing organizations other than CARE (the Guild, the RA) and people opposed to his personal accumulation of power (Jon, me).

This should end. The end must come from CARE -- by CARE members asserting their personal independence and the independence of their party from Michel. No other party is centered on, or controlled by, a single individual. Our project, in expressly rejecting personality cult politics, requires that no party, including CARE, be so centered or controlled.

It is time for CARE members to step up.

Beathan

Bromo Ivory · Post by **Bromo Ivory** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:00 am

We were SO close to a discussion and dialogue of issues ....

Oh well ...

Perhaps we can have better luck next time....

Beathan · Post by **Beathan** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:03 am

Bromo --

Michel is an issue. Michel's agenda is an issue. Michel's apparently single-handed control of CARE is an issue. Michel's attempt to eviscerate the Guild by creating a whole new category for it is an issue.

Let's discuss these issues. These are critical issues that demand attention from all of us -- and from CARE members more than any.

I had hoped that CARE, through you, would step up and address and resolve these issues. I guess that won't happen. Pity.

Beathan

Bromo Ivory · Post by **Bromo Ivory** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:25 am

[quote="Beathan":tpzpqbtv]Bromo --

Michel is an issue. Michel's agenda is an issue. Michel's apparently single-handed control of CARE is an issue. Michel's attempt to eviscerate the Guild by creating a whole new category for it is an issue.

Let's discuss these issues. These are critical issues that demand attention from all of us -- and from CARE members more than any.

I had hoped that CARE, through you, would step up and address and resolve these issues. I guess that won't happen. Pity.

Beathan[/quote:tpzpqbtv]

Beathen -

Please check the previous 2 posts - and the dialogue I was ATTEMPTING to have you just tried to turn it into a Straw Man I am calling "the Spectre of Michel" rather than a real discussion.

I am quite disappointed that we cannot have a discussion about issues without unsubstantial and untrue fear mongering along these lines.

Really, instead of calling for CARE members to kick out Michel - [i:tpzpqbtv]which is what you are really asking us to do[/i:tpzpqbtv] - can't we [i:tpzpqbtv]PLEASE[/i:tpzpqbtv] have a talk about the issue we were talking about?

If not, and we really are incapable of having any real and substantial policy discussion, then that really [i:tpzpqbtv]is[/i:tpzpqbtv] a shame. And pitiable.

Beathan · Post by **Beathan** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:37 am

Bromo --

I was addressing your topic. I asserted that the Guild is not [i:308yq1ly]special[/i:308yq1ly] as an NGO. Rather, the RA and other arms of the CDS government are [i:308yq1ly]special[/i:308yq1ly] as Governmental organizations as opposed to Nongovernmental organizations.

To me, the problem of plurality of office only applies to governmental office. I note that, while plurality of office is typically prohibited in national government, it is not always prohibited in regional or local government. For instance, my home county and district has a single man who serves both as State Senator and as County Commissioner. While I think this is bad form, it is not illegal iRL.

I think that Pat's compromise last term was exactly the right one. As an RA member who was also on the SC (two government offices), he chose to be a nonvoting member of the SC. As the Constitution only prohibits a person holding a plurality of voting offices -- this was a good compromise. Pat went beyond that duty this term, as elected LRA, by resigning from the SC.

No one believes that holding an office in an NGO automatically prohibits government service. Rather, the issue is whether some NGOs should be treated like Governmental Organizations (called "quasi-governmental organizations") for the prohibition. I think that this proposal creates an undefined and ambiguous slippery slope to address something that is not even a problem. However, even if we were to go so far, all that would be prohibited by CDS policy would be for the person (Jon) to hold a voting position in the Guild. That is, as long as Jon abstained from all Guild votes, there would be no problem

However, Michel attempts to go further. He wants to force Jon's resignation from any officer position in the Guild. That is, he wants Guild officers to be even more restricted than officers of branches of government are. This is the issue -- and it is so misguided that I think we can simply shrug, reject it, and move on to better things.

Further, with regard to Michel, I am not asking that Michel be expelled from CARE. I am asking that CARE, and its membership, demonstrate some independence from Michel. That independence has been sadly lacking. It is true that expelling Michel from CARE, if not a sham expulsion, would show indepedence. However, so would the expression of an independent judgment or position on an idea that does not merely parrot Michel. That last is all I ask to see. It is not hard to disagree with Michel. (In fact, when his ideas are disconnected from his engaging personality, disagreeing with Michel is usually easier than agreeing with him.) However, outside observers of CARE have yet to see this happen, even once.

Beathan

Gxeremio Dimsum · Post by **Gxeremio Dimsum** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:13 pm

[quote="Bromo Ivory":13bq4gvx]In the US system, a Senator cannot be President and cannot reside on the Supreme court at the same time. Yet the US has managed to avoid Communism. [/quote:13bq4gvx]

I didn't say communism follows division of labor - that would be silly. I said that division of labor doesn't protect us from a power grab as much as we might hope.

[quote:13bq4gvx]And I htink at 76 citizens - and possibly expanding to 100+ we may be at the point in SL we shortly won't be as small ...

Good points, though - small towns sometimes have multiple positions - I would like a gut check that we think we are immune to abuse the way it is even if nothing were to be done.[/quote:13bq4gvx]

Oh, if I had a nickel for each time someone has said, "We won't be small for long!" in the CDS.

I am not questioning your right to ask the question, but I am giving you my (tentative) answer: abuse MAY be possible in our system, but I'm not sure the proposed preventative measures are appropriate or desirable at this point in our development.

[quote:13bq4gvx]CARE already has term limits - BUT, many many states have adopted term limits successfully. And most people, at least in the US, do not trust people who are "too entrenched" in government - as a principle at least.[/quote:13bq4gvx]

What are CARE's term limits? Are they based on terms served or times standing as a candidate?

I am from a state (Virginia) that has term limits on our governorship, and many people don't really like it. Our most effective governors have to move on, and positive momentum is often lost after their four-year term.

Bromo Ivory · Post by **Bromo Ivory** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:38 pm

[quote="Beathan":3ku0dxyr]
I was addressing your topic. I asserted that the Guild is not [i:3ku0dxyr]special[/i:3ku0dxyr] as an NGO. Rather, the RA and other arms of the CDS government are [i:3ku0dxyr]special[/i:3ku0dxyr] as Governmental organizations as opposed to Nongovernmental organizations.[/quote:3ku0dxyr]

Got it!

OK - I would say that is a valid viewpoint as well. I am able to be convinced on this one - as I said my personal issue was avoiding some of the mess that happened during the RA election!

It was hard on Rose, Jon and almost anyone associated - and it should not have been.

And given the rancor may effect the execution of the 3rd SIm gives rise to my personal [i:3ku0dxyr]concern[/i:3ku0dxyr].

[quote:3ku0dxyr]To me, the problem of plurality of office only applies to governmental office. I note that, while plurality of office is typically prohibited in national government, it is not always prohibited in regional or local government. For instance, my home county and district has a single man who serves both as State Senator and as County Commissioner. While I think this is bad form, it is not illegal iRL.[/quote:3ku0dxyr]

Yes in some cases it is accepted, and in some cases is forbidden.

And I did say that so far it hasn't harmed CDS - mostly due to the high degree of personal integrity of those holding office. As CDS grows this may present an issue.

I do view the Guild issue as being a warning sign - and it was due to Jon's integrity that it didn't break loose the way it could have.

[quote:3ku0dxyr]I think that Pat's compromise last term was exactly the right one. As an RA member who was also on the SC (two government offices), he chose to be a nonvoting member of the SC. As the Constitution only prohibits a person holding a plurality of voting offices -- this was a good compromise. Pat went beyond that duty this term, as elected LRA, by resigning from the SC.[/quote:3ku0dxyr]

And you know what? I think that was great - and if that became the "custom" the same thing will have been accomplished.

[quote:3ku0dxyr] No one believes that holding an office in an NGO automatically prohibits government service. Rather, the issue is whether some NGOs should be treated like Governmental Organizations (called "quasi-governmental organizations") for the prohibition. [/quote:3ku0dxyr]

This issue is not in unity in CARE quite yet. So anyone (even Michel) that speaks speaks as a passionate individual at the moment - CARE's platform is there - but the approach according to that platform requires us to incorporate our members and then offer it up for CDS to discuss.

And I am sure we can figure out something - CDS wide. The problem being the position of the Guild - the 3rd build - and how political (beyond the Guild function) the whole thing became.

[quote:3ku0dxyr] Further, with regard to Michel, I am not asking that Michel be expelled from CARE. I am asking that CARE, and its membership, demonstrate some independence from Michel. That independence has been sadly lacking. [/quote:3ku0dxyr]

When Michel speaks at the moment - he is speaking as Michel, not CARE - once vetted through CARE, and modified appropriately from the membership - will be ready for debate and discussion in a wider CDS and it WILL be CARE.

And please do not mistake the forum posts as CDS either - Although it can enable a lot of discussion - it degrades into flame wars a lot (and you feed the fires, as does Michel, as does Jon, as does Pat, and I do sometimes, etc!) and really does not capture the rather positive character of the SIMs in SL! [i:3ku0dxyr]Lord help us if our community in SL becomes like the Forums![/i:3ku0dxyr]

(I am ambivalent about the Forums in general, actually, but it is usually the only time I get to interact with you guys! Would love to meet you in world a bit more! )

Flyingroc Chung · Post by **Flyingroc Chung** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:05 pm

[quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":2o9oa2kw]
I am from a state (Virginia) that has term limits on our governorship, and many people don't really like it. Our most effective governors have to move on, and positive momentum is often lost after their four-year term.[/quote:2o9oa2kw]

Having been a resident of Virginia myself (go Hokies!) for a few years, I rather like this other idea in Virginia of ``citizen legislators''. Where politicians are presumed to have day jobs, and are politicians only part-time... kind of analogous to our SL situation.