The New Article II - The Executive bill

[Dnate Mars]

This bill is being proposed to start the debate on the powers and the responsibility of executive branch of the government. Please, feel free to rip it appart.

Article II - The Executive

Section 1 - The Chancellor

The Chancellor will serve as the executive of CDS, working to coordinate and plan community projects.

Section 2 - Powers of the Chancellor

The Chancellor of CDS shall, subject to the laws of CDS, have the power:

(a) to determine the use to which any and all land in CDS shall be put;

(b) to expend monies held by the Office of the Chancellor of CDS for the administration and management of public facilities (including, but not limited to, roadways, signage, public buildings, public events and similar), and to discharge any other duties or powers of the Office of the Chancellor conferred by this Act or any other Act of the Representative Assembly;

(c) to publicize CDS;

(d) to appoint and pay deputies or other staff to hold office in the Office of the Chancellor of CDS to facilitate the discharge of any function of the Office of the Chancellor conferred by this Act or any other Act of the Representative Assembly. Deputies and other staff appointed by the Chancellor will serve at the will of the Chancellor. This means that the Chancellor can remove the deputies or other staff anytime with or without reason and nominate new citizens to fill those positions;

(e) subject to the payment of adequate compensation to any citizen or citizens thereby affected, reclaim or swap any land held by any citizen of CDS for the purposes of discharging any function of the Office of the Chancellor conferred by this Act or any other Act of the Representative Assembly, provided always that no citizen of CDS shall not be caused to have no holding in CDS at all thereby;

(f) to make regulations pursuant to the above; and

(g) to enforce such regulations in accordance with law.

Section 3 - Public Oversight

The Chancellor must provide for regular and active citizen participation and public review of any decision concerning land use or the aesthetic or functional environment.

The Chancellor will deliver a public report on the State of the CDS in March and October of each year.

Section 4 - Themes

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.

Section 5 - Chancellor Selection Process

The Chancellor of the CDS shall be selected by the people of the CDS from among any CDS citizen who shall make application to the SC. To be elected as Chancellor, at least 50% of the votes must be in favor of the Chancellor. If the first vote does not yield a 50% majority, subsequent run-offs will be held until a candidate receives a majority vote.

The application period shall end fifteen (15) days before the next general election. This provision shall come into force with the next RA election following passage and ratification of this amendment.

The chancellor will serve a term ending with the election of the next chancellor.

The Chancellor may not be elected to or serve on the Representative Assembly, nor serve on the Scientific Council.

Section 6 - The Chancellor's Veto

The Chancellor shall have the power to veto any act of the Representative Assembly, except any bill to remove the Chancellor from office. The Representative Assembly may override a veto with a vote by at least a two-thirds majority. In order to exercise the power of veto, the Chancellor shall post a public declaration of her or his intention to exercise that power, together with the name of the Act in respect of which he or she seeks so to exercise, and the reasons for exercising it in respect of that Act, on the Confederation of Democratic Simulators web forums or wiki within seven days of the posting to the wiki of the Act in respect of which he or she seeks to exercise that power.

Section 7 - Removal from Office

The Chancellor may be removed from office prior to the expiration of the term of office by a bill passed by the RA calling for the removal of the Chancellor being passed by a 2/3rds vote. A vote by the citizens will be held within 7 days of passing the bill lasting 7 days. If a two thirds of the votes are for the removal of the Chancellor, the Chancellor will be removed from office immediately.

Section 8 - RA Oversight

Each month the Chancellor shall attend a meeting of the Representative Assembly, and fully and truthfully answer there any questions posed by any citizen about any aspect of the affairs of the CDS or of the Office of the Chancellor. The Chancellor will also attend upon three days notice at the written request from any member of the Representative Assembly.

The Chancellor will also act as a tie-breaking vote should there be a tie for the passing of a bill in the RA. Once the chancellor is directly elected, he will also be in charge of chairing the RA.

Section 9 - AC Overlap

Any power or responsibility assigned to the Artisan's Collective by the constitution and precedent that overlaps those provided to the Chancellor in this amendment will be assigned to the Chancellor.

[michelmanen]

In light of this proposal, CARE will consider, at its meeting, withdrawing its own [u:2oo7lboo]Executive Powers' Act[/u:2oo7lboo] and fully supporting the Chancellor's Bill in full, as drafted above.

[Claude Desmoulins]

I like this proposal a great deal. Rather than having " subsequent run-offs" , which could take a long time if there were several, a modified single transferable vote which is known as instant run off would allow one to have a single poll with each voter ranking all acceptable candidates, and do all the run offs by using the rankings and progressively eliminating candidates, not requiring voters to go to the polls several times.

[michelmanen]

Yes Claude, you are clearly right. Thank you for pointing this out.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Dnate

Am I right in thinking that the only change this makes is to the election system for Chancellor i.e. directly elected instead of indirectly?

If so, all this really does is rehash the DPU proposal for the Executive Branch which surfaced when we first discussed the need for an executive branch to take over the executive functions exercised by the Guild (and the RA and SC). At that point the CSDF proposed a system of 'Cabinet' government where the LRA would become the Chancellor leading an Executive Branch composed of the winning RA faction members. The current system is the result of the compromise between those two proposals. If you're going to rehash the DPU proposal I might feel moved to rehash the CSDF one

But I'm wondering why anyone thinks this is necessary. The Chancelry is a relatively new post, one year old. It is only onto its second incumbent. Why do we need to change it? Unlike the other commentators I see advantages in having an indirectly-elected Chancellor as opposed to a directly-elected one. The Chancellor is supposed to be the person who 'gets things done'. The RA meets weekly, can be slow to reach decisions and tends to be inquorate towards the end of the term. We established the Chancellor so that things would still get done inbetween RA meetings and when the RA couldn't meet (for whatever reason). All, of course, on the basis of the powers conferred by the Constitution or to enact decisions of the RA. I worry that direct election would unbalance the system so that, for example, the Chancellor begins to see themselves as the 'CDS President' and act accordingly.

What we need is a Chancellor who deals with the pressing issues - promoting the events budget, recruiting a PIO, setting up the Government Question Hour. This is what I'd like to see progress on - practical measures that improve the lives of our citizens and the quality of life in the CDS.

[michelmanen]

There is plenty of room for both a directly-elected Chancellor and for an RA-elected LRA who work together and complement (if not compliment!) each other, without any one seeing him - or herself as the "CDS President".

Dnate's bill also stipulates that the Chancellor will give a State of the CDS speech half-way though the mandate, and that once elected, he or she will chair the RA, but with no vote except in tie-breaking situations.

We need both the Chancellor and the LRA to provide more direction and leadership, each in their own fields, to work closer together, and to be democratically legitimated. Dnate's Executive Bill and CARE's Electoral Reform Bill will, together, achieve these ends, all whilst giving all CDS citizens more power, choice, and voice in the governance of our community.

[Fernando Book]

Despite the precedent of the US Vicepresident and the Senate and his tie-breaking vote, I think the RA should be chaired by an RA member and nobody from outside the RA should have vote in it. Please, let's not tangle the branches of the government.

[Patroklus Murakami]

[quote="michelmanen":2uiq2gxs]We need both the Chancellor and the LRA to provide more direction and leadership, each in their own fields, to work closer together, and to be democratically legitimated.[/quote:2uiq2gxs]Why do we need this? I hear lots of warm words about why change will be better but no arguments of any substance.

Surely what is important is who occupies the office and what they do? This smacks of constitutional tinkering - intellectually interesting but of no practical benefit.

[Dnate Mars]

One of the real reasons for this bill is to reduce the power that the RA has. To much power over the time of the CDS has consolidated into a single branch of the government. Part of this bill is to take the power away from the RA and giving back to the people of the CDS. It also will make is so that a veto override will not be the same thing as removal from office.

As for tangling of the branches, you may be right. The LRA maybe should be chair and not the Chancellor. My thinking was that a directly elected chancellor would have less of a chance to "steer" the RA to only talk about bill their party wanted to.

This bill also allows and explains how people can be appointed to by the Chancellor and that they will serve at the will of the Chancellor.

Just as a side note, I am a member of the DPU, but I did not base this off of the DPU bill. I guess it explains why I was in the DPU to start with. It seems that the DPU and CARE are on board with this, and the CSDF is against it. It would be nice to hear what the members of the SP think of this bill.

[michelmanen]

[quote:25egmzhf]Why do we need this? I hear lots of warm words about why change will be better but no arguments of any substance.

Surely what is important is who occupies the office and what they do? This smacks of constitutional tinkering - intellectually interesting but of no practical benefit.[/quote:25egmzhf]

These are fair questions and require a detailed reply.

Let us briefly look at the record of our political system over the past six RAs. I emphasize: the system, not the individuals. Over six RAs, our only real achievement has been the development of 2 outstanding sims. This is a testament to the quality, hard work and dedication of our team of builders, planners, volunteeers and administrators.

A second relative success has been the very fact that we have had six RAs and have just started a seventh - a testament to the dedication to democracy of a core group of citizens who have worked hard to "keep the vision alive".

But - what else have we accomplished, concretely, over these 6 RAs?

1. Our population just recently went over 70 citizens (we've had 2 major schisms - Ulrika and the Judiciary - where we lost people instead of gained);

2. With few exceptions, our stores are empty - we produce little and we sell even less;

3. We, as citizens,basically do not socialise together, do not organise events for ourselves, have not developed a social, cultural and artistic life (MoCA has shown what *could* be done);

4. We also do not attract external artists and events (but we certainly could, as the Utarid&Springvale art shows and the Chrome Isle Holdings concerts have proved);

5. We have practically no traffic to speak of;

6. Our successful citizens build their businesses elsewhere, not in association with CDS;

7. The CDS is virtually unknown in SL.

8. We have no ties whatsoever with RL -for example, taking part in RL fundraisers such as Relay for Life, or participating in events such as Live Earth.

Now let's ask the same questions of Caledon, born barely one year ago:

1. Population over 500 and growing fast- a new sim, Regency, just opened a few days ago and another half-dozen are in the planning, set to bring Caledon to 25 sims sometime this year; people are lining up to join, not to leave;

2. Stores are full of high-quality merchandise produced by its citizens - and not just in Victoria City (the capital);

3-4-5-6-7. Parties, dances, lectures, readings, exhibitions, gatherings, radio station - you name it, Caledon has it on a regular and sustained basis;

4. As recently documented, Caledon has the second highest traffic in SL ( http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2007/07/tateru ... .html#more ) and has been described as follows by well-known reporter Tateru Niro, in New World Notes:

[quote:25egmzhf]This week, we introduce Caledon (pictured) to the headcount. Caledon is large, themed, populated by the devoted and visited by the curious. In a three-dimensional landscape positively minted from wonders, Caledon remains a legend among legends. Desmond Shang's Victorian society of mad science, steampunk and good old fashioned manners and civility continues to grow and to attract more and more visitors, many of whom become residents of this thriving micro-nation.[/quote:25egmzhf]

8. Caledon has strong ties with iths neighbour, IBM, regularly organises fundraisers, especially for Relay for Life.

I am not arguing we should compete with, or be like Caledon. But - this example clearly shows what *can* be accomplished in less than half the time our 6 RAs have governed our community.

So what's the conclusion? Beyond our building record and our democratic political system -our only 2 real achievements - we have no vision, no leadership, no community. Basically, we are a shell (the 2 sims) with a hard core (the politicians) but no fruit. That, in the main, is the CDS reality, and no amount of denying or fingerpointing at "traitors" daring to make such statements will change these facts, especially when compared with the development and successes of a community such as Caledon.

Vision. Leadership. Community. This is what we must address if we are to change direction and begin to address each of the 8 points mentioned above.

One cannot develop a vision by committee. Leadership is not the consensus of the smallest common denominator. And communities are not built by means of forums arguments. And yet, this has been exactly our modus operandi over the past six RAs. We need to change direction - and soon!

Therefore, CARE proposes:

1. A democrsatically legitimated Chancellor capable of providing focus, vision, leadership both within the CDS political system and outside the CDS;

2. Responsible and accountable government, where the LRA will lead a majority of RA members and where politicians will be held responsible for their commitments, successes and failures;

3. Cooperation between our branches of government rather than deadlock or domination of one over others; the Chancellor will Chair the RA and break tied vetoes, ensuring administrative and organisational efficiency - but the LRA will provide political and legislative leadership.

4. Creative new combinations of institutions, drawing upon both historical and current RL examples, but adapting them to SL realities; the critical Chancellor-LRA relationship is modelled on the best elements of US, British, German and French political systems, but is also inspired by the ancient Roman Republic and its two Consuls (with the RA as the Senate and the SC as the people's tribune, keeping the vision alive);

5. Creating a real community by getting as many of our citizens interested, motivated, involved, active: in our political system, development of new sims, events, activities, commerce, arts, education, relaxation.

All this has most emphatically *not* been achieved over the past 6 RAs.

Our politicians have *not* been held to account for such utter lack of progress in these key areas.

Our political system as presently constituted is *not* coducive to developing a common vision for the CDS, providing leadership on key common targets, empowering our community to grow and prosper.

This is why "we need this".

Unless, of course, we're happy to stay as we are and basically stagnate as others grow as fast or faster than SL itself.

"Back to Basics" is a recipe for more of the same: a sim per year, elections every six months - and little else. The cumulative record of the last 6 RAs is a clear proof of this - especially when compared with Caledon'ss surge over little more than a year's time.

CARE has a clear vision: "Transforming the CDS into a Dynamic Community at the Edge of Tomorrow". We are now attempting, in coopeeration with other parties ( but not agreeing to compromise to the level of the lowest common denominator) to implement, in practice, our vision, and give ourseves the institutional means to do so.

That is why we cooperate with the CSDF LRA on the Web Portal.

That is why we cooperate with the DPU Chancellor on the Executive Powers' reform.

That is why we cooperate with the SP RA members to ensure we have an effective system of checks and balances in our institutionl structure.

That is why we seek to reach beyond the dedicated core of our citizens and involve as many as possible in our common project.

A "Dynamic Duo" of directly-elected Chancellor and RA-elected LRA, combined with a reformed electoral system - more open, democratic, participative, efficient, and accountable-, the introduction of a referendum process, the Citizenship, Justice, and the Cultural, Artistic, Recreational and Educational Revitalisation Commissions are some of the tools we propose to bring about this change.

Unless, of course, we want to go "Back to Basics"...

[Jon Seattle]

When you have a winner-take-all system (as any directly elected executive would be) everyone who did not vote for winner is deprived of a voice. While in an RA all groups are represented.

The RA and the Chancellor, at least right now, have different functions. The RA is not supposed to meddle directly in implementation, and the executive branch is not supposed to make policy.

So if I read you correctly your "give it back to the people" approach ends up depriving a large number of citizens of their voice on the executive side, muddies policy and implementation roles, and moves the focus away from a public consideration of visions and plans for the CDS and towards a popularity contest between individuals.

This does not sound too appetizing to me.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Michel

Your long reply deserves a full rebuttal elsewhere. I'll get to it when I have the time. The short version is: Caledon is not a democracy, we are. Democracy is messy, difficult and takes time. It's less efficient than benevolent dictatorship, but I prefer our system to living under Desmond's jackboot, even if he does apply it lightly Others make a different choice. /me shrugs.

What you've utterly failed to demonstrate is how this kind of constitutional tinkering (which CARE is way too fond of) is likely to produce any concrete results.I think that the electorate can see through this, and have. That's why your faction came last in the recent elections, and the CSDF won with our practical 'Back to Basics' message.

There's a very unpleasant tone to your dismissal of the work of the previous 6 RAs. Did you mean to be so contemptuous of others' achievements?

A directly-elected Chancellor is a recipe for delay, inaction and inter-institutional rivalry. You need to come up with some better arguments than this.

[michelmanen]

[quote:1v0zdkoy]When you have a winner-take-all system (as any directly elected executive would be) everyone who did not vote for winner is deprived of a voice. While in an RA all groups are represented.[/quote:1v0zdkoy]

That is hardly a fair assessment of the Chancellor's proposal, which CARE fully supports. The top vote-getter becomes Chancellor, he runner-up is the Vice-Chancellor. Hardly a winner-take-all system. But a system which is democratically legitimated by all citizens and is capable of providing focus, vision, leadership. The RA itself is strengthened by the introduction of an RA-elected LRA and an accountable, responsible, majority government.

[quote:1v0zdkoy]The RA and the Chancellor, at least right now, have different functions. The RA is not supposed to meddle directly in implementation, and the executive branch is not supposed to make policy.[/quote:1v0zdkoy]

And how did that work for us over the past 6 RAs? More of the same, anyone?

What we propose is a creative use of the notions of checks and balances and separation of powers, where we do not let sheer dogma and ideology stifle our ability to create and innovate. The Chancellor will continue to focus on organisation, administration, implementation, efficiency. The LRA-led RA will continue to make policy and pass legislation. But they will work closer together, coopeate, interact, communicate. Let us not let "la pensee unique" (the erroneous belief that there can only be one possible way to keep powers and branches separate and independent) blind us to the fact that better paths are indeed available if only we dare be creative nd innovate rather than stick to tired, old, failed recipes for stagnation and inaction.

[quote:1v0zdkoy]So if I read you correctly your "give it back to the people" approach ends up depriving a large number of citizens of their voice on the executive side, muddies policy and implementation roles, and moves the focus away from a public consideration of visions and plans for the CDS and towards a popularity contest between individuals.[/quote:1v0zdkoy]

Poppycock!

[Dnate Mars]

What if we add a second spot, a Vice Chancellor? If we make him or her the second place vote getter, won't that solve some of the problems with the "winner take all" type issues?

Maybe something like the VC will take part of the Chancellor's responsibilities, but the Chancellor will still have the final say? Maybe the VC will deal with things like the maintenance of the sims and other internal affairs, and the Chancellor will have the external (head of the state, LL communications, etc), execution of laws, and appointment of the civil jobs (PIO, etc)?

[Fernando Book]

Pat,

I can't agree when you say that democracy is less efficient than a benevolent dictatorship (or, fot that purposes, a hard one). It is not that way in a country scale (India is not less efficient than China, after dictatorships Chile or Spain are not less efficient than their previous regimes) and it shouldn't be true in our scale.

But I can't agree neither with Michel when he repeats his mantra about focus, vision and leadership: those are a person features, not those of a position. If we had in our community somebody in who the vast majority of the population had see focus, vision and leadership, we would be following him as Chancellor, LRA, Dean of the SC or the owner of a little shop in a corner of Neufreistadt Marktplatz.