In light of the decision of the CSDF that nothing needs changing at this time regarding the definition of citizenship, which perhaps might mean that no changes do indeed happen (since issues of citizenship cry out for a consensus decision in our small community), I'd like to point out some problems.
It has been customary during prior elections for the technician in charge of the election mechanism to request of the Treasurer (or the Estate Manager) a complete list of all citizens. This list has both constitutional impact, in that its length determines the number of representatives in the RA, and it of course has political impact, since only the names on the list can vote.
In my role as Treasurer, I can no longer provide an accurate list. I have brought this issue up to the Commission, and to the RA itself repeatedly, and it has been my impression that changes in the rules of citizenship would indeed remedy the situation. If no changes will in fact be forthcoming, then I feel I must broadcast this problem as loudly and as clearly as I can.
The problem is this. I can certainly identify and list for the election technician those citizens who have bought land in one of our sims, earlier than the required time period before the election, and who pay their monthly fees on a regular basis. I have the data to support that list.
But recent legislation allows citizenship to partners and fellow group members who may in fact not make a monthly payment to the Treasurer for their land. Indeed, there may be group ownership of a land where some members of the group are citizens of the CDS by virtue of their membership in the group, and other group members not such citizens.
In such cases, a prominent member of the group will declare to me the citizens in their group. At that point I can and do check the land owned by that group, so as to certify that the land owned by the group comprises at least 128 sq/m for each claimed citizen. That is all I can do. Beyond that, I must simply take it at the word of the spokesperson for the group that the individual named by them as citizens are indeed citizens.
An example. I have a group called Neufreistadt Holdings. The citizen members of this group are myself, Salzie, and until two weeks ago, Garnet. Should the Treasurer come to me to request the list of citizens in the group, I would declare who they are. The Treasurer would have no other recourse but to take my word for it (since the group does hold sufficient land).
Therefore, with the prospect of no changes to the citizenship definition, I as Treasurer will have to provide two catagories of certification to the elections technician prior to the upcoming elections:
1) Citizens who are citizens by virtue of the fact that they own and pay for land in the CDS.
2) Citizens who are citizens because a spokesperson in a landowning group says they are.
I cannot understand how anyone can find this acceptable. As long ago as the spring of 2007, I proposed legislation which would require that any citizen, even group members, be required to make some small payment towards the cost of their land on a monthly basis, and that such *act* be deemed the basis of their citizenship. It was this proposal which, for reasons I cannot fathom, caused Michel to quit the RA. It now seems as though the CSDF is taking a similiar route by quitting the process of achieving obviously necessary changes.
I hope they reconsider their decision, and together with the other members of the community address the problems of defining citizenship in the CDS.
Sudane............................
.
