Comment on January 13 RA Meeting

[Claude Desmoulins]

Just to note, this means that the RA will meet while the polls are open. This will be, to my knowledge, the first time that has happened.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Claude

Thanks for pointing this out. After canvassing RA members I agree it would be a bad precedent to set. The announcement has been updated to take account of this.

[Patroklus Murakami]

**bump!**

I mentioned to Jamie that, if the RA were to meet on Saturday 26 April at 9am as planned, it would be the first time the RA had met while the polls were open to my knowledge (or to Claude's as former LRA).

There's no rule that I'm aware of in our Code of Laws or Constitution to prevent this, we just haven't done this before and previous RAs have considered that it sets a bad precedent.

[Beathan]

Pat --

I consider meeting during a by-election a very different thing. We are not looking at a replacement RA -- or facing the possibility that a departing RA will pass issues in the prospect of a changing of the guard. We are filling vacant seats -- so the RA continuing to meet strikes me as no different than the RA meeting while factions are looking for replacement members.

In other words, I have no problem with the precedent that the RA can meet during by-elections, although I would oppose the RA meeting during a term election.

Beathan

[Patroklus Murakami]

Beathan -

One of the item's I understand is on the agenda for Saturday's meeting is the selection of the LRA. Surely that should be a decision taken by the full RA with the new members who are elected? If you hold the meeting before the polls close and the new members are announced, they won't be able to participate and vote on the way forward.

[Salzie Sachertorte]

IMHO, the RA should not meet during any election. But then again, my opinion doesn't seem to matter these days.

[Beathan]

Pat and Salzie --

I might be willing to agree with your concerns if you expressed some principle, beyond "it has never been done before", for not having RA sessions under these circumstances. The principle I believe applies is that lame duck RAs (RAs about to be replaced) should not pass substantive law as a parting gift to the incoming RA. As the current RA is not a lame duck RA -- is in the middle of its session, not at the end -- the principle I use does not apply.

I may be wrong, but the call that the RA suspend its business strikes me as confirmation of my suspicion that the whole point of the CSDF's withdraw was to try to disrupt the operation of CDS government. The argument, especially without a foundation in principle, that the RA should not meet is just an attempt to maximize the disruption. Based on that judgment, the principled response is for the RA to meet to show that such tactics will not work.

Pat's point about the significance of the LRA change to the RA is well-taken. It might be prudent to delay a final vote on this matter until the new members join the RA. However, I am not fully persuaded. The reform is a long overdue reform needed to ensure that the RA is well-run (run by a person who has the moral authority to actually control the RA -- to legitimately and effectively impose his or her will on the RA because he or she was chosen by the RA for that purpose). If we were voting for the new LRA, I would be more inclined to agree that we need to wait to see who the other RA members are (to ensure that the LRA has the same moral authority over the incoming members as over the existing members). However, we are not selecting the LRA, we are just improving the process.

Beathan

[Salzie Sachertorte]

Thank you Beathan, for your nuanced explanation of why you feel my opinon doesn't matter.

BTW, I do not belong to any faction.

~~Testy Salzie

[Beathan]

Salzie --

I am not saying that your opinion does not matter. I am saying that we should not base decisions or actions on opinions, but on principles. If you can explain the principles that motivate your opinion, you might change my opinion. If not, I find your opinion to be an insufficient basis for a policy determination.

Also, I was not suggesting that you were part of the CSDF or its attempt to disrupt government. That said, I am beginning to think that your personal political views is that the CDS should freeze in place -- and no further government work should happen because such work might result in changes. Thus, you appear to be the archconservative right ring foil to the CSDF -- and, as sometimes happens, the left (the CSDF) has turned so far to the left, and the right (Salzie) has turned so far to the right that they complete the circle and meet on the backside of the middle.

For Americans in the audience, this reminds me of the odd occasions in which Rachel Maddow and Pat Buchanan agree on MSNBC.

Beathan

[Salzie Sachertorte]

That said, I am beginning to think that your personal political views is that the CDS should freeze in place -- and no further government work should happen because such work might result in changes.

Very astute of you, though you have it a bit wrong. I don't wish to freeze all processes, rather I'd like to apply the brake pedal on irreversible changes until till we figure out, via consenus of the citizenry, where we are headed. Salzie hears Beathan moan at her mention of the vision thing.

Change is a good thing. However, change should arise from a true consensus of all stakeholders, not just be changes imposed by those who now happen to have control of the process and who can configure the processes to serve their own interests. I wonder if the RA truly serves the God of Process or are merely trying to pull a quick one by not waiting a week.

I used to think that the CDS enabled those who wished to role-play at governance a home within SL. However, given this last session of the RA, I have changed my view. I now believe that the CDS has devolved to a community in which certain members find amusement in using their positions within governmental institutions to impose their personal visions - via the processes they control - on others and thus impede the communities' ability to actually engage in and carry out inclusive planning and activities which promotes the community.

I'm not at all against change within the CDS - I am against individuals using process to ramrod through their own personal vision of what the CDS should be and how we can get there.

But don't worry, I am but one shrill voice within the CDS. I'll just settle back down into my role as the testy one, who occassionally sqawks at the steamroller of process and progress.

[Beathan]

Salzie --

LOL. Far be it from me to silence a gadfly. That would be hypocritical -- and despite my many faults, hypocrisy is not a fault I have.

I am far more suited to the role of outside gadfly than RA member -- and I trust that I will return to my natural role next term. However, until then, I am committed to moving the CDS forward -- and I think that the CDS should develop organically, rather than through some strict implementation of a preset plan, but I am just chaotic like that. I understand that this is uncomfortable to the Apollonians among us, but -- hey, I gotta be me.

Beathan

[Moon Adamant]

I am sorry to intrude in the discussion, but to my rather prosaic mind two thoughts occur:

1. RA can be held on its usual slot on Sunday instead, after the new reps are elected ...
2. If held on Saturday, RA agenda can be altered so that new LRA is voted next week instead...

Wouldn't either of the above solve this issue in a fairly sensible way?

[Sonja Strom]

So everybody knows, I will be in a course this weekend and probably will not be able to attend this RA meeting.

[Beathan]

Moon's solution sounds good to me. However, I am not sure that we need another revolution in LRA -- or that either the by-election or proposed legislation cause a change in LRA this term.

I will cross-post to RA thread.

Beathan

[Jamie Palisades]

I've not heard anyone say that it is against the rules for the RA to meet while a ballot is pending. However, I have heard several say that it seems unseemly and unnecessary, when a short wait would allow the newly elected to participate. Others disagree.
This thread and *many* others reflect a fundamental divide between those in CDS who've long been quite slow to embrace change -- and others who've been very frustrated and felt that all progress is thwarted by that reticence. The inability of these two camps to communicate well, or even coexist constructively, is disappointing. Sigh. More on that general problem, elsewhere, *after* the elections.

NEXT MEETING For now though, the RA agreed to set its next RA meeting for the 26th at 9 am Saturday SLT in Colonia Nova. So we'll keep that date, and see what business if any is appropriate to be taken up at that time. I will post the agenda later today, as is our current practice.
Seems to me that keeping our momentum on current active issues will help the RA do its business. And our meetings are open, so all are welcome. However, personally, I doubt many significant bills will be finalized this Saturday. Any constitutional change requires a supermajority under own badly written, ambivalent Constitution ... the most conservative, change-adverse members of our community may cavil that this requires 5 out of 5 votes, due to an odd reading of ambivalent uses of the word "seats" ... and whether or not they're right, those factions might control the SC at present. (Or whatever part of the SC feels it need not recuse itself, there being no conflict of interest controls in CDS.) From which our current system provides no appeal.

LRA SUCCESSION One of several areas where our Constitution is palpably defective is this: the identification of the LRA after a mid-term by-election is unspecified. So as to help find paths out of this morass, I will make my suggestions for LRA succession process in the RA meeting notice, or in a link from that notice, tonight.

FUTURE MEETINGS I expect that we will set the *next* RA meeting, after the 26th, at a time reasonably agreeable to all members including the newly elected ones. ("Reasonably" because it's not always possible to please everyone.) I will poll the 7 members, as a courtesy to whoever takes over from me as LRA, and make the results known.

Regards Jamie P