Comment on January 13 RA Meeting

Here you might discuss basically everything.

Moderator: SC Moderators

User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm

Re: Comment on January 13 RA Meeting

Post by Patroklus Murakami »


I don't think it's accurate to divide the CDS into those who 'embrace change' and those who are 'change averse'. You seem to place the CSDF in that second category but our history shows that we have been the initiators of a great deal of positive change in the CDS carried out after careful discussion and compromise with other factions.

On the issue at hand, I would draw a distinction between a general election and a by-election. The case for the RA not meeting during a general election is much stronger than the case for not meeting during a by-election. I still think the RA should postpone it's scheduled meeting later today for reasons I will outline later on in this post.

Previous RAs have never held a meeting while the polls were open. I don't recall a time when we did that and neither does Claude, the previous LRA. There is no law to forbid this though I think there should be one. When we looked at this back in January I recall that one of the questions we considered was what would happen if the RA met and passed legislation that, by accident or design, affected the election underway. The result would a constitutional pickle and, for the sake of postponing a meeting, we decided to avoid setting a precedent that others might follow to their cost. In RL, the Westminster Parliament (and others I'm sure) does not meet once a general election is called until after the election is over. RL does not necessarily have to be our guide but I think reasonable people see the sense of having a division between 'campaign time' and 'RA work time' so that one does not conflict with the other.

The case for not holding a meeting during a by-election is weaker. In RL, parliaments don't usually close down while one or two members are replaced in a by-election. So you could argue there is less of an impediment to the RA meeting this Saturday while the polls are open. My argument to counter that would be that when one is replacing 2 members out of 650 (as in the UK Parliament) it is rather different than when replacing 2 out of 7 (as in our current RA). Holding a meeting later today, especially one that will consider constitutional changes, without waiting for the two members currently being elected by our citizens to take part shows a lack of respect for the electorate. Why the unseemly rush? Why not wait to involve the two new members who will be elected three hours after you plan to hold your meeting?

Delaying the RA meeting until Sunday (or even next week) would be less disruptive in my opinion. Sonja has indicated that she cannot make the meeting. At least one NuCARE representative indicated last week that the time was inconvenient. Since we have a disagreement over whether constitutional amendment requires 2, 3, 4 or 5 votes (depending on your definition of quorum and 2/3 majority) why risk passing a change that is open to challenge later? Why not wait a day (or a week) so that all RA members can be involved in the decision?

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”