Change in RA rules

[Beathan]

See post here:

http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1595

Beathan

[Beathan]

Final text as submitted to LRA.

Resolved:

Whenever any member of the RA is allowed a seven day vote, all members of the RA shall be allowed a seven day vote, regardless of whether the RA member is present or absent at the inworld meeting where the vote is taken. However, no member of the RA shall be prevented from voting inworld at any meeting where a vote is taken, and no RA member who has voted inworld, or on the forum, can change their vote after making an official vote.

Further, all proceedings of the RA shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 10th Ed. (2000), with the Leader of the RA acting as parliamentarian unless he or she appoints another RA member to serve as parliamentarian, in which case the appointed parliamentarian shall serve at the will and pleasure of the Leader of the RA.

Any citizen may proposal legislation to the RA by: 1. emailing the proposal to the LRA; 2. giving the LRA a proposal inwolrd on notecard; or 3. posting specifically proposed text in the "legislative discussion" forum. Legislation shall be considerd in the order received by the LRA, with matters continued from previous sessions considered first and matters proposed on the forums considered last (because the LRA may not read the forums until right prior to the session).

Finally, every session shall include, at the end of the agenda, a "for the good of the CDS discussion period" at which items not on the agenda can be introduced and discussed, but at which no votes may be taken.

Beathan

[Patroklus Murakami]

Beathan

As I indicated at the last RA meeting, I have a few problems with these proposals. These are as follows:

1. Is there a difference in the proposal for handling 7-day votes and the current situation? If they're the same, what's the benefit of adding redundant language? Or is the intention to change the text? If so, which bits?
2. Adopting Robert's Rules means swapping one page of RA procedures (available here) for 164 pages of complex rules which many RA members are unfamiliar with. Is this really necessary?
3. There are some problems with allowing submission of legislation via the forums in addition to the currently acceptable methods (notecard inworld or email). The forum text often changes during the course of the discussion. Which version is the LRA supposed to use? When is the cut-off date for submission by this route? The advantage of the current system (used by me and the previous LRA for over two years now) is that submitting a notecard to the LRA makes it clear that the submitted notecard is the version to be discussed at the RA. Email provides a back-up route for when the grid is down. Adding forums to the methods of proposition only adds to the LRAs work burden (which is already considerable) for no great benefit. I don't think it's reasonable to expect the LRA to do this.
4. You proposal would take responsibility for setting the agenda away from the LRA and replace it with a mechanistic way of determining the agenda. This may seem fair but your proposal is very easy to exploit. I'll let you work out how! But, is this an issue? We all have to seek the votes of other factions to get legislation passed. I can't imagine that abusing the responsibility for setting the agenda would be a sensible strategy when you need support from other RA members. This is surely self-correcting?
5. As we have seen in previous meetings, unstructured discussion periods without a bill to consider don't really go anywhere so I don't think a 'discussion period' is a good use of limited RA time. If an issue is important enough to be considered by the RA then surely it could be submitted in advance?

I'm sorry if that all seems a bit negative but I think there are major problems with this set of proposals (though some have less of an impact than others). What problem(s) are you trying to solve here? With that information we might be able to develop some new proposals.

[Beathan]

Pat --

I would like each section of this bill considered separately. I will propose a similar approach to the voting security bills.

To answer your questions: 1. There are elements in my first section that go beyond the 7-day voting rules (specification of vote finality and right to vote, for instance). Some of the proposal is a clarification, it is true.

2. Roberts Rules, in practice, are not complex. Further, there are simplified rules for small groups included within Roberts Rules. I would expect that, at least until and unless we become large enough to support a large and complicated legislature, these simplified rules would suffice. Further, Roberts Rules are scalable (as our current rules are not). Finally, Roberts Rules are well-proven; our rules may not be (they certainly lead to contentious hearings and procedural controversies).

3. It is true that the proposed text changes. This is as true of proposals submitted by email as it is for posts on the forums. However, to provide more clarity for forum posts, I have included the requirement that such submissions "include specific language" and by allowing the timing of the proposal to allow the last version posted to be the final version.

4. Pat, I don't know if you know it -- but there is already a campaign against your performance as LRA. One of the chief charges is that you privilege CSDF proposals by giving them pride of place on the agenda. This proposal will prevent such charges by providing a clear mechanism for hearing. Further, this proposal just sets the initial agenda -- it does not prevent motions from the RA to adjust the agenda or to group or sever items on the agenda. Such procedural motions, rather than LRA fiat, strikes me as a fairer and safer way to order the agenda to address specific concerns.

5. I considered unstructured (or at least, not-legislation-specific) discussions to be critical. The RA hearings should not be limited to specific legislative proposals. They should be times when citizens and members of the RA can raise issues that might produce future legislation -- even if no specific pending legislation has been proposed on that point. Further, good legislation often follows from policy discussion -- and this proposal allows such policy discussion. Finally, a "good of the community" segment is always useful as a cap to public meetings -- acting as a sounding board and a steam valve for public concerns that public officials may not be aware of. I think it is critical that no official action be allowed to be taken during such a meeting -- and my proposal includes such a check -- but discussion should always be allowed, and the opportunity for discussion should always be provided.

Beathan

[cleopatraxigalia]

I am concerned that allowing everyone a 7 day vote to be expanded will make our meetings insignificant. The open meeting is important for the public to view and is evidence of democracy in action. The disincentive to vote inworld is a very bad step i think. We should be voting on bills in full view of the public in my opinion.........if we have a quaroum then at least we know that many reps will vote that day on any given bill, and then those who cannot make it of course can do so later..........but i really think this is a bad move.....Even though, Beathan is a GREAT dancer!!!

I think Pat, your notecard rule makes sense as well, since the forum posts can be edited.

I thought we had to vote on bills if we were present, a quaroum is needed for a vote, and reps not present are allowed to vote 7 day.

Open, attended and productive meetings are crucial for CDS I believe.

ThePrincess Parisi

[Patroklus Murakami]

Beathan

Thanks for clarifying your position on a number of these proposals and going a bit further on the rationale for them. I doubt we disagree fundamentally about ends - effective, transparent meetings in which everyone's voice is heard - but only on the means to achieve this.

I agree with taking them one at a time. I will propose that we vote on each of them independantly at the RA meeting on Sunday.

I'll have another look at Robert's Rules. I still think it's a sledgehammer to crack a nut but, there are no doubt some good lessons there in terms of meeting procedures. As you point out they are tried and tested in a number of organisations. I did consider offering Erskine May's Parliamentary Procedure as an alternative but, as it runs to 1400 pages, it didn't seem to me to be a better choice!

I was aware that there is a whispering campaign developing. That's unfortunate as gossip and rumor can be quite poisonous in a small community such as ours. Such campaigns are usually self-defeating as people who skulk in the shadows reveal themselves to be untrustworthy. So far, I've included every bill submitted by the current procedures to the RA meetings this term. It's true the CSDF proposals have appeared higher on the agenda. It would be an interesting piece of analysis to look over last term's agendas for the RA to see what the pattern looks like. That, at least, would be evidence as opposed to rumour. I think that your proposal on ordering the RA agenda does not really help though. It is too mechanical and does not allow the LRA to use his/her judgement in setting the agenda for meetings. You mention the options for re-ordering that would be available. I can see that being an absolute nightmare - endless arguments over the order of items, procedural motions, points of order and all that malarkey that makes such meetings a chore and unproductive. The RA procedures were drawn up when the DPU were the larger party in the CDS and they do give a high degree of responsibility to the LRA to maintain order and ensure that productive work gets done. I think we water that down at our peril. We're likely to have evenly-split four faction RAs for the foreseeable future. Taking responsibilities away from the LRA will not make it more likely that these meetings will be productive in my opinion.

I take your point about the value of general discussion at the end of the meeting. I agree that it can have value and that no decisions should be taken at that point if we were to include it. The only problem is, I've been in many organisations where 'Any Other Business' is misused as an opportunity to ambush the chair with items that could have been proposed in advance but which would have tipped them off that an attack was coming. We saw that last week. Under the guise of asking a question about the new sim ThePrincess took a comment from me to her in IM the previous week and turned it into 'Is it true the CSDF is going to stall progress on the new sim?' (My post on how we might get the ball rolling should be an answer to that charge). Having an unstructured discussion segment at the end of meetings is an opportunity to ask more of these "When did you stop beating your wife?" type questions - you know the ones I mean - the ones calculated to draw blood for political advantage. I don't see such an item as worthwhile.

[Beathan]

Pat --

With regard to your point on "good of the CDS" discussions -- I would be willing to accept, as a friendly amendment, some limiting terms. One limitation on such discussion periods is to set a time limit on discussion -- and then to divide that time period evenly between any areas presented for discussion. I think that 10-15 minutes at the end of each RA session -- divided evenly among the issues presented -- would be reasonable and would prevent the period from being misused.

Again, I see this limitation as being properly a matter of pre-meeting scheduling, subject to modification (if circumstances warrant) by procedural motions (just as I see the agenda order). On this, I don't see procedural motions as at all nightmarish. I see them as orderly.

Beathan

[Patroklus Murakami]

Beathan -

I've been putting together the agenda for tomorrow's meeting and, with proposals on Code Reorganisation, Expansion and Voting Reform to be considered, there may not be time to consider this one. We could argue about the relative weight of the proposals to be considered but I think most people would accept that the other items should come first. Since we do have an evenly split RA and need to work collaboratively and in a constructive spirit if we're to achieve anything this term, I'd like to make a positive suggestion on handling this item.

Under the current RA procedures available here, the LRA "can create (or propose for creation) committees of members for the purpose of study and information gathering on proposed topics (bills, agenda items of all sorts)." The committee would need to be balanced and can contain RA members and citizens. The aim would be to consider the issue in a bit more detail and come back to the RA with a proposal that could command majority support. Does that sounds like a useful way forward?

[Bromo Ivory]

I am confused. Last term there was a great deal of concern with creating multiple commissions - I believe it was characterized as too much "bureaucracy" and "turning CDS into talking shops" when it was proposed to have more than 1 committee running at the same time.

[Beathan]

Pat --

I'm OK moving forward with these items with the deliberation that comes from committees. None of the proposals (other than sim expansion) is really time-critical. Sim expansion, however, should not be shifted to committee.

Beathan

[Beathan]

I have spoken with some people inworld about these proposals -- but I have not spoken with many others. Please, if you have comments, concerns, proposals or anything else you want to share with me when putting together my proposal for modifying the RA rules -- send me a forum message, note, or IM me inworld. If you want to meet inworld, tell me that, too, and I will try to schedule a meeting.

I welcome any comments from any interested citizen.

Thanks

Beathan

[Patroklus Murakami]

Beathan

We're not usually online at the same time so I probably won't get a chance to discuss this further with you before Sunday's meeting. I think it would be a mistake to vote into our procedures a 700 page books of rules even if these are very familiar to some RA members. I tried to find a hard copy of Robert's Rules in two major London bookshops yesterday so I could judge for myself and drew a total blank; they're available by mail order but they're really not well known here in the UK (though I understand they're widely used in the US including in student debating societies). I could not vote in favour of this myself as I have not had a chance to see what exactly is being proposed. The information I've been able to find so far does not fill me with confidence that these rules would be efficient or useful. Here's an excerpt (from the 1915 edition, the only one I've found that's available online):

Main motions may be subdivided into Original Main Motions and Incidental Main Motions. Original Main Motions are those which bring before the assembly some new subject, generally in the form of a resolution, upon which action by the assembly is desired. Incidental Main Motions are those main motions that are incidental to, or relate to, the business of the assembly, or its past or future action, as, a committee's report on a resolution referred to it. A motion to accept or adopt the report of a standing committee upon a subject not referred to it is an original main motion, but a motion to adopt a report on a subject referred to a committee is an incidental main motion. The introduction of an original main motion can be prevented by sustaining by a two-thirds vote an objection to its consideration [23], made just after the main motion is stated and before it is discussed. An objection to its consideration cannot be applied to an incidental main motion, but a two-thirds vote can immediately suppress it by ordering the previous question [29]. This is the only difference between the two classes of main motions. The following list contains some of the most common

I did find "Breaking Robert's Rules" though which argues that these are not an effective set of rules to be used to run meetings if you want to build a consensus. Robert's Rules tend to promote division and a 'winner-takes-all' philosophy with regard to votes. I don't think they're appropriate for us and would lead to either six hour meetings or an end to the RA as an effective institution. Adopting such a comprehensive, but lengthy and byzantine, set of rules would make our meetings much more formal and impenetrable and give a great deal of power to those who know the rules and can manipulate them and disempower those who are unfamiliar with them.

It would be helpful, in trying to find our way towards a consensus we can all agree to on this, if you could outline what the changes are to our current procedures that you'd like to see. What is it you're trying to achieve by recommending Robert's Rules? That would be something we could discuss more readily. At the moment you have those of us who are not familiar with this particular rule book at a disadvantage because we don't know what it is you're asking us to sign up to or what the major problem you're trying to solve is.

[Beathan]

Pat --

I have found several websites dealing with RONR -- including websites offering brief and simple descriptions or explanations of the procedures. I have also found RONR easy to work with iRL -- and clearly remember my first interaction with the rules, not as a trauma but as an interesting, understandable and orderly experience. I also find that RONR does not discourage consensus -- it encourages consensus building prior to the meeting, but encourages organized and speedily resolution of issues at the meetings. Meetings should be used to answer questions -- to a lesser extent they should be used to investigate issues -- they should not be used for coalition building or lobbying for a position (which activities are too time-consuming and too personal to be properly done in a meeting setting).

My concern is that RA meetings are, and are becoming more, disorganized. An RA of three members needs no rules at all; an RA of 5 members can get by with a rule sketch rather than a rule set (which is what we have); however, an RA of seven members is already too large to hold fruitful and orderly sessions without real rules. Further, RONR is scalable and could easily go from seven to seven hundred without needing further revision.

My goal is to have RA meetings be fruitful, organized, and as short as possible. Right now we accomplish these goals (when we accomplish them at all) by giving the LRA control over the organization, pacing and content of the meeting -- without allowing for full and proper control of the meetings from the floor. The LRA should not have such power to dictate the details of the RA meetings. The RA, at large, should control and determine its meetings. I am fine with the LRA setting an initial tone and agenda -- provided it can be modified if the RA generally wishes to do so. However, to allow for that kind of collective control of a meeting, we need a set of rules that provides for such control to be exercised in an orderly and effective manner. That is my goal -- to find such a set of rules.

I am not set on RONR in particular -- but it is the best (simplest while being fully effective) set of rules I have ever found. That said, I have not explored the entire parliamentary universe or done an exhaustive comparison of all extant sets of rules. If there is something better than RONR, I would be happy to use it. However, I think we desperately need something more than we have now.

Beathan

[Jon Seattle]

1. Robert’s Rules

I have now spoken to several European citizens of the CDS and all tell me that they have trouble even getting a copy of Robert’s rules (which are only used, it seems in the US.). By adopting such a complex set of rules, rules not adapted to the use in SL, and out of reach to many CDS citizens, we will effectively making participation in our political process inaccessible to a large number of CDS citizens.

We have a real opportunity here, I think, to come up with parliamentary rules that are simple, accessible, and adapted to SL. I would hate to see an RA where only US citizens, and only those with detailed knowledge of US parliamentary procedure have the ability to participate.

2. Agenda

When I first served in the RA, Claude was the LRA. Moon and I proposed the bill that established the New Guild via notecard. We then waited for three months while it was not put on the agenda, and then was not considered during that RA session at all. Moon and I persisted however, without the name calling and disorderly conduct that we are now seeing from some RA members.

The current LRA's position, rather than being a mere parliamentarian, also allows the LRA to set the agenda, with the possibility of the agenda being amended by a majority vote of the RA. In contrast to Claude's exercise of the post, Pat has been very notable in placing all submitted issues on the agenda. I have never heard of an item waiting more than a week or two, and never ever for ten or fifteen weeks.

Beathan's proposal is unlikely to clear up the problems of order in the RA. Why would members stop, for example, calling the chair "Poo poo head" (as happened just after the last RA meeting) If anything, Beathan's proposal will open the RA up to more mischief, such as a vocal party delaying all business by bombarding the body with irrelevant proposals and motions.

It makes no sense, in this situation, to move to weaken the LRA's position so he will be less effective. If anything we should consider working to support Pat so he can be effective in restoring order.

3. Representation

In our constitution, the LRA role is granted to the faction with the largest number of votes. Otherwise, our system gives an huge advantage to parties with fewer votes. For example in the current RA CSDF, SP, and NuCARE have the same number of representatives:

* There are 11.5 CSDF voters for each CSDF representative. (15% of the total Borda points per representative.)
* There are 6 NuCARE voters for each NuCARE representative. (11.6% of the total Borda points per representative.)
* There are 2.5 SP voters for each SP representative. (12.2% of the total Borda points per representative.)

The current system insures that each CSDF supporter's opinion counts much much less in the RA than SP or NuCARE voters. Beathan's proposal would eliminate the one tiny compensation that the LRA position caries. Perhaps we should stop calling ourselves a democratic republic if we adopt such rules?

[Beathan]

Jon --

I have to disagree with you here.

With regard to Robert's Rules -- I recognize and acknowledge the problem (or, at least, the report of the problem -- I have found multiple online versions of RROs readily available and usable and just a google search away) of the "foreignness" and obscurity of the RRO for many of our citizens and leaders. However, with seven RA members -- and the prospect of an even larger RA -- we need something more certain and formal than "whatever the LRA wants to do" as our guiding principle for meetings. The system is broken. It is going to get worse, not better. It can be fixed. RRO would fix it. If folks don't like that fix -- as it is too Americentric -- then please propose some alternative, more multinational fix. I would be onboard with anything that provides form and certainty to our meetings -- provided the system is no more complex than RRO (which, I admit, is a bit too complex for our present purposes (this is a point of discomfort I have with my own proposal)).

Jon -- with regard to setting the agenda, I ackowledge that the CSDF, while it was the loyal opposition, was patient and gentle without being weak, even though its legislative project was blocked (to some extent). However, past mistreatment of a historic opposition party does not justify present mistreatment of a new opposition party when the historic opposition party finds itself in power. We need some more fair and certain way to set an agenda. I am willing to leave the LRA in charge of the initial agenda -- but the RA as a whole should have power over its own agenda. The RA should govern itself. To cede that power to the LRA is nothing more than a species of legislative authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is always wrong -- and past authoritarian action by one party does not and cannot justify a continuation of the system with a mere change of chairs. I am willing to support Pat as LRA -- but I am not willing to support an authoritarian model of the office of LRA no matter who is serving in the office.

I think that your argument about the way of recognizing and empowering parties based on membership is more appropriately a question of electoral reform, rather than of RA process reform. I would be happy to include this point in the workings of the electoral committee. That said, I would also be willing to entertain some more or less substantial reforms to empower the majority (or the strongest plurality) party. For instance, I would entertain abolishing the Chancellor -- or making the Chancellor a subsidiary post -- and raising the LRA to the position of chief executive (a "Prime Minister of Parliament" model). Further, far from making the LRA a ceremonial post, my RA process reform continues to vest significant powers in the LRA (in fact, it specifies those powers beyond the current specifications). For instance, the LRA would be presumed to be parliamentarian and would have the power to delegate that role. I would be willing to allow the LRA to have control over the initial agenda -- provided it could be modified by the RA on proper procedural motion -- and I have drafted an alternative proposal that would do this. In short, the LRA is and should be important.

There are two twin problems with the way the RA is operating -- and neither of the problems initiates with my Party. As you point out, we are (possibly) an over-represented party. Parties that are voices in the wilderness frequently are. However, I have faith that the citizens of the CDS will pay attention to the actions and proposals and transparent motives of all parties -- and the SP will improve its showing in future elections as a result.

But -- to the twin problems. First, the CSDF has too much power vested in and exercised by an authoritarian office (the LRA). This is not the fault of the CSDF -- it is the way the system was set up. It is understandable that now that the CSDF has obtained the power of the LRA office, after a long wait in opposition, the CSDF is loath to cede any of that power back to the rest of the RA (even though it is more legitimately vested in the RA as an institution rather than in the LRA personally). However, neither reluctance to cede over-reaching power nor good-faith and reasonable exercise of over-reaching power makes the power the LRA any less over-reaching.

It is also reasonable, as you point out, that the CSDF, as the party that has the closest thing to an electoral mandate, will want that mandate to mean something. I support this idea. I think that the CSDF has a mandate -- and we in the RA will disregard that mandate at our peril. However, that mandate is not a mandate to continue the same old broken system we have labored under in the past -- especially as the weight of that failed system is growing heavier every week. I think that the CSDF has a substantive mandate -- not a procedural one -- and I am acting accordingly.

Second, in NuCARE we have a strong and active opposition party that is not acting with the patience and decorum shown by the CSDF in its long wait for power. It is even true that, given the free-form nature of the RA meetings, NuCARE's opposition can be disruptive. The solution, however, is not to further empower an already excessively powerful authority figure. The solution is to create a system of orderly behavior and to follow it. There are rarely bad people; there are frequently bad systems; and we are good people trapped in such a bad system. We would shirk our responsibility to ourselves and to our citizens if we don't reform that system.

Beathan