Change in RA rules

[Jon Seattle]

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.

Embedded in this is a strong and, as far as I can tell, wholly unjustified accusation.

1. As far as I can tell Pat has managed the office in a very un-authoritarian way.
2. Any of the LRA's decisions on the agenda can be overridden by a majority vote.
3. CSDF can be considered "in power" when is has no more representation than SP or NuCARE. Even less so for never having elected a chancellor. (NuCARE has elected the past two.)

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.

Since the RA can override the agenda decisions of the LRA right now, it seems that this describes the current situation.

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.

And so you want to drag down the current LRA because the current rule allowing a majority of RA members to override the LRA's decisions is not enough for you. This seems like the wrong way of going about this.

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 the 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.

The way Pat has run the office of LRA, giving free access to anyone to put items on the agenda, is not by any stretch "too much power vested in and exercised by an authoritarian office". I agree with that the LRA is not the ideal way to address the problem concerning the lack of equal representation. Given the current situation, half a cake is much worse than a whole cake. If your proposal is enacted, without also changing the electoral system, CSDF voters will have even less of a voice. Its just speculation about any other proposal that might some day come along to correct the situation, and not clear that you would support any such proposal.

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.

I must be missing something here. Accusations of Pat being authoritarian and exersizing excessive power, all without a shred of evidence. Insults and name calling in the RA is now fine?

[Beathan]

Embedded in this is a strong and, as far as I can tell, wholly unjustified accusation.

1. As far as I can tell Pat has managed the office in a very un-authoritarian way.

Jon, with some caveats, I am inclined to agree with this. However, as I said in my post, an over-reaching office, even if exercised in a reasonable way, is still an over-reaching office.

2. Any of the LRA's decisions on the agenda can be overridden by a majority vote.

I wish this were true. It is not true -- at least as Pat has run the RA. If this were true, my concerns with the RA process would be significantly lessened. To see what I am talking about here, I urge you to examine the last two RA transcripts.

For instance

ThePrincess? Parisi passes beathans a starbucks card
MT Lundquist: i move to vary the order of todays agenda
MT Lundquist: i would like to see beathans iten first
MT Lundquist: item
ThePrincess? Parisi: second
Beathan Vale: no — I was up to 2 pots per day — so I took this weekend to go through withdrawal
Beathan Vale: second
Patroklus Murakami: sorry MT but that is not permitted

3. CSDF can be considered "in power" when is has no more representation than SP or NuCARE. Even less so for never having elected a chancellor. (NuCARE has elected the past two.)

I consider the LRA to be a substantially powerful position. However, when I said "in power" I was praising, not blaming, the CSDF. It is undisputed that the CSDF has a real mandate and that we all should act to complement and implement that mandate -- because it seems to represent what the voters voted for. However, that mandate is to complete the substantive issues raised on the CSDF agenda. Preservation of the clumsy power-structure and chaotic processes of the RA is not part of that mandate.

Since the RA can override the agenda decisions of the LRA right now, it seems that this describes the current situation.

Again, sadly, this is not the case. Whenever I have tried to raise a simple procedural motion -- the first, necessary step in overiding the LRA, the LRA has called me "out of order." Thus, there is no process that allows for RA control of its own agenda. There should be. Right now, the LRA can call a procedural motion "out of order" because, sadly, the procedure is whatever the LRA wants it to be. That is wrong -- and it must be fixed.

And so you want to drag down the current LRA because the current rule allowing a majority of RA members to override the LRA's decisions is not enough for you. This seems like the wrong way of going about this.

Jon -- I don't want to "drag Pat down." I want to fix the RA -- restore order to the meetings and empower the RA over its own agenda. Again, you claim that the majority of the RA can now control its agenda. We can't. There is no process that let's us. Any attempt to do so is called "out of order" before it can be considered by the RA. Reform is needed.

The way Pat has run the office of LRA, giving free access to anyone to put items on the agenda, is not by any stretch "too much power vested in and exercised by an authoritarian office".

For the most part, I agree with this. I have not felt excuded from RA process by Pat. However, I know that my sentiment is not universally shared by RA members -- a couple of whom have felt excluded and have believed that their items either did not make the agenda or were always placed last on the agenda so that the meetings concluded before ever reaching them. These are problems. Denying them does no one any good.

As to my proposal giving members of the CSDF less voice, I don't think that is true. My proposal just provides formal and clear rules for RA meetings. No one is excluded. It provides more certainty of process -- which will result in a more inclusive process. If your concern is that my proposal would change the LRA so that is would no longer be an office of unfettered power to control the RA -- that is true, my proposal would end this process. However, such an office is a misstep in RA procedure. It does not empower the faction holding it -- it suppresses the other factions. Empowerment by suppression of opposition is not an empowerment any of us should seek, preserve or support.

Insults and name calling in the RA is now fine?

Where did you get this? I was an equal-opportunity critic. I think that NuCARE representatives have been somewhat disruptive in the RA meeting so far. I think that the LRA has controlled these disruptions by ordering them to shut up. That is not helpful. I want a procedure that is self-regulating so that we don't rely on a person and on the force of that person's will to regulate the meetings. In my experience, good procedures prevent the problems we have been having, and without good procedures, all the good will in the world will fail to do so.

Beathan

[Sonja Strom]

CSDF can be considered "in power" when is has no more representation than SP or NuCARE. Even less so for never having elected a chancellor. (NuCARE has elected the past two.)

Actually the last Chancellor, Dnate Mars, was a DPU candidate.

[Jon Seattle]

CSDF can be considered "in power" when is has no more representation than SP or NuCARE. Even less so for never having elected a chancellor. (NuCARE has elected the past two.)

Actually the last Chancellor, Dnate Mars, was a DPU candidate.

Not quite true. Dnate was voted in by CARE and SP. DPU did not have a representative in the RA. In that case he must be considered a CARE / SP chancellor. I saw no CSDF representation whatsoever in the executive branch during last session.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Jon and Beathan -

I'm grateful for your interventions because it makes the issues at hand a little clearer. I'm reassured to hear that Beathan does not consider me to be an authoritarian ogre!

I have no real problem with more detailed rules of order, 'Robert's Rules' or greater involvement of the whole RA in determining the agenda; my only concern is that we end up with something better than we have now and that it is effective. I don't believe Beathan's proposals will achieve this and I see the RA about to vote itself into becoming an irrelevant talking shop at best and a body dominated by those who know how to manipulate 'Robert's Rules' at worst. I'll return to this later as I don't have much time to post right now.

There was a hint in one of Beathan's earlier posts that he doesn't believe the lack of accessibility of Robert's Rules outside the US. They are available here in the UK by mail order (but I don't want to buy a book on the offchance the RA may pass a rule change!) I looked in two major London bookshops last week to leaf through a copy and see if it was as complex and involved as the versions available on the web. They'd never heard of it at Waterstones' flagship shop on Piccadilly (it wasn't on their computer system as a book available in their shops) and I couldn't find it at Foyle's on Charing Cross Road either. So, I have a problem with being asked to implement a set of rules I've never seen despite making an attempt to examine them. There are versions available on the web but these are the out of copyright versions from 1915 or earlier; the one that Beathan has specified is 700 pages long and is not available on the web. If Beathan has a weblink to the version he is recommending we adopt I would like him to post it here.

[Beathan]

Pat --

Just to clarify again (although I think you got the point) my primary problem with the Office of the LRA is with the Office and its portfolio of powers, rather than with its occupants. I don't think that either you or Claude have been fundamentally dangerous or authoritarian people. However, my mistrust of the office is not abated just because good people fill it.

I see that my proposal to use RROs for RA processes is causing the greatest heartburn. I am not skeptical that the Rules are not readily available in printed form in Europe. As it is a text that is more useful than interesting and as it is primarily (almost exclusively) used in the US and Canada, it would make sense that the book would not be a big seller elsewhere.

I have reviewed the websites, and you are right -- the actually text is not posted (due to copyright) in a readily accessible way. However, several simplified "how to use the rules" and "abstracts to the rules" are. Frankly, given the complexity of the rules and the relative simplicity of our meetings, I would prefer to use some abstracted version of the RROs (or something like it), rather than the full set of the rules themselves. Thus, I would rather the various interested groups (the senior party and the opposition parties; those used to English processes, those used to Continental European processes, and those used to North American processes; etc.) all meet and select some simplified abstract set of rules from those that are available online. These simple sets of rules will not cover everything -- but the things they don't cover will very likely never come up in our meetings. I would be much more comfortable with a small, simple, ready-to-hand, but nonetheless formal and established set of rules that allows for RA control of meetings and that sets a meeting structure than encourages efficient movement through the important action items, allows for additional discussion and debate, and does all this without requiring the LRA to run the meetings by personal fiat.

However, I know that there are supporters of RROs who are excited to see us use them. If that point prevails, I would be willing to buy sets of the rules for the other members of the RA. I can get them from Amazon.com fairly cheaply.

As a final alternative -- one that I prefer perhaps most of all (I will modify my proposal accordingly) -- I would rather use Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (In Brief) than use the full set. It is only 170 pages long -- and much of that length is precatory. Again, I would be willing to spring for the cost of equipping the RA members with sets of the rules.

Beathan

[Dnate Mars]

CSDF can be considered "in power" when is has no more representation than SP or NuCARE. Even less so for never having elected a chancellor. (NuCARE has elected the past two.)

Actually the last Chancellor, Dnate Mars, was a DPU candidate.

Not quite true. Dnate was voted in by CARE and SP. DPU did not have a representative in the RA. In that case he must be considered a CARE / SP chancellor. I saw no CSDF representation whatsoever in the executive branch during last session.

This is totally untrue. Just because I got the votes of the SP and CARE does not mean I was a representative of either of those parties. I was, and still am, a member of the DPU. The chancellor has no real power when it comes to the legislative process. The CSDF made sure this was the case too.

As for the lake of representation, this is also not true. The only person that would take the PIO job was Rose. I had contacted others before here, including CSDF members. Moon was also an adviser on sim expansions. I was representing all of the CDS when I was in office. I never once turned away any requests form anyone. I don't appreciate being accused of denying anyone anything during my term as Chancellor.

[Cindy Ecksol]

Re: availability of Roberts Rules of Order, availability should not be an obstacle. They can be had for as little as $3.27 (used) through Amazon. Surely there's a European internet source as well.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/10 ... ef&x=0&y=0

Re: Jon's statement that nuCARE controls the Chancellor's office, I have to admit that I'm chuckling a bit to myself knowing that Pat had the opportunity to vote for Jamie but chose Alex very intentionally, even voting against the other CSDF representative as he did so. So I'm not sure how Alex's election constitutes "nuCARE control" when it took an intentional vote from CSDF to put him in office, not to mention a vote from DPU. If anything, I'd say Alex must be a CSDF candidate, since Pat clearly didn't vote for him by accident. I wasn't here for Dnate's election, but if he identifies with DPU and it required votes from CARE and SP to put him in office, it's difficult to see how he could be seen as a CARE candidate.

I'll also point out that under the CDS constitution, candidates for Chancellor nominate themselves, they are not nominated by a particular party. Any citizen who chooses to stand for chancellor has only to notify the LRA: no faction endorsement is required. Alex filed, Jamie filed, and there was nothing stopping a member of any other faction from filing for that election as well. In conjunction with the way the last two elections have played out, this highlights the fact that the way the system is set up encourages the chancellor to serve the RA at large, not any particular party, so I'm not even sure why it's important what faction the Chancellor nominally belongs to. The job is to make sure that the RA functions well, period.

Cindy

[Sonja Strom]

At first I supported the idea of using Robert's Rules of Order, primarily because I thought they were a well worked-out and detailed set of legislative rules that could be a standard we could all observe. Actually I mistakenly believed the RA was already using them, and that this bill would only be a formalisation of this use, but in that I was wrong.

It surprised me very much to learn that the British had never heard of Robert's Rules, because I thought Britain was where they originated. However, then I got to thinking about it more - in part from reading posts here in this thread - and realised probably there are many places in the world where Robert's Rules are unknown. Patroklus' posts here alone made that point clear. Then I looked up Robert's Rules in Wikipedia, and found that they are American in origin. In itself there is nothing wrong with that, but this made me realise probably they are not so universal as I had been thinking.

I am still not at all against the adoption and use of Robert's Rules, but I have come to believe it might be better for us to simply expand on our own existing RA rules. Some (if not many) of our own RA procedures could be the same as Robert's Rules, some could be very different. As has been the case so far with much of the CDS government, we could experiment with what works best for us.

In that way we could design how the RA functions in whatever way we want, and have these rules easy to find in our wiki.

This said, I do think it is important that the RA rules be more standardised and clear than they are now.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Let's make a start on developing the RA procedures so they meet the criticisms levelled at them while remaining true to our principles as a community. I think we're better doing that ourselves rather than adopting an established set of rules wholesale but, as I've indicated previously, I'm not too bothered about that. I just want to see what I'm being asked to adopt and implement before I have to vote on it!

Here are some ideas for changes we could make straight away which would tackle the major issues raised in this discussion:

1. Agenda-setting. Beathan is right that the LRA has a lot of power with regard to agenda-setting and this is, potentially, open to abuse. RA members can force an item onto the agenda for a subsequent meeting but they can't reorder the agenda once it's been set by the LRA. The LRA could put an item at the bottom of the agenda for weeks on end and (virtually) ensure it is never debated. There is a corrective to this though. If the LRA behaved in this way the other RA members would protest and would be less likely to pass his/her faction's legislation. We could rebalance the system by allowing RA members to pass procedural motions in meetings to reorder the items on the agenda. But this risks tipping the balance too far in the opposite direction. Under our electoral system a faction would need way more than 50% of the vote to get a majority of seats in the RA. Our system favours smaller parties so it is highly unlikely that a faction will ever have a majority of seats even if they are extremely popular with the electorate. If we allow the RA to determine the order of the agenda by simple majority, the 'opposition' parties would be able to gang together and put the 'government' proposals at the bottom of the agenda at every meeting. In our current RA, for example, two or three of the factions would be able to put CSDF proposals at the bottom of the agenda of every meeting and ensure they are never debated. That would hardly be democratic, would it?

There are other drawbacks too. We have limited time for meetings, currently two hours once a week. These kind of procedural motions could take up 15-30 minutes at the start of every RA meeting. I think it would be a shame if we were to lose 25% of our time to arguing over the agenda!

I think we can find a solution that gives the RA more power over setting the agenda without leading to perverse, undemocratic outcomes or taking up too much precious RA time. What if the LRA were to publish a draft agenda on the forums a day in advance of the meeting giving RA members the option to register objections before the meeting? The LRA could then take that input and decide whether to alter the order in response. If the LRA took no action and RA members were not happy with the explanation perhaps we could allow procedural motions at the start of the meeting to remedy the situation? I think that a 2/3 majority should be required to overturn the LRAs order though. That would prevent the worst kind of abuse without risking the 'tyranny of the minorities' where smaller factions are able to take advantage of our electoral system to prevent the most popular faction from carrying out it's manifesto commitments. We would also need to give the LRA more time to put the agenda together by bringing the deadline forward to Thursdays (instead of Fridays as at present).

2. Maintaining Order. This is quite a tricky one. Our meetings are (relatively) informal and easy to follow for anyone used to chat rooms and online meetings. People talk over each other to an extent but the LRA is able to keep order, allow everyone to have their say and guide discussions to a conclusion provided RA members allow the LRA to chair the meeting.

We could adopt a more formal procedure along the following lines (I've borrowed heavily from the out-of-copyright versions of Robert's Rules available online):

• (i) LRA introduces the agenda item including any proposal and asks for a proposer and seconder
  (ii) the LRA gives the floor to the proposer and asks him/her to recommend the proposal to the RA
  (iii) the LRA invites comments from the other RA members present
  (iv) RA members must request the floor formally
  (v) the LRA will say 'X has the floor'
  (vi) when the member has finished the speaking s/he will hand the floor back to the LRA by saying 'Thank you Chair'
  (vii) the LRA will give precedence to those members who have not spoken before over those who have
  (viii) the LRA will give precedence to RA members over other citizens present but will endeavour to ensure all voices are heard
  (ix) the LRA is responsible for maintaining order and preventing anyone from interrupting the speaker who has the floor
  (x) as the LRA is responsible for keeping order and ensuring that the RAs business is transacted in a timely fashion, RA members must concede the floor to the LRA when s/he requests

We could try this on a trial basis at the next couple of meetings to see if it works better.

What other issues do we need to address? These seem like the top two judging from the feedback I've had inworld and the discussion on the forums so far.

[Bromo Ivory]

That looks like a good start, I would allow a procedural motion require 50%+1, and perhaps limit the number of procedural motions allowed to 1 per RA maximum or something. If this would reduce or eliminate the bickering about the ageda to date, and have something more fair, I suspect 15 minutes up front would save half an hour later - I am hopeful anyway!
(And I agree that not having an "accept the agenda" vote is good since that would often reach a no one likes the agenda and no one approves an agenda)

The second part - looks good for a test run - though I didn't see anything there for commentary by citizens and other interested parties - while rare in a RRO style of meeting - I like that in our RA, it allows citizens to participate in the debate and maybe bring up a point or perspective the other RA's may not have thought - but also would perhaps spark the interest in someone who might want to become a member of the RA. Just a though. Maybe a period at the end?

(Given this would be run in a "testbed" mode, you can take a few more chances than you would otherwise - after all the "order" we are trying to hold, is one where it is IM's not actual, phyiscal speech, - if two people type over each other it becomes a bit confusing but not unintelligable as with actual speech)

I'd be interested in what the voters in nuCARE, CSDF, SP and DPU folks would have to say -- the above is my own personal observation.

[Jon Seattle]

DNate, your denial goes a good way towards proving my point.

Moon was also an adviser on sim expansions.

Which of course she was by virtue of being Guild Secretary. When you were asked to list public service positions, Moon's position was not one you listed. At the same time Michel, head of CARE, was also appointed (symbolic?) vice chancellor.

I do realize your main political allegiance is to the DPU. But that in now way detracts from my point the CSDF members have often been frozen out of participation and CSDF voters are at a strong disadvantage in comparison to our numbers in RA representation. If the "D" in DPU really means democratic, this wold be a situation I would hope you would want to work to correct.

[Dnate Mars]

The vice chancellor position was never approved. CSDF voted it down. The DPU, CARE, and SP all supported the changes to the chancellor's office, but CSDF didn't. Michel had no more access to me then anyone else. He was who I was going to place into the VC if it was created. As for appointed positions, the only one that was active throughout the term was Rose and the PIO. We had a caretaker and a portal master. I don't see how any of those positions would have anything to do with politics. And if I remember correctly, I had asked Moon to be PIO first, but she turned it down.

Also, I want to clear something up. The Chancellor has no power to make laws. NONE. The only task I really can do is enforce the rules that the RA passes. The LRA has always been the one with the most power. You are the one that sets the agenda. You are the one that passes laws. I just enforce them. So, I am not sure how the CSDF has been so underrepresented.

There was always tension that I never understood coming from the CSDF towards me. If people didn't like what I was doing, why did no one come talk to me?

[Dnate Mars]

Oh, and so far there have been 3 chancellors. A SP, a DPU, and now a nuCARE. So, that means that 3 of the 4 factions have chancellor, so I still don't see the unfairness.

[Beathan]

Latest version posted here:

http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... 9952#p9952

Beathan