Change in RA rules

[Beathan]

Pat --

My point is that RA procedures are an internal RA matter, not a Constitutional matter, while a change in the makeup of the RA is a Constitutional matter. I was not suggesting shutting down the idea of fixing some of the problems of recent RAs by changing the Constitution. I just think we need to keep those approaches separate in our minds -- because they are very different approaches in terms of how they are enacted, how they affect the entire CDS community, and what they mean for future RAs.

That said, I strongly disagree with the assertion that the problems we are having in the RA is due entirely to the disorganization that resulted from the RA growing too large for informal, conversational procedures. The problems are also due to the over-empowerment of the LRA as a position, especially as the LRA is decoupled from any general political process, allowing one faction to dictate the nature of the RA to the other factions. The RA should be a melting pot -- not a place where one faction, by virtue of its holding a single office, is able to guide and control the entire legislative project and the entire policy debate within the CDS.

Beathan

[Patroklus Murakami]

Since it's unlikely that ordinary citizens or RA members will be permitted to put forward an argument in future RA meetings I'll post what I would say at the meeting here. (Read the transcript when it's posted, apparently we're only going to discuss things on the forums and then the RA will rush through the votes at the meetings).

My amendment four was voted down at the meeting (with no discussion allowed) but paragraph four of Beathan's orginal proposal remains. Here's what's wrong with it:

Paragraph Four - Robert's Rules
Every assembly needs some rules to govern its proceedings. Robert's Rules are probably as good as any others. I say 'probably' because I've never actually seen the 160 page book of rules Beathan is proposing! Neither, I suspect, have most members of the RA. There are web versions available but these refer to out of copyright versions, not the one being proposed. I think it would be reckless for the RA to vote for a set of rules it's members are not thoroughly familiar with. Let's look at the web versions, since these are the only ones we have ready access to, to see if they would be appropriate for the CDS. Here's an excerpt:

Debate. In 1-6 are explained the necessary steps preliminary to debate namely, that when no business is pending a member shall rise and address the chair by his title, and be recognized by the chair as having obtained the floor; and that the member shall then make a motion which, after being seconded, shall be stated by the chair, who shall then ask, "Are you ready for the question?" The question is then open to debate, as is partially explained in 7, which should be read in connection with this section. No member shall speak more than twice during the same day to the same question (only once on an appeal), nor longer than ten minutes at one time, without leave of the assembly; and the question upon granting the leave shall be decided by a two-thirds vote without debate.1 No member can speak a second time to a question as long as any member desires to speak who has not spoken to the question. If greater freedom is desired, the proper course is to go into committee of the whole, or to consider it informally, either of which requires only a majority vote; or to extend the limits of debate [30], which requires a two-thirds vote. So the debate, by a two-thirds vote, may be limited to any extent desired, as shown in 30. The member upon whose motion the subject was brought before the assembly, is entitled to close the debate with a speech, if he has not previously exhausted his twenty minutes, but not until every one else wishing to speak has spoken. He cannot, however, avail himself of this privilege after debate has been closed.2 An amendment, or any other motion, being offered, makes the real question before the assembly a different one, and, in regard to the right to debate, is treated as a new question. When an amendment is pending the debate must be confined to the merits of the amendment, unless it is of such a nature that its decision practically decides the main question. Merely asking a question, or making a suggestion, is not considered as speaking. The maker of a motion, though he can vote against it, cannot speak against his own motion.

Got that?
There's over a 100 pages more of that kind of stuff to plough through. And the RA members need to know it intimately if they're going to operate effectively in meetings if the RA pass this. As will our citizens who will be prevented from speaking in meetings in future. I think Robert's Rules are too much for the RA. What problems there are can be solved by adapting the current Code of Procedures and making changes incrementally rather than adopting a set of procedures wholesale that only some are familiar with.

I've already made my points on paragraphs five and six but, before MT, ThePrincess and Beathan railroad them through the meeting, here are some final arguments which I fear will fall on deaf ears:

Paragraph 5: Proposing Legislation
There are several good reasons for having the requirement that legislation must be sent to the LRA on a notecard by the time of the meeting. It saves the LRA the job of cutting and pasting numerous bills in preparation for the meeting. The LRA post is difficult enough without adding to the workload unnecessarily. Submission on a notecard is unambiguous. When you put a proposal on a notecard and give it to the LRA it's clear that it belongs on the agenda for a meeting. Sometimes legislative ideas are proposed on the forums but need to be developed before they come to the RA. How is the LRA to know what is a firm proposal and what isn't?I' The RA Process Bill under consideration has spread to at least two discussion threads. Finding the current version of the bill is far from straightforward. Why ask the LRA to keep track of all of this? It should be the responsibility of the proposer of legislation to give an updated copy to the LRA in time. Email is there as a back up for when SL falls over.

Paragraph Six - AOB
I doubt there's been more than a handful of RA meetings in the last three years where there's been time for an 'Any other business' item so this point may be moot! The problem is that the inclusion of this item encourages laziness and sniping. If an item is worth discussing at the RA it's worth submitting in advance. If you have this item there every week it encourages people to be lazy because they can always raise something at the end of the meeting. I've been in countless meetings where 'AOB' is abused as an ambush item so that someone who's disgruntled or mischievous can raise something to attack their opponents without giving any notice of their intentions. We've already seen this twice this term, most recently at today's meeting where the discussion degenerated following personal attacks from ThePrincess regarding the CSDF decision to resign from the RA. No doubt we'll see more of this. You can hold a 'for the good of the CDS discussion' on the forums. The RAs purpose, as defined in our Constitution, is "to pass laws and its service role is to promote the city and perform long-term planning." That's what meetings should focus on, not unstructured aimless discussion.

[Patroklus Murakami]

[Edited to delete duplicate post]

[Bromo Ivory]

Pat - Three quick points:

1. You were the most vocally against this change (for legitimate reasons, I will add) - but you removed yourself from influence on the matter. So ... while it is OK to criticize, and I am glad you are continuing to fill that function on the forum, but realizing by removing yourself from a position of being able to stop or at least slow, you bear some indirect responsibility for them passing something you don't like since you could have stopped them.

2. If it doesn't work - I am sure they will try something else. After all they perceived a shortcoming in the old system which prompted them to attempt this reform.

3. At least you won't be the poor soul having to execute RRO in the RA. I don't envy Brian, though RRO isn't too bad once everyone gets the hang of it as I have run some RL meetings using them.

[Beathan]

Pat --

I strongly disagree. For the first time, the RA has set up a mechanism through which citizens have a formal opportunity to participate in RA proceedings and to bring concerns to the RA. We have informally added an "open discussion" period to the end of the meetings. I think this is a great addition -- and one that is long time in coming. I expect that it will be officially added next session.

Further, RA meetings have become increasingly long and rancorous. One reason for this is our attempt to debate matters inworld -- and our willingness to let citizens debate matters inworld. There is nothing inherently wrong with this -- except it takes an inordinate amount of time and tends to obscure, rather than cast light on, the legislation the RA is considering.

We need to keep the RA sessions focussed and productive. To do that, we need to have the more rancorous debates occur elsewhere -- and these forums are ideally suited for that purpose. In fact, for every piece of legislation the RA has considered since I became a citizen, the substantive debate has primarily occurred on the forums, not inworld. A large part of the problem we have had the last two sessions of the RA was the transfer or continuation of the debate from the forums to the RA sessions -- and the result has been bad feelings and personality conflict on the RA; extra long, but unproductive, sessions of the RA; and a general breakdown of the legislative process.

I strongly believe that discussions should happen in the RA. These discussions should include -- in the form of invited testimony -- citizen participation. However, the sessions should not include peanut gallery disruptions of the RA deliberations by citizens. The sessions should also not include RA member sniping that does not advance deliberations. The RA members should come to the sessions prepared to vote on pending legislation. We should have a period for public comment -- but that public comment should be approved and limited by the LRA. Further, all public comment -- and all RA discussion -- should be limited to that necessary to allow the RA members to make informed votes. The RA sessions are about the RA making the best possible decisions -- they are not appropriately public forums for the public to comment and vent in a freeform manner.

The acceptance of Robert's Rules will resolve this problem. Further, although you are correct that the actual text of RRO is one hundred pages long -- it is far more accessible in practice. It is, in fact, extremely easy to use. At the meeting before this last one, two charts of the applicable RRO were posted. Those charts were excellent -- and set forth everything a RRO novice would need to use the rules effectively. I expect that, if we do pass RRO, these charts, or charts like them, will be posted in the RA meetings (per TP's request) to assist everyone navigate the process. However, a formal process, even if it involves a learning curve for the RA, will be a great improvement over the uncontrolled free-form sniping that has characterized the last two terms of the RA. RRO will provide a process for RA members to express and consider matters -- and for the public to participate in a useful, but controlled and nondisruptive way, in those deliberations.

That said, I reiterate that public participation is very desirable and important -- but it must be circumscribed by reasonable and formal limits. The invitation to testify as a prerequisite for citizen participation in debate on specific matters is one such reasonable limit. The safety valve is provided by the open discussion period -- which provides and opportunity for citizens to go "off script" and to petition the RA relating to any matter, whether on the agenda or not. Once we get this reformed process in place, we will have a much improved RA. We will be both more efficient as a legislature and more responsive to our citizens.

Beathan

[Beathan]

Based on some input from FR concerning how order was maintained in past RAs (the old soapbox), I would like to propose a further alternative 4.

Second alternative 4 --

Every agenda for the RA shall be based on a schedule of 2 hours, with no less than a 10 minute open discussion time allowed at the end and no less than 10 minutes of administrative time set at the beginning.

During the administrative time, the LRA shall perform administrative business on the RA agenda (such electing and swearing in a Chancellor and swearing in new members) and shall entertain procedural motions from the RA (such as motions to adjust the order of the agenda, extend or adjust time for debate, or to move a item designated as "noncontroversial" to a "consent agenda" in the next session; or to move an item on the "consent agenda" to the end of the agenda for debate) and shall ask the RA to pass the "consent agenda" without debate.

Each item on the agenda shall be allocated a time for debate by the LRA. If the LRA believes that a proposed piece of legislation shall not be controversial, it shall be allocated not less than 10 munutes for debate. If the LRA believes that a proposed piece of legislation may be controversial, it shall be allocated not less than 15 minutes for debate. All members of the RA and all citizens in attendance at the RA shall indicate to the LRA, before the start of the RA session or during the first ten minutes of the session, whether they wish to speak on an item on the agenda, and which side they wish to speak on. Time for debate shall be allocated as follows: for ten minute matters (2 minutes pro; 2 minutes con; 1/2 minutes pro rebuttal; 1/2 minutes con rebuttal; 5 minutes for RA q&A vote); for 15 minute matters (3 minutes pro; 3 minutes con; 2 minutes pro rebuttal; 2 minutes con rebuttal; 5 minutes RA Q&A; vote); time for longer debates shall be set by the LRA, with each side getting equal time for original statements and for rebuttal, with pro going first, and con going second. The LRA shall divide time for debate between those wishing to speak pro and con, with the provision that half the time for debate shall be reserved for RA members wishing to speak on a matter.

Prior to debate, the LRA shall announce the order of speakers and the time allowed for each speaker. Speakers may speak to the issue for the time allowed, or cede their time to another speaker of record. During the time allowed for speaking, the speaker shall not be interrupted by any person in attendance. No speaker shall speak longer than the allocated time.

Following debate, the RA shall either move to vote on the issue; move for futher debate; or move to allow amendments and further debate. If the RA wishes further debate or amendments, no vote shall be held, and the matter shall be tabled until the next session of the RA, at which time the matter shall be considered as a "prior matter of the RA" on the agenda, and shall be considered to be controversial for the purpose of setting time for debate. If the RA has voted to allow amendments, the matter shall be tabled and amendments shall be drafted and submitted to the LRA and posted on the forums at least one day prior to the date on which the LRA is to publish the RA agenda.

Violation of these rules shall be enforced by the LRA, first by warning and then by temporary banning (the banned person shall be removed from the banlist as soon as the meeting is concluded); citizens may be temporarily banned by the LRA, but RA members shall not be banned except by supermajority vote of the RA.

These basic rules address all of the problems I see in our current process. It preserves the prerogatives of the LRA, while giving the RA control over its own agenda. It allows for both citizen and RA member debate of all issues -- and provides for a mandated level of courtesy in that debate. It streamlines the RA sessions and is calculated to restrict the sessions to not more than 2 hours.

Beathan

[Justice Soothsayer]

Beathan,

This seems awfully detailed, down to the allocations of minutes, for a proposal from the Simplicity faction.

[Beathan]

Justice --

It is simpler than Robert's Rules. In fact, distilling a procedure into a paragraph seems very simple to me.

What is critical is that both RA and citizen proponents and opponents of legislation have a say in the deliberations -- and that they have equal say. Time for debate must be controlled to allow this to happen.

The devil in the details -- and leaving those details to the control and discretion of the LRA has been a serious and increasing problem.

Beathan

[Flyingroc Chung]

distilling it into one paragraph makes the eyes bleed. Is it possible to split it up into parts?

[Beathan]

FR --

Done.

Beathan

[Jamie Palisades]

To update this thread, please note, the RA did enact some rule-of-order procedures at its 24 March meeting, effective beginning with the 30 March meeting. See: http://forums.slcds.info//viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1701