Discussion about LRA Bill

[Arria Perreault]

ThePrincess has proposed a Bill about election of the LRA:

http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1636

Even it was published in the RA section of the forum (where citizen cannot discuss), I will give my opinion on this project of bill as CDS citizen. Which rights have citizen of the CDS? In fact very few. They can only elect their representants in the legislative. There is no initiative right (several citizen propose a new law or a new amendment to the Constitution), no referendum (several citizen can ask for a vote of all citizen about a law voted by their representants). Even in election, the rights are limited. For some reasons that I will not discuss here, citizen can only vote for factions and the members of each faction can choice the position of their candidates. They can have an influence on the election on the LRA. This bill will withdraw this little influence and limit the rights of citizen. I think that it goes in the wrong direction: CDS should extend rights of their citizen.
There is another danger. If citizen will loose a part of their rights, the RA members will get more power. Even more power, I should say. If we observe CDS democracy, the RA is a branch which is not well balanced by others. SC have limited rights on its decisions. The Chancellor (executife) has few ways to manage a policy. I have already talked about the poor rights of citizen. In my point of view, the RA is more and more an executive council, which manage CDS through laws. One of the basis of the democracy is the separation of the different branches. Before democracy, kings wrote laws.
I really hope that every member of the RA will be wise enough to realize this problematic and, instead of limit the rights of citizen, they will find ways to extend them. I hope to read soon a bill about referendum.

[Beathan]

Arria --

I agree with you here (even though I am a member of the RA). I would be happy to work with you on a referendum bill. Please send me your ideas by private message, inworld note, IM -- or arrange a meeting.

Beathan

[Jon Seattle]

I agree with you here (even though I am a member of the RA). I would be happy to work with you on a referendum bill. Please send me your ideas by private message, inworld note, IM -- or arrange a meeting.

Beathan, I, Arria, and quite a number of of CSDF people have been meeting to talk about some of our serious problems about the overreaching and power grabs going on in the RA at the moment, to a some extent with your coordination and support.

I, for one, really object to ThePrincess' bill. Our system has a powerful leveler in the RA election process that allocates the same number of representatives both to parties with a large measure of public support and those with much less voter support the same level of representation. I object to The Princess' bill because it seems to me it is dangerous, in this environment, to provide a potentially strong lever for a faction that wanted to use a campaigns of whispers, scandal, and personal attacks to gain power over the RA without winning elections.

Arria, I, and many others in the CSDF agree that the RA is not sufficiently balanced at the moment to protect our rights as citizens. The question I have for you, given your role in creating the current situation, is are you willing to talk about this with the whole CSDF at our meeting tomorrow or are you only interested in talking to one of us? Are you seriously interested in seeking a solution for this crisis, or is this just another attempt to spit us?

[Beathan]

Jon --

What is with the personal attacks?

I am interested in balancing the power of the RA by instituting better checks. I think that a referendum or initiative process could be a good way to do that. I am, in principle, a strong supporter of referendum in real life. To a lesser extent, I am a strong supporter of public initiatives as well, but with certain caveats (tax and spend issues -- public budgets -- are often too complicated for direct democratic action). Based on this, I indicated that I was willing to work with Arria to craft a referendum or initiative process. I think that the efforts to increase direct democracy ceased when the DPU lost power to the CSDF, and those efforts are worth new life. I am willing to make the effort one of the flagship issues of the Simplicity Party.

What concerns me is that the CSDF, at least as represented by Jon, appears more interested in increasing and consolidating its own power, rather than trying to create a balanced system that works well, while protecting dissenter's rights and citizen rights, regardless of which party is in power. The SP is not about power grabbing. We are about creating the best possible system -- which we believe to generally be the simplest workable and safe system.

I don't see the threat of ThePrincess's bill. The LRA runs the RA -- not the State. Therefore, I don't think it deprives any voters of their vote to make the LRA a position appointed from within the RA. In fact, I think that if the LRA were selected by a majority of the RA, we would not have the problems we currently do. The RA would select its own leader -- and that person would be the person the RA is willing to be lead by. The problem we now have is, in large part, a result of the LRA being a person some members of the RA do not want to be lead by and did not consent to be lead by. If the LRA were selected by the RA, the LRA would have a much greater claim to legitimate RA leadership -- even among those members who voted for someone else.

If we want some position to reflect the relative power of the factions, we should reform the executive to provide for direct election. Given our multi-party system, it is unlikely that we will have any candidate win a clear majority of such a direct vote any time soon. However, using a borda count system for direct election of the Chancellor would resolve this.

Also, I think that a direct elected Chancellor would have a better claim to independent action -- especially in the exercise of the veto power the Chancellor has. I recall that Aliasi, as Chancellor, was very, very circumspect in her use of Chancellor veto because she was very aware that she had no direct mandate from the people. For that reason, even though she (in hindsight, very perceptively) realized that Ash's Judiciary Act was a monstrosity, she did not veto it because she did not believe that her mandate was sufficient to set aside the will of the only elected officials in the CDS.

I am willing to have a discussion about how to reform our system to improve and simplify it. I am not willing to have that discussion within the parameters I think Jon is asking for -- that is, how to improve and simplify our system such that the power of the CSDF is amplified and insulated from challenge.

Beathan

[Patroklus Murakami]

Well, this was a bad idea when 'old CARE' proposed it and it's still a bad idea now that NuCARE are reviving it with Beathan's support.

What this proposal does is remove power from the citizens in choosing the LRA and hands it to whichever group of factions can stitch together a coalition in a (virtual) smoke-filled room. Instead of having the predictable election of the LRA via the ballot box we get the horse-trading and lack of transparency that so often characterises real world politics. In the current circumstances, for example, it means that the Simplicity Party and NuCARE can band together and choose the LRA despite the clear mandate won by the CSDF; we got more than 50% of the first preferences in the election but this proposal is aimed at installing someone from one of the parties that lost the election!

It's particularly disingenuous for Beathan to claim that this will 'solve our current problems'; it's Beathan's alliance with the NuCARE in disrupting RA meetings which is the main problem! What I find most hilarious about this proposal, and the one to add 700 pages of rules to RA meetings, is how the ones who cause the most disorder at meetings are the ones who then claim they have the solution!

Beathan will vote for this along with his allies in NuCARE. I'd like to know if Brian and Sonja plan to support this proposal.

[Arria Perreault]

Arria --

I agree with you here (even though I am a member of the RA). I would be happy to work with you on a referendum bill. Please send me your ideas by private message, inworld note, IM -- or arrange a meeting.

Beathan

Beathan,

I will give soon my ideas about referendum. It is for me a good solution to balance the RA and to extent citizen rights.

Jon,

I have reacted as citizen who has the feeling to loose rights. I consider that elected persons who make proposals in a public area (what the sim is) may expect reactions from citizen (even it was published in a limited area). In real world, we can consider that the press or any media (even blogs from citizen) would also play this role. In CDS, the forums are important, because it is the only way for citizen to express themselves.
I have always said my interest in developping direct democracy in CDS.

[Jon Seattle]

I am interested in balancing the power of the RA by instituting better checks. I think that a referendum or initiative process could be a good way to do that. I am, in principle, a strong supporter of referendum in real life. To a lesser extent, I am a strong supporter of public initiatives as well, but with certain caveats (tax and spend issues -- public budgets -- are often too complicated for direct democratic action). Based on this, I indicated that I was willing to work with Arria to craft a referendum or initiative process. I think that the efforts to increase direct democracy ceased when the DPU lost power to the CSDF, and those efforts are worth new life. I am willing to make the effort one of the flagship issues of the Simplicity Party.

The original referendum bill, you may remember was written by Pat not by a member of the DPU. The CSDF introduced bills, like the current commission act, (that DPU opposed), to increase citizen participation. I don't thing the CSDF has ever been against some form of direct democracy, if done well. However, I think there are some good reasons not to do direct democracy in a simple-minded way.

You happen to know that I am the author of both the New Guild charter and the Cedar Island charter (I posted a summary of the Cedar Island charter in the SP forum some time ago, so I am sure you read it). What are those if not direct democracy? Did you forget, or are you just trying to convince people of something that is not true?

What concerns me is that the CSDF, at least as represented by Jon, appears more interested in increasing and consolidating its own power, rather than trying to create a balanced system that works well, while protecting dissenter's rights and citizen rights, regardless of which party is in power. The SP is not about power grabbing. We are about creating the best possible system -- which we believe to generally be the simplest workable and safe system.

Outright lies.

1. I am a loyal member of the CSDF, but I hold no official position in that organization. I did volunteer to convene meetings. I am not party head, nor an RA representative. I do not, and never presented myself as representing the CSDF. I am no more a representative then Arria is. In fact, the CSDF listens to me only about 33.33% of the time.

2. I have no government position, am not a RA representative, am not a civil servant, do not even have a position in the Guild (which is an independent organization in any case) in spite of my recent offer to teach. Indeed, other than speaking my mind I have no official power whatsoever. I am not interested in power at all, but I am interested in democracy.

3. I used to think that SP shared my view and interest in democratic institutions, but supporting disruption in the RA is not a legitimate way to get support for your bills. Making baseless accusations you have posted here smearing Pat is pretty bad apple all around. Lies, like several in your post just here, is not a great approach either. I happen to still believe that Brian supports democratic institutions.

I don't see the threat of ThePrincess's bill.

So if fact, when it comes down to it, you support this bill. A complete U-turn from what you were telling Arria a moment ago. She opposes it.

I am willing to have a discussion about how to reform our system to improve and simplify it. I am not willing to have that discussion within the parameters I think Jon is asking for -- that is, how to improve and simplify our system such that the power of the CSDF is amplified and insulated from challenge.

Another baseless accusation. The CSDF is a democracy with open meetings every week, and we do indeed vote on all bills as group. We have always welcomed non-party members to our meetings, including a series of meetings last term that were attended by Brian while we worked on the IP bill together.

[Jon Seattle]

I have reacted as citizen who has the feeling to loose rights. I consider that elected persons who make proposals in a public area (what the sim is) may expect reactions from citizen (even it was published in a limited area). In real world, we can consider that the press or any media (even blogs from citizen) would also play this role. In CDS, the forums are important, because it is the only way for citizen to express themselves. I have always said my interest in developping direct democracy in CDS.

I agree with all of this. Thats all I am also.

[Beathan]

Jon --

I have not disrupted the RA meetings. I do, however, object to some of the ways Pat has been running the meetings -- such as his refusing to allow the RA to modify its own agenda through procedural motion. That said, I think that I have been clear on my take on Pat's leadership of the RA -- I think he is a good man doing a thankless job in the face of disruptive opposition while hampered by poor procedures.

I did not say that I favored ThePrincess's proposal. I said that I don't see the threat in it. That said, I also acknowledge that, at present, the LRA position is the only position in the CDS that recognizes the party that received the most electoral support. In fact, I am inclined to oppose ThePrincess's proposal (as I opposed the CARE proposal last term) until and unless there is some office that replaces the LRA as the indication of electoral plurality. I specifically proposed reforming the Chancellor's office to serve this goal.

Further, I think that, unless my colleague Brian wanted to be LRA, I would vote for Pat as LRA if the LRA were to be elected by the RA. I would certainly have done so at the start of this session. I further believe that Pat would have more legitimacy as LRA if he had been selected by the members of the RA in such a process. NuCARE would be on far thinner ice in objecting to Pat's leadership if he had not received his position by fiat but by RA vote.

What I was responding to in your posts is your constant call for the CSDF to be empowered. Part of that request is legitimate -- because the CSDF received a mandate from its support in the last election. Again, I believe that that is a substantive mandate to pursue the items on the CSDF agenda -- and I stand willing to work with the CSDF in passing legislation based on that mandate and that agenda. However, the mandate is not a procedural mandate nor a personal mandate for Pat. Claiming otherwise is plain over-reaching.

Arria --

In my area, a "referendum" is a matter passed by the legislature and referred to the people for popular vote, which becomes law only when the people approve it. An "initiative" is a matter proposed directly by the people (usually through a signature petition with a threshold percentage of citizen signatures) that is then passed by majority vote of the people, bypassing the legislature entirely. Further, initiatives and referendums, unlike ordinary statutes, cannot typically be vetoed -- although they can be determined to be unconstitutional. I understand that the Swiss model is different.

Beathan

[Patroklus Murakami]

I have not disrupted the RA meetings.

I beg to differ. I think you have disrupted RA meetings in alliance with NuCARE. The texts are there for people to read and judge for themselves. You will vote for this, along with your other proposals to undermine the LRA, as part of a campaign to marginalise the CSDF. We are not seeking to expand our power here but you are seeking to frustrate the democratic wishes of our citizens as expressed through the ballot box. The CSDF has bugger-all power frankly - two seats out of seven despite winning over 50% of the voters' first preferences, and the LRA position, which you are actively seeking to undermine. We have a DPU Dean and a NuCARE Chancellor; the CSDF is hardly monolithic.

The sad things is the support for bad laws - the RA Process Bill and this one - in order to undermine the CSDF for short-term political advantage. The RA members all swore to put the interests of the CDS first but I see no evidence that the majority are taking this seriously.

[Beathan]

Pat --

Your response mystifies me. Please give me an example. Unless you consider my attempts to allow the RA to set its own agenda by procedural motion (something Jon has said is allowed -- but you have refused to allow) as "disruptive", I have no idea what you are talking about.

I certainly don't wish to either undermine the CSDF or prevent the proper functioning of the RA. I want to institute policies and procedures that provide for the proper functioning of the RA regardless of which party has been in power. If you can tell me what your concern is -- specifically -- I would like to consider whether I have been disruptive or whether I was just trying to move the RA meetings into productive avenues of discussion, even if you as LRA wanted to lead us into blind alleys.

Also, you must allow those of us not in your party to have different views of what is "the good of the CDS." I don't think that anyone in the RA is motivated by anything other than the good of the CDS. However, many of us see that differently than the CSDF. That said, I remain willing to work on passing the CSDF substantive agenda -- which I do think has an electoral mandate. However, I am not willing to cease my efforts to reform the RA procedures to make them more predictable, flexible, productive and fair. Far from being a sideline issue, I think that procedural reform is a critical issue for the good of the CDS.

Beathan

[Patroklus Murakami]

Beathan -

I'm puzzled at your mystification You have, along with your NuCARE allies, disrupted every RA meeting this term by sighing about 'LRA dictat' and your displeasure that the items you want higher on the agenda are not in the place you want them to be. Along with NuCARE you have made RA meetings ungovernable. The same procedures that you rail against were perfectly fine to run meetings last term when both you and ThePrincess served on the RA. They were perfectly fine for the two years previously but, now that the minority parties are able to gang up on the CSDF, you want to change them. Your tactics have been shameful - you create the disruption and then claim to have the answer to the situation you have yourself created. I trust that the irony of a proponent of 'Simplicity' recommending that we adopt 700 pages or arcane rules to govern our meetings isn't lost on anybody!

[Beathan]

Pat --

What are you smoking? Show me one line on a single transcript of an RA meeting in which I complained about LRA dictat. At best, I have a line or two when the meetings go awry because you are incapable of running them -- in which I observe that more formal procedures would be better. You are confusing my forum posts with my RA participation -- and I see both very differently. The forum is for debate -- the RA sessions for work.

You have now persuaded me, for the first time, to support ThePrincess's bill wholeheartedly and in its current form -- and to remove the request I made of her that we not implement the bill, if it passes, until next term. It is clear that we need a new leader of the RA -- and need one now. We need an LRA to have a more rational and measured temperament than you have. (I have long held private reservations about you as LRA in this regard -- but your inability to work and play well with others is making the RA impossible. We got very little done last term as a result. This term is looking even worse. Oh, I do so miss Claude.)

Beathan

[Patroklus Murakami]

Beathan -

LOL! You're so transparent, it's hilarious. So now you're supporting ThePrincess' bill because I called you on your disruption of RA meetings? So, now it's my fault you're going to support this bill? As if you weren't going to in any case! You must think we're all smoking something odd if you think we will buy this.

No one can is capable of running RA meetings in the face of systematic and orchestrated disruption like I've faced from you and your NuCARE allies this term. You have acknowledged elsewhere that there's a whispering campaign against my conduct as LRA and yet you ally with the very people conducting the campaign. You're standing shoulder to shoulder with the playground bullies. Shame on you.

Show me one line on a single transcript of an RA meeting in which I complained about LRA dictat.

Beathan Vale: OK — another meeting run by LRA dictat —
sighs wistfully

Beathan Vale: of only there were some better way

From the transcript of the RA meeting on 24 February. *Such* a short memory!

[Beathan]

OK Pat - you are right, I did use the phrase "LRA dictat". With regard to a whispering campaign -- I don't whisper. If I have something to say, I say it in the open and on these forums.

I still stand by what I have said -- including my last post. I was going to vote against TP's proposal -- I now support it. I do so not because you "called me out", but because you have once again confirmed, as you have time and again, that you just don't have the temperament to be LRA. You are a fighter -- not a consensus builder. I am voting for Obama and against Clinton for similar reasons.

With regard to how you are running the RA, I again say, "if only there were some better way."

Beathan