Discussion about LRA Bill

[Patroklus Murakami]

Beathan -

I didn't accuse you of taking part in the whispering campaign. I don't believe that you put the knife in behind people's backs, you do it in public like you have in the RA meetings this term. I accused you of standing with the playground bullies. That's who you've allied yourself with and you should be ashamed of yourself. You know full well that there's been a campaign of lies and rumours spread about me since NuCARE's electoral 'tactics' were exposed. You have supported the whisperers for temporary, factional advantage. Disgraceful.

My record stands for itself - I've built a consensus on areas where we have been able to do so and I've done that throughout my time in the CDS. I've also fought my corner, sometimes quite strenuously but, given your many posts during your fight against the Judiciary Act, calling me a 'fighter' is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black! So far this term I've developed positive CSDF proposals to enhance commercial activity, reorganise our code of laws, enable expansion to take place and 'green' our sims. I've approached the other faction leaders to see what areas of consensus we can work on in a multi-faction RA. I have worked bloody hard to build a consensus and focus on taking this community forward while enduring a sustained campaign of harrassment from your 'Nu' buddies; you've focussed on..... changing the RA meeting procedures. I don't have to take lectures from you on my conduct, I compare pretty favourably.

[Beathan]

OK --

Pat,

Some fair points. Some not. I'll say two things and then bow out of this debate.

First, I never said that I had the temperament to be the LRA -- or that I want the job. I don't want the job. I like to be the point man on the line too much to want the leadership role. The leader should not walk point.

Second, I don't consider NuCARE to be my allies. I have attacked NuCARE -- and the NuCARE electoral tactics -- more vehemently than you have (more vehemently than anyone other than Jon, in fact). I also have repeatedy expressed my desire to work with the CSDF in enacting the CSDF mandate -- but preserving the broken rules for RA meetings is not part of that mandate.

That said -- with regard to our collective legislative "accomplishments" so far -- you cite the creation of 2 commissions and a bill that is not even related to anything about how the CDS is run or experienced inworld. I support the commerce commission -- and hope it produces a plan to improve commerce in the CDS. But, unless it does, it is a talk shop. Similarly, Code Reorganization (which was originally a Simplicity Party idea) will hopefully produce results -- and I have great hope that Brian will do a better job than I did when I tried. I also support the Green Sims bill, for RL reasons -- but realistically it will not effect anything in the CDS. My process bill, which you poo-poo, and the sim proposal are the only substantive pieces of legislation so far. Further, the sim proposal came up only through the agitation you complain of (as you said, "we have more important things than the new sim -- let's do it later" -- more important things like, I suppose, new committees and the green sim bill).
Beathan

[Brian Livingston]

I've been asked by a number of parties about my stance on the proposed LRA Bill (although I think technically it's a PCA?). Simply put, I cannot support this proposal.

Arria made an extremely valid point when she noted that the assignment of the LRA position to the highest ranked representative of the highest ranked party is an important form of democratic expression. This expression is especially important in our current situation where there is no faction holding a majority of the seats. The ability of the LRA to set the pace and agenda for R.A. sessions is the mechanism we have for citizens to empower the party that received the largest share of the vote with the ability to enact the platform that they ran on, while still requiring consensus-building among the factions.

In addition and certainly secondary to the above, given the recent nature of the R.A. meetings, I am extremely hesitant to vote for any legislation that will lead to further instability in the assembly with minimal benefits in return. I certainly agree that there are changes to the R.A. procedures that need to be enacted to allow us to grow and operate efficiently, however this proposal is one that I feel will negative affect the institution of the R.A. and our community at large.

Brian Livingston

[Leon]

I couldn't agree more Brian!

Sunday's RA meeting was just disgraceful. If only we could channel the energy expended into something positive. I found it ridiculous that even though everyone was for expansion we somehow still had over and hours worth of talking over each other, arguing for the sake of arguing and fighting just because some people have taken exception to each other.

Maybe it is time for everyone to take a deep breath, step back a little, and focus on moving the CDS forward as opposed to arguing amongst ourselves?

Yours naively,
Leon

[mtlundquist]

Pat

When putting together the proposed LRA bill I had a number of thoughts in mind. I wanted to ensure primarily a clear mandate for the LRA to lead effectively the RA. This leadership role is I think clear in the job description. That leadership is in the context of the current electoral system we have in CDS. Its not a first vote only system rather its one of expressed preferences and allocation of votes according to those preferences. This, as I'm sure you know, favours the creation of a multi party system which in its turn favours a concensus style of government. Therefore the LRA needs to be able to lead that collection of different parties and party views and draw out the concensus amongst them to move forward the agenda of CDS government. As Beathan has said recent events have lead me to doubt you in that role, I spoke very directly to you personally after a recent RA meeting about this very point. However I do believe that people have the ability to change and adapt and I would actually love to see you rise up to the role of LRA and help us move the agenda forward. It seems from the manifestos of the parties that there is already a great deal of concensus. Properly drawn out we could achieve a great deal this session.

You will also notice that I put a significant check and balance into the bill. Specifically it would take a 2/3rds majority i.e. 5 out of the current 7 members of the RA to remove an LRA from post. Think about this for a minute. For that to happen most of the RA would have to believe strongly that the LRA was not operating effectively enough to run the business of the RA. Without this bill if 5 out of 7 RA members believed the LRA was not effective then I personally think the job of the LRA would be untenable anyway.

I further point out that under the transition arrangements point a) expressly states 'that the current incumbent LRA continues to serve as LRA'. This therefore is not a bill to automatically force you as the incumbant LRA out of office. Rather its a bill to ensure that we get good and effective (LRA) leadership, with checks and balances, so that the RA, in turn, can provide good and effective leadership to CDS as a whole.

Finally with regard to the charge you make that a number or RA members have disrupted RA proceedings. Speaking for myself (I'm sure that others will speak for themselves) I have wanted to see the effective leadership and progress I outline above. I feel sad that I have to resort to quoting the 'rules of the RA' in order to achieve this. An autocratic LRA style will breed more of this procedural nit picking. I want to move away from this and I believe this bill will actually help the LRA now and in future to lead from a true position of authority from within their peer group. I would also point out that if you look at the RA transcripts for this session you will see that NuCARE has, in the interests of concensus, withdrawn a number of NuCARE bills and supported those of others, including I might add CSDF!

[mtlundquist]

Please note in posting my previous post I realised that part of the proposed bill had been ommitted from ThePrincess post. This has now been corrected on the forum and a new notecard submitted for RA discussion this week.

[Jon Seattle]

MT, why was the bill not posted in the Legislative section as a whole? The is the customary way to introduce bills, so the whole community has a chance to comment on it.

[Leon]

MT and everyone else.

I'd like to make an observation and would appreciate it if you'd comment on it.

If memory serves me correctly Pat has been LRA since I joined the CDS. That implies that for at least two whole sessions of the RA he has performed his duties admirably, or at least good enough to be re-elected twice. Since this session I've seen nothing except negative comments and disruptive behaviour by members of the RA. Am I to believe that suddenly Pat has turned into this autocratic monster that no-one can get along with?

This begs the question, what has changed?

What has changed, in my opinion, is the complete lack of respect by the elected RA members towards each other and to the positions they have been elected to.

Again, I guess naively
Leon

[Desmond Shang]

What this reminds me of:

CDS democracy = voting each other off the island?

C'mon guys. Deep breath, step back. You are *all* better than this.

[Beathan]

Desmond,

You are too right -- and if there is anything that Survivor has taught us, it is that there is no target bigger than that on the back of the leader. But -- thanks for comparing us to the All-Stars at least.

Beathan.

[mtlundquist]

MT and everyone else.

I'd like to make an observation and would appreciate it if you'd comment on it.

If memory serves me correctly Pat has been LRA since I joined the CDS. That implies that for at least two whole sessions of the RA he has performed his duties admirably, or at least good enough to be re-elected twice. Since this session I've seen nothing except negative comments and disruptive behaviour by members of the RA. Am I to believe that suddenly Pat has turned into this autocratic monster that no-one can get along with?

This begs the question, what has changed?

What has changed, in my opinion, is the complete lack of respect by the elected RA members towards each other and to the positions they have been elected to.

Again, I guess naively
Leon

Leon

I wasn't here for most of the other sessions all I can say is what I observe now. If you read the LRA bill closely you will see that it enhances the authority of the LRA while have some sensible checks and balances.

MT

[mtlundquist]

Election of the LRA - amendment bill
This amendment establishes a change to the appointment of the Leader of the RA (LRA) . The aim of this amendment is to:
a) define the procedure for the election of a LRA
Historically LRA has been appointed directly following the elections six monthly to the RA. The party with the largest vote and the elected member with the largest personal vote within that party has been appointed LRA.
The current 2008 January election created the situation where three parties were elected to two seats each and a fourth to a single seat. There is therefore no overall obvious lead party/ faction within the RA albeit that parties did get slightly more or less of the vote, as will always happen in any election.
It is also not necessarily the case that the member with the highest proportion of the vote in the party with the highest proportion of the vote is the best skilled person to lead the RA administratively.
It does not allow for the resignation of an LRA if that person wishes to remain a RA member.
This amendment responds to the concerns raised.
Amendment
1. The LRA is elected from within the ranks of the RA members by a simple majority vote of the RA at the start of the term of each six month RA session or at such time as the LRA post falls vacate for whatever reason.
2. The election for LRA shall be from candidates amongst RA member volunteers.
3. The LRA is permitted to resign from the post of LRA but may retain their seat in the RA.
4. The LRA may be removed from post prior to the expiration of the term of office by at least a two thirds vote of the Representative Assembly. This represents a vote of no confidence in the LRA.
Transition
It is recognised that adoption of this amendment creates a problem of transition from one method of appointment to another. It is not the intention of this amendment to raise concerns about any current incumbent LRA. Therefore the following transition arrangements are proposed.
a. That the current incumbent LRA continues to serve as LRA.
b. That clauses 3 and/or 4 above take immediate effect upon the adoption of this bill into legislation and therefore provide a mechanism, should it be needed, for the resignation or removal of the LRA subject to the terms in clauses 3 and 4.

[Leon]

MT,

Again I'm confused? One the one hand you (those in favour of this bill) are complaining about the 'abuse' of authority, and on the other hand you wish to enhance the authority of the LRA?

I claim the problem is not with the process, but rather it is with the current members of the RA. No process is going to fix negative and disruptive behaviour. It would be a very sad day indeed if this behaviour is intentional?

Naively
Leon

[Sonja Strom]

When I first read this bill I was in favor of it (although not strongly), because it seemed to me to provide a better way for the Representative Assembly to ensure its Leader would be someone it wanted to work with.

Since then, however, Arria’s posts here and views expressed to me by DPU members have led me to not want to support this bill, at least not in its current form. Mainly this is because this bill would remove the choice of LRA from the citizens by one step. I agree with Arria - and I believe also speak for the DPU - in saying that such a choice would send us in the wrong direction. The CDS government should represent the wishes of its citizens as accurately as possible.

There is an idea that I would like to bring up for consideration. It might be possible for the LRA to be elected by the RA from among the Representatives of the Faction that receives the most votes by borda count. This would seem to be something of a compromise between: 1) the RA not having any choice in who is the LRA (the current system), and 2) the RA choosing the LRA (what this bill proposes). Perhaps there could be a provision for an eventuality that if the RA were to become widely unhappy with the LRA it chose, or if the LRA resigned, then the RA could choose a new LRA. This would require at least a two-thirds majority RA vote to select again from among the Representatives of the Faction that had received that highest borda count in the last election. This possibility would be simply a modification of the bill proposed.

[Beathan]

Sonja --

Excellent compromise. However, I think that your compromise will not answer Jon's objection -- that the LRA is the only office by which we currently recognize and empower the party that has the best support in the election. As Pat and Jon have pointed out, the CSDF has a legitimate mandate based on the past election -- and they have the right to work towards implementing that mandate. Part of that power has been the choice of the LRA, who is traditionally the head of the faction that receives the most borda count votes. To change the rules incrementally, as your compromise would do, seems to cede control over one party's leadership to the other parties through their RA reps.

The problem here is that the LRA developed at a time when the CDS was much smaller. At that time, as now, only the RA was directly elected -- and only the LRA had any claim to be a "national leader". Thus, we created the office of LRA and had it play many roles -- roles that drive the office in multiple different directions now that our society has grown.

Leon --

This problem also points out the problem in at least one of your naive observations. Pat has served as LRA in both the last and the previous term. This indicates two things -- 1. that he has persuaded the CSDF to accept him as its leader and 2. that the CSDF has a generally popular agenda. It does not indicate that the entire CDS has selected Pat as our national leader. A party with a good agenda can be unwise in its choice of faction leader -- and can therefore saddle the CDS with a less than optimal LRA in the event the faction, true to its agenda, proves popular. If we want to truly test individual worthiness for office -- let's not have automatic offices. The LRA should be selected based on merit -- not based on the role he has within his party.

Beathan