LRA Proposal and problems with RA

[Beathan]

I respect and largely agree with my SP colleague's reasons for opposing the LRA proposal. On further reflection, my personal dissatisfaction with the current LRA's ability to lead the RA in an orderly, fail and measured way is a very poor reason for overturning a CDS institution. Special cases make bad law. Therefore, I will also oppose the LRA proposal, unless it includes a rule for alternative direct election of the Chancellor and unless it is not implemented until next term.

That said, I am very dissatisfied with the current RA. Some of the problem is from agitation -- but most of the problem arises from the manner of compiling, publishing and working through the agenda. That is, most of the problem is procedural. At the moment, the procedure is entirely determined by the LRA. This must change. If we continue as we are, with a procedure determined by the LRA, and if we continue to have serious procedural problems in the RA meetings, I will propose a vote of no confidence in the LRA.

Beathan

[Patroklus Murakami]

Beathan -

So, ThePrincess' proposed PCA is a bad idea now? Except... if you get a directed Chancellor and it is enacted next term? It seems to me you want to hedge your bets and keep open the possibility of voting for this rather than take a principled stand.

The plan is becoming clearer now though; the Beathan-NuCARE coalition want to depose me as LRA despite the fact that I was democratically elected to fulfill that role. Beathan, you don't get to blame 'some' of the problem on 'agitation' when you're one of the chief agitators! You and your NuCARE allies have stirred the pot at every RA meeting this term and wasted the first 15-30 minutes with complaints about the order of the agenda. This is despite the fact that you know very well this is the LRAs prerogative. Of course you can put forward proposals to change things, and you have, but you continually challenge and undermine the procedures we already have. That has set an unnecessarily aggressive and confrontational tone to every RA meeting this term.

I've tried very hard to understand your proposals on changing the RA procedures. I've suggested alternatives. I've researched "Robert's Rules" which are not very well known here in the UK, I've even gone to several major London bookshops to see if I could browse a copy and see what you're asking us to vote for. I've put forward compromises on this issue but I don't see much evidence of movement or compromise from your direction. But all the procedures in the world won't save us if a minority of RA members, principally you and ThePrincess, choose to disrupt meetings for sectarian reasons.

You now threaten a 'no confidence' motion in the LRA. Tell me, who do the conspirators want as a replacement? Who's the Barack Obama to my Hillary Clinton?

[Beathan]

In a different thread, Leon wrote

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

This is a true description of the recent RA meetings, but the cause of the problem is misdiagnosed. The sim discussion is a clear example of the RA trying to address policy details at an RA meeting which, by its nature, is not suited to such discussions. The discussion should have happened on the forums -- where the time constraints of the RA meetings don't apply and where there is much greater opportunity for full and broad community participation (as opposed to mere observation). Again, the problem is not from the floor -- it is from the chair.

A clear set of rules of procedures would solve these problems. Working with a set of rules not only circumscribes the interactions of the participants, preventing disruption and agitation, it also sets up topical tests for discussions which allow us to judge when work should be done off the record before we try to formally resolve an issue on the record.

I have asked for alternatives to RROs. So far only Pat has come forward with anything -- and his proposal is nothing more than another rule sketch, rather than a set of rules. We need procedural rules. I think RRO is the best known alternative we have. I hope we enact them soon lest chaos continue to reign.

Beathan

[Leon]

A clear set of rules of procedures would solve these problems. Working with a set of rules not only circumscribes the interactions of the participants, preventing disruption and agitation, it also sets up topical tests for discussions which allow us to judge when work should be done off the record before we try to formally resolve an issue on the record.

<Excluded other parts of message for brevity>

Beathan

Beathan,

I'm confused.

I was under the impression there was a clear set of guidelines to raising items for inclusion on the Agenda and working through that agenda. Not only that, these rules have worked well for the previous two RA sessions.

The problem seems to be that these rules are inconvenient to some. Do you really think putting a different procedure in place is going to make any difference if the current process can't be adhered to?

The issue here is that members of the RA are simply being obstructive for no apparent benefit to the CDS. It is not a case of being unable to follow procedure it seems to be a case of purposely ignoring it?

Leon

[Patroklus Murakami]

Beathan -

So the discussion at the RA on sim expansion was crap because I held it in the meeting instead of on the forums? I started the thread on the forums to discuss sim expansion and provided the questions to structure the discussion! Are you seriously trying to say that we should not have discussed this at the last RA meeting? There would have been an uproar if I had not included that item on the agenda from your NuCARE allies - "The CSDF wants to stall on expansion" and other such lies.

You had an opportunity to comment on the agenda and failed to do so. I have committed to publishing a draft agenda 24 hours in advance of meetings so that RA members can get back to me and suggest alterations. I did that last week - no one commented. So, if it was such a dreadful way to handle the item why didn't you say so?

You're trying to rationalise your own disruption of meetings and that of your NuCARE allies after the fact. You complain that I'm 'dictatorial' and 'autocratic' and then, when I actively involve the RA in setting the agenda you either ignore the opportunity or complain. Last week's meeting was a prime example of how you the critics cannot be satisfied - I bent over backwards to involve the RA in setting the pace of the meeting and all I got were complaints. As far as you're concerned I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't. The problem is not with me as Chair but with you and the other RA members who choose to disrupt our meetings.

[Jon Seattle]

I could not have said this better. Thanks!

[Beathan]

You're trying to rationalise your own disruption of meetings and that of your NuCARE allies after the fact. You complain that I'm 'dictatorial' and 'autocratic' and then, when I actively involve the RA in setting the agenda you either ignore the opportunity or complain. Last week's meeting was a prime example of how you the critics cannot be satisfied - I bent over backwards to involve the RA in setting the pace of the meeting and all I got were complaints. As far as you're concerned I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't.

Pat --

You are missing my point entirely. I don't think that you are personally "dictatorial and autocratic" -- I think that the rules force you to be dictatorial and autocratic as LRA. As Leon points out, these rules have worked in past, smaller sessions -- when the RA had 3 to 5 members. They ceased to work when the RA grew to seven members. They are working less and less. The problem is with the rules -- and the reliance on dictat from the chair to govern meetings. Personal rule does not work as well as rule of law in large systems. Patriarchal power works in families -- not in large meetings -- and we are finding that a meeting of 7 members with potentially many more observers is a large meeting.

I do think that you are "damned if you do and damned if you don't" strictly and autocratically govern our meetings in accordance with our rules -- but it is not I who damns you, it is our poor rules.

Beathan

[Jon Seattle]

As Leon points out, these rules have worked in past, smaller sessions -- when the RA had 3 to 5 members.

Poor Leon! He said that these rules worked well last session, when we had seven in the RA just as we have now. Or did that pass you by Beathan..

[Beathan]

As Leon points out, these rules have worked in past, smaller sessions -- when the RA had 3 to 5 members.

Poor Leon! He said that these rules worked well last session, when we had seven in the RA just as we have now. Or did that pass you by Beathan..

No Jon, I didn't miss it. I just didn't want to point out that "Poor Leon" is wrong about that. Last session was a zoo. This session is a zoo with the cage doors open. We are at the point of eating the zoo keeper (the LRA). We need better cages -- and Robert's builds a damn good cage.

Also, last session and this session are zoos not because RA members act up more than in the past (we really don't -- I once thought that we did, but after reviewing old transcripts, it is clear that we don't). Rather, it is because there are more RA members -- and we have reached a threshold number where informal and personal control of the meetings is just inadequate.

Again, anything that keeps Americans from shooting each other should be enough to maintain even a British level of civility in our RA meetings.

(Of course, I refer to British civility outside of Parliament. Even in America we did not have to separate the aisles by a distance sufficient to keep our legislators from stabbing each other. We prefer guns to swords in any case -- so such separation would be impractical. We had to develop a set of rules to keep the violence down rather than rely on architecture. The CDS should do likewise.)

Beathan