Jamie's Conflict of Interests Bill

[Patroklus Murakami]

Jamie posted the following bill in 'RA Discussion'. I'm reposting it here so we can discuss it more widely.
=============================
1. No person who is holding a position as a member or officer of a branch of CDS government may simultaneously hold a position as a member or officer in a different branch of CDS government.

2. All persons holding a position as a member or officer of a branch of CDS government must make a public 'declaration of interest' statement to the CDS Forums (or appropriate substititute medium), if they act to approve or reject any action, in their official government role, that they reasonably can conclude would benefit themselves uniquely, as opposed to the general case of benefits that accrue generally to all CDS citizens.
=============================
The CSDF is inclined to support this but there are couple of issues to consider. There is already text in the Constitution which covers the first point.
Article II, Section 5 on Chancellor Selection Process states "The Chancellor may not be elected to or serve on the Representative Assembly, nor serve on the Scientific Council. The Chancellor may hold a position in the Artisanal Collective but may not vote therein." In addition, Article V, Section 2 on Exclusivity states "Citizens may not serve simultaneously in the Representative and Philosophic branch." The SC has previously interpreted this latter point to mean that citizens may hold office in the RA and SC at the same time but may not vote in both branches i.e. if an SC member is elected to the RA (or an RA member selected to join the SC) they must give up one of their votes. If the RA wishes to change this I think you would need a constitutional amendment to make it clear that holding office in both branches is forbidden. You could do that by amending the Constitution to read "Citizens may not hold office simultaneously in more than one branch of the CDS Government (Executive, Representative or Philosophic branches)."

I think you also need to clarify what's meant by 'member or officer' if you wish to keep it in part 1. Does this only cover the positions with popular authority? I.e. the SC members, RA members and Chancellor? Or does this include civil service positions such as the PIO, Estate Owner and Treasurer? There are other passages in the Constitution and laws which regulate these positions so you would need to check that any new law does not conflict with these. The reference to 'member or officer' in part 2 is fine if it relates to everyone including civil servants. It's right that people should declare their interests when taking decisions they could personally benefit from. There's a forum thread where people can declare their interests. It's one I started almost two years ago now.

[Jamie Palisades]

Thanks for the thoughtul comments, which I am reviewing.
Patroklus' faction colleague Gwyneth Llewelyn also made an pertinent interesting suggestion, during the RA by-election campaign, about changing the oaths of office, that's worth discussing.
The fundamental virtues of disclosures are that they better inform the electorate and factions to sort out tough cases -- but also, they give us a clear basis for action, if someone has serious, overlapping selfinterests that obviously affect their official duties but do *not* disclose them. However, I have to say, it's something to be approached with humility ... people can omit disclosures in good faith ... and I am not as big a fan of banning, public executions and the like as some of our neighbors. I do not see witch-burning as the sort of tourist feature CDS should encourage. Even though that will disappoint Despot Des (who likes a good show) and some of our lawyer-citizens (who like a good judicially-managed flogging).
Likely we will take up this, and the related constellation of bills, within the next two or three RA meetings. Regards Jamie P

[cleopatraxigalia]

ok i am going to say now, that i am not even reading more than the first sentance of Pat's post............WHY first of all can Pat read the RA discussion 1. and two why on earth are you reposting something, Pat, that was written in a place.........I AM SURE on purpose..........in where it was..........

I thought you gave up your seat in the RA pat? can someone tell me what is going on here?

[Justice Soothsayer]

can someone tell me what is going on here?

Sure, I'll tell you, as it is quite simple. Jamie posted the bill in the RA discussion section, where only members of the RA can post their comments. Pat has re-posted the information here, where all members of the community can comment, not just RA members.

[Flyingroc Chung]

TP, while Pat is no longer in the ra, the CDs has a long history of discussion and citizen input on pending and proposed legislation. Since he is unable to post in the ra forum, the legislative discussion is a good place to open the discussion to the general public.

Pat does bring up some good points. I think part of the reason we have been tolerant in the past about people holding different government an non-government position is due to necessity. At some point in our history we had gone from more than 100 citizens to less than 10. And when you have less than 10 people everyone has to pitch in in various concurrent roles.

I think there may still be a residual fear that something similar happens, that is we will have more roles to fill than people to fill them.

[Cindy Ecksol]

ok i am going to say now, that i am not even reading more than the first sentance of Pat's post............WHY first of all can Pat read the RA discussion 1. and two why on earth are you reposting something, Pat, that was written in a place.........I AM SURE on purpose..........in where it was..........

I thought you gave up your seat in the RA pat? can someone tell me what is going on here?

Prin, we can ALL read the RA discussion -- but only RA members can post there. This is as it has always been. And I've noticed that RA members will often cross-post items in public discussion forums when public comment is appropriate. What's the big deal?

Cindy

[Rose Springvale]

We have all always been able to read the RA discussion board. All posts.

[Beathan]

::Sigh::

Perhaps we should just get the fight over with and prosecute Pat for Crimes Against Humanity and for having the audacity to continue to pay attention to the RA, even though he is no longer on it. (BTW -- Pat et al, this is a snide joke, not a serious proposal.)

Meantime, can we get this discussion back on track. I am personally undecided as to the merits of the Conflict of Interest bill and would appreciate the observations of citizens on it (especially those opposed -- as, all things being equal, I would be hard pressed, in the end, to vote against public ethics reform legislation).

Beathan

[Moon Adamant]

Hello all

Just one point, which is minor... if you are going to review bills, etc, the reference to the 'Artisanal Collective' in the Constitution is no longer correct and should be removed, as that Branch no longer exists.