1) What is the proper role of the Scientific Council in our democracy?
Its governmental role is to interpret and enforce the constitution. Its service roll is to resolve citizen disputes and moderate user forums and events.
2) How is the role of a member of the SC different from the role of member of the RA?
A RA member is an elected official selected by citizen votes for factions. RA members typically design , debate and vote on legislation.
A SC professors are chosen at the recommendation of current (SC) members based on demonstrated skill and desire to uphold the constitution without bias. SC members interpret and uphold the constitution.
3) What qualities should we look for in a member of the SC, and how do you possess those qualities?
The three qualities specified by the existing SC are
1) A diversity of opinions
My role as an RA member has demonstrated this
2) Members who can think
Again my work in the RA has demonstrated this, together with a set of reasoned posts in the forums on a number of topics
3) Level heads.
In RL I'm a senior manager in government service. I manage, at times, over 100 staff running a complex IT infrastructure environment for an organisation of 18,000 staff. I have chaired internal meetings and appeal hearings, where I have had to interpret law and internal policies and procedures.
4) Shortly after the last election, you asked the SC to order an entirely new election. Please explain why this action would not have been inappropriately "activist" of the SC.
There was a question over the type of count method used and a great deal of confusion from a number of people involved with that process as to how the count was/should be made. Given the confusion and the effect that the two methods would have on the election results i.e. two different results it seemed more aligned with democratic principles that the election be set aside and a new election ordered following clarification of the counting method. The election result may well have been exactly the same as the method chosen by the SC (in reality) but the method of getting to it would have been beyond reproach. Therefore I fell in that circumstance it wouls not have been inappropriately activist.
by Dnate Mars on Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:44 pm
I am glad that this matter has been resolved the way it has. MT will get to defend himself now. However, not everyone may know who MT is, I for one think he should post and take questions from the citizens. With SLCC and RL going on, not everyone can make it to the RA meeting. Perhaps he would like to post here and take questions. MT if you would like, could you tell us why you want to be part of the SC?
I did not directly seek nomination to the SC, in fact I was surprised to learn of my nomination. That said I do believe I can make an effective contribution and do have the ability to interpret the constitution and uphold it.
by Arria Perreault on Wed Sep 03, 2008 10:21 pm
MT, I have a question for you:
In the last RA meeting, I have told the story of Aristides the Just, a politician man in Athens in Antiquity. This man was going to be bannished at the Assembly by ostracism. He was at the Assembly which was voting his own banishment. Poeple had to write the name of the person they would like to bannish. Aristides was sitting near a man who was illeterate. This man asked him to write "Aristides" on his ostracon. Aristides did it. We can probably interpret this story in several ways. In my point of view, it shows someone who is so full of respect for the institution that giving the possibility to a person to vote is more important that his own fate. This is an outstanding comportment, but I personnaly expect that SC members put the respect of laws and institutions much higher than their own interest and the interest of their factions and friends. It can really happen that you will have to take a decision against your own interest or in defavour of your faction or of a friend. Can you publicly declare that you agree with this principle?
If your question, arria, boils down to will I uphold the constitution, then the answer is yes I will. The point of having a number of SC members is to, as noted above, provide a diversity of opinion. The constitution like any law is open to interpretation and its the job of the SC to clarify and rule on those interpretations when questions come up. Again like any law its possible for there to be disagreement even within the SC asto the interpretation. The fact that there are a number of Sc members should help balance any discussion and augument. At the end of the day when a decision is made collectively by the SC it is the responsibility of all its members to support and uphold that decision whatever their personal views. In the event of a major unreconcilable differenece then a SC member could use the option of resigning their seat rather than be associated with a decision their feel they cannot support. However I would see this happening only in very rare and extreem cases.
Gwyn
However, the Constitution is quite clear that one of the two fundamental criteria for a nomination (not the three new criteria enumerated and repeated by the Dean) implies demonstrated skill in the past — not a "promise do demonstrate skill in the future"! Although it's commendable that any member of the SC promises to "behave as a true SC member ought to behave", the appointment of new members are supposed to be for citizens that already "behave as a SC member" ("demonstrated skills"), not ones that promise to do so in the future.
In the light of this apparent paradox between what the Constitution says, what the new criteria for your appointment are, and what your past behaviour "as a politician" demonstrated to the public (taking into account your pledge to drop that behaviour once appointed), how do you review your own nomination as a member of the SC? How would you, as a SC member, deal with the apparent paradox of nominating a member that does not fulfil one of the criteria established in the Constitution but fulfils all others (including, of course, an unanimous nomination by the SC)?
I believe that the work I have done for CDS both before I was elected to the RAand during the last term demonstrates my commitment to CDS, democracy and the constitution. All the actions I have taken in those capacities have been in accordance with the constitution and I have at times refered to it to confirm this. I believe therefore I have demonstrated skill. I refer also to my comments above about my RL responsibilities which also accord with this.
With regard to your hypthetical about a nomination of 'someone' who does not demonstrate the full skills then I would seek to establish how critical that missing skill was, as a requirement for nomination and allow it to weight my decision accordingly.
I alsonote for the record that the constitution lays out clear guidelines as to the roles of the variuos bodies in agreeing members of the SC
Section 2 - The Scientific Council Body
The SC is comprised of Professors, Chairs, and a single SC Dean. Professors are chosen at the recommendation of current members based on demonstrated skill and desire to uphold the constitution without bias. Chairs are nominated by the Dean and approved by a simple majority vote.
Section 7 - Powers of the RA
In regards to the Philosophic branch:
The RA provides a vote of confidence on candidates to the Philosophic branch. This vote is in regards to their perceived likelihood to uphold the constitution.
Clearly the role of the Sc has already been performed in nominating and unanimously accepting that nomination they agreed the 'demonstrated skill and desire to uphold the constitution without bias. '
The role of the RA is equally clear 'This vote is in regards to their perceived likelihood to uphold the constitution.' So the RA simply has to be assured that I will will be likely to uphold the constitution. I can assure you that I willand can say,catagorically, that there is no time when I haven't upheld the constitution since becoming a citizen of CDS.
Pip Torok: muy impression i that MT is only interested in one decision that the SC made .. and has no other interest (tho I may be wrong)
Arria Perreault: I think that being in the SC supposes a deep knowledge of legislation and some ability to understand our processes
Pip, I'm sorry to have to disagree with you but your statement is not true. I have been involved in many aspects of CDS, the constitution and legislation as my record in the RA shows.
Arria Perreault: SC members must be also quiet neutral and see thing with the point of view of legislation
Gwyneth Llewelyn: In my personal case, I view candidates to the SC as being people who have repeatedly made publicly a good job of explaining legal issues (either on forums, or on meetings). That requires a thorough knowledge of the legal system and the Constitution, which is not easy to acquire ? that's why SC members are special.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: To be honest, the only times I saw MT raising questions about the Constitution,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: it was to distort them to favour his argumentation.
Jamie Palisades raises his eyebrow
I disagree with you on this Arria and point to my record.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So I second Arria's opinion ? the ability to pronounce comments on the Constitution ought not to be used as a personal advantage, and through that, earn a seat at the SC:...
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I also fear that the reason for getting MT in the SC is to make it a body that represents all factions equally. Well, that idea is commendable, of course, and I applaud it; but there are certainly more people in the CDS that would be able to represent their faction at the SC (if, allegedly, that was the reason)
I was nominated by Dnate a member of DPU which I feel deals with the question raised.
Moon Adamant: from reading our constitution, i read that SC members are 'expected to hold the constitution'
Arria Perreault: I don't think we have to choose people only because they have a good will. Being member of the SC requests an ability to be neutral, wise and to work for general interest. I don't see even myself as eligible for SC.
Moon Adamant: thus, i ask all RA members here present: do you believe that this candidate has the ability to attain this very clear qualification?
please see above
Patroklus Murakami: just a couple of observations - first of all my recollection of MTs performance on the RA differs from jamie
Patroklus Murakami: but MT is not here to defend himsefl so i won't say anthing more than that
Patroklus Murakami: the key question is 'is this a suitable candidate for the SC, able to uphold and defend the constituion?'
Please see above
Pip Torok: my recollection of "that meeting" indicates to me that MT preferrefd bluster to reasoned argument ... plus the fact that if someones does not turn to this meeting
Pip Torok: he has recourse to other means of saying
Pip Torok: that he will not turn up
Pip Torok: that being so he has not shown
Pip Torok: that he "answers moons criterion"
Pip Torok: (end)
Please see above and also note Justices apology as to meeting date confusion.
Justice Soothsayer: I wanted to ask MT his opinion about the proper role of the SC in our democracy, but he is now here to respond.
So I will have to rely on his actions as an RA member and his writings on the forums.
I don't think he has exhibited the kind of temperment we need on the SC.
So I'll vote no when we take a vote.
Justice Soothsayer: *not
Arria Perreault: I will tell you the story of Aristides, politician in Athens. A vote was organize to bannish him for 10 years (ostracism). He was sitting next to an man who did not know write letters. This man did not know his face too. He asked him to write "Aristidites" on his piece of ceramic. Aristides did it, because he did respect the instituions first before his own interest of destiny.
Danton Sideways: I wanted to comment on Claude's point 3
Danton Sideways: I've always seen MT keep his temper
Danton Sideways: but he is perceived to speak for The PRincess
Danton Sideways: who fails to keep heres
Danton Sideways: *hers
Danton Sideways: That's it
I can assure Danton that ThePrincess is very capable of speaking for herself. I am not her mouthpiece in anyway and have my own clear view of things. Indeed if Danton were party to the discussions between myself and ThePrincess he would see that we do not always see eye to eye.
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." Joseph Stalin
"It's not the voting that's democracy; it's the counting" Stoppard
