Moderator: SC Moderators
Justice, thanks for that link 
It sounds like a perfect model
So under that model, the "Council" (the RA) would appoint a "City Manager" (by whatever name...), and provide a means of approving its instatement (through a vote) as well as a way to remove him from office. Also, I particularly liked the way the City Manager has the duty to keep the RA fully in the loop. Very interesting concept!
Well... it's up for the RA to discuss!
"I'm not building a game. I'm building a new country."
-- Philip "Linden" Rosedale, interview to Wired, 2004-05-08
PGP Fingerprint: CE8A 6006 B611 850F 1275 72BA D93E AA3D C4B3 E1CB
Since we are something of a city-state, it might be interesting to contrast some other forms of municipal government:
[list:1eptgo7x][b:1eptgo7x]City commission government [/b:1eptgo7x] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Commission_government
City Commission government is a form of municipal government that was once common in the United States, but has fallen out of favor, most cities formerly governed by Commission having switched to the Council-Manager form. Some consider the City Commission as a predecessor of the Council-Manager form.
In a city commission government, voters elect a small commission, typically from five to seven members, on a plurality-at-large basis. These commissioners constitute the legislative body of the city and as a group are responsible for taxation, appropriations, ordinances, and other general functions. Individual commissioners are assigned responsibility for a specific aspect of municipal affairs, such as public works, finance, or public safety. One commissioner is designated to function as chairman or mayor, but this was largely a procedural or ceremonial designation and typically did not involve significant additional powers beyond that exercised by the other commissioners. As such, this form of government blends legislative and executive branch functions in the same body.
It is in many ways similar to the "weak mayor" form of Mayor-council government. This form of government originated in Galveston, Texas as a response to the Galveston Hurricane of 1900. After the constitutionality was tested and confirmed, this form of government quickly became popular across the state of Texas and spread to other parts of the United States. The City Commission form is sometimes known as the Galveston Plan or the Texas Idea.[/list:u:1eptgo7x]
[list:1eptgo7x][b:1eptgo7x]Mayor-council government[/b:1eptgo7x]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor-Council_government
Mayor-Council government is one of two variations of government most commonly used in modern representative municipal governments in the United States. It is also used in some other countries. The Mayor-Council variant can be broken down into two main variations depending on the relationship between the legislative and executive branches.
[b:1eptgo7x]Weak-Mayor Form[/b:1eptgo7x]
In this form of the mayor-council government, the council possess both legislative and executive authority. The council may appoint officials and must approve of mayoral nominations. The council also exercises primary control over the municipal budget.
Charles Adrian and Charles Press explain, "The weak-mayor plan is a product of Jacksonian democracy. It comes from the belief that if politicians have few powers and many checks, then they can do relatively little damage."
This form of government is most commonly used in small towns. It is a variant of City Commission government.
[b:1eptgo7x]Strong-Mayor Form[/b:1eptgo7x]
In the strong-mayor form the mayor is given almost total administrative authority, with the power to appoint and dismiss department heads without council approval. Likewise, the mayor prepares and administers the budget, although that budget often must be approved by the city council.
[/list:u:1eptgo7x]
I'd like to come back to the checks and balances issue here. Let's start with the present situation.
It's generally accepted that the Guild, warts and all, is a close to a separate executive as we have. The GM does have a limited veto (which can be overridden) over fiscal matters and can initiate impeachment proceedings if he/she believes members of the RA are acting in a fiscally irresponsible manner. In turn the RA can seek impeachment of a Guild member for failing to support the city fiscally. I'm not sure that any of these has ever been used, but as someone raised in a system which worries about such things, it's nice to know they're there, lest the RA vote to spend $L100 000 on virtual fureworks for the Dean's rezday celebrations
Both the CSDF cabinet proposal and the civic government models pointed to by Justice take the current GM veto and move it ....nowhere.
Those of you from parliamentary democracies point out rightly that your systems do quite well without such a thing. They also typically require yes votes from dozens or hudreds of legislators to pass something. Here in Neufreistadt it takes three.
Keep in mind that spending $L100K on virtual fireworks doesn't seem to be unconstitutional. So under a cabinet model, who would be there to stand up to the RA if they did such an unwise thing? I doubt the cabinet would do so since the RA could turn round and remove them.
On another front...
The CSDF worries that elections that allow political independents to run will create cults of personality and wreck our current issue based campaigns. I share some of this worry, I find the campaigns I have participated in here to be more intelligent and thoughtful than the real world ones which seek my vote. That said, I wonder if it isn't a bad thing to lock out of the electoral system all those who don't wish to subscribe to an extensive platform (or write one). It's certainly worth discussing further.
With the approval of legislation defining the Executive Branch and the election of our first Chancellor, the CSDF removes this proposal from legislative discussion.