The executive and a federal structure - an idea

Here you might discuss basically everything.

Moderator: SC Moderators

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

The executive and a federal structure - an idea

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[b:1kxschhj][u:1kxschhj]The executive and a federal structure - an idea[/b:1kxschhj][/u:1kxschhj]

I notice that there has been much discussion of late on two important and related topics: (1) the proposals to change the unitary city state of Neufreistadt into a federation of islands and Franchulates called the "Confederation of Democratic Sumulators", and (2) the proposals to set up a functioning executive to streamline government such that the Representative Assembly does not have to meet and pass an Act every time that some re-organisation of the city streets, etc. is needed.

A good way of dealing with both issues efficiently would be a system whereby each city sim and franchulate would have an executive governer to deal with the local affairs of that particular locality, leaving the Representative Assembly free to do what a legislature is always supposed to do, that is legislate on general policy, always having the power to intervene in the details if necessary, but generally leaving the detailed administration to the respective governers.

The governers would, I propose, in the city states (Neufriestadt and Colonia Nova) be directly elected by the population of those states, and bear names consistent with their theme, so that, for example, Neufriestadt would have a [b:1kxschhj]Burgermeister[/b:1kxschhj], and Colonia Nova would have, as planned, a [b:1kxschhj]Prerator[/b:1kxschhj]. Elections could be held either at the same time as those for the Representative Assembly, or half way through its term.

For the Franchulates, the governers would be known simply as "[b:1kxschhj]governers[/b:1kxschhj]", and the details of their appointment would depend on the acquisition arrangement with the original owners, but, generally, the original owners should be appointed as governers in perpetuity (or else what incentive would they have to join the Confederation?), although it is possible to envisage situations where, for example, a collective ran the plot, and all, including the SL-side owner would like it to be run as a local democracy after joining the Confederation.

The governers (in the generic sense, including the Burgermeister and Prerator) would then have power to administer the local affairs of the locality in question, in particular the planning, zoning, public facilities, theme (except on the island sims, where the theme should be set once by the legislature and maintained in perpetuity thereafter), and so forth, whilst always being subject to the general law of the Confederation.

The office of the governer of a particular locality would receive a budget in proportion to the land fees and taxes generated by that locality, with the remainder thereof being passed to the Confederate Treasury.

This system could readily be acheived without any constitutional amendment at all, but by passage in the Representative Assembly of a series of bills (one for each sim/Franchulate) in terms similar to the following:

[b:1kxschhj]1. There shall be created the office of Burgermeister of Neufreistadt.

2. The Burgermeister of Neufreistadt shall, subject to any contrary provision in any enactment of the Representative Assembly, have the power:

(a) to determine the use to which any and all land in Neufriestadt shall be put;

(b) to expend monies held by the Office of the Burgermeister of Neufreistadt for the administration and management of public facilities (including, but not limited to, roadways, signage, public buildings, public events and similar), and to discharge any other duties or powers of the Office of the Burgermeister conferred by this Act or any other Act of the Representive Assembly;

(c) to publicise Neufreistadt;

(d) to appoint and pay deputies or other staff to hold office in the Office of the Burgermeister of Neufreistadt to facilitate the discharge of any function of the Office of the Burgermeister conferred by this Act or any other Act of the Representive Assembly;

(e) subject to the payment of adequate compensation to any citizen or citizens thereby affected, reclaim or swap any land held by any citizen of Neufreistadt for the purposes of discharging any function of the Office of the Burgermeister conferred by this Act or any other Act of the Representive Assembly, provided always that no citizen of Neufreistadt shall not be caused to have no holding in Neufriestadt at all thereby;

(f) to make regulations pursuant to the above; and

(g) to enforce such regulations in accordance with law.

3. Nothing in this Act shall give the Burgermeister of Neufriestadt any power to change the overall theme of Neufriestadt.

4. Any regulations made pursuant to S. 2 (f) of this Act shall be taken to repeal any inconsistent provision in any of the Acts of the Representative Assembly set out in Schedule 1 hereto.

5. The Burgermeister of Neufreistadt shall be elected by [i:1kxschhj][insert chosen electoral system here][/i:1kxschhj] every [i:1kxschhj][insert chosen term here][/i:1kxschhj].

6. The Office of the Burgermeister of Neufreistadt shall be assigned by way of budget [[i:1kxschhj]insert the means of calculating the proportion of fees here[/i:1kxschhj]], and shall publish full accounts of its financial affairs every [[i:1kxschhj]specify chosen interval here[/i:1kxschhj]].

7. Upon written request from any member of the Representative Assembly, the Burgermeister of Neufreistadt shall attend the next meeting of the Representative Assembly that is at least five clear days after the request was sent, and fully and truthfully answer there any questions posed by any member of the Representative Assembly about any aspect of the affairs of Neufreistadt or of the Office of the Burgermeister of Neufreistadt.

Schedule 1

[[i:1kxschhj]A list of Acts of the Representative Assembly that deal with the minutia of planning regulations in Neufriestadt[/i:1kxschhj]][/b:1kxschhj]

[b:1kxschhj][u:1kxschhj]Advantages of this system[/b:1kxschhj][/u:1kxschhj]

This system is effectively one of a [i:1kxschhj]national[/i:1kxschhj] legislature and a series of [i:1kxschhj]local[/i:1kxschhj] executives. As such, it is not strictly federal (a truly federal system would have a federal executive and legislature, and a local executive and legislature), but that is not necessarily a bad thing: true federations are best suited to very large jurisdictions (such as the United States of America), and are too cumbersome for what is essentially an organisaiton of, so far, well under a hundred people.

The principle advantage of the system is that it balances efficiency in management with democratic accountability: day-to-day management of the sims will be left to the authority of a single governer with executive power (so formal meetings are not required every time that it is desired to move a few buildings a few meters to the left), but the exercise of that power is accountable to the electorate in two separate ways: (1) by the process of direct election (in the city sims, at least), and (2) by the power of any member of the Representative Assembly to call the governer in question before it and make such enquiries of her or him as it will.

Furthermore, having different governers of differnt sims will enable local variation, which not only enables comparative evaluation of the best policies, but gives choice to prospective citizens as to where to "live" and set up shop, and a little healthy competition is not necessarily a bad thing, either.

I should be most interested in any comments on my proposal :-)

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Addendum: national executive

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[b:1s28dhl1][u:1s28dhl1]Addendum: national executive[/u:1s28dhl1][/b:1s28dhl1]

Incidentally, there is no reason why the structure that I suggest could not also be used at the same time to create national/federal executive agencies, as in:

[b:1s28dhl1]1. There shall be created the office of Treasurer of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators.

2. The Treasurer of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators of Neufreistadt shall, subject to any contrary provision in any enactment of the Representative Assembly, have the power...[/b:1s28dhl1]

etc.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Gwyneth Llewelyn
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1183
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:00 am
Contact:

Post by Gwyneth Llewelyn »

Basically, Ashcroft, your suggestion is very similar to the DPU's proposal (without the extra level of a "senate", where all locally elected representatives would be in a single body, working as a bi-cameral system with the current RA).

The CSDF is proposing as an alternative (since indeed NFS is tiny) an overall executive, and encouraging local citizen's associations to get elected to the RA instead — and delegate the "(con)federation" model for a much later stage, where there are not 100, but 100,000 residents (hehe).

Thus, your proposal and the DPU's put an emphasis of local authority with "national" representation; the CSDF's places the emphasis of "one nation, several sims" where the RA's representatives are elected [i:3oklml1u]both[/i:3oklml1u] from uninonimal circles as well as overall from the whole republic (not unlike the model for the [url=http://www.destatis.de/presse/englisch/ ... m:3oklml1u]German Bundestag[/url:3oklml1u]).

The reasoning behind the first model is that "themed" sims should be handled better by local authorities, thus adding an additional level of government between the residents of a sim and the "overall" government; the second model assumes that if Anshe can deal with 160 sims (many of which are differently themed) and 5000 residents (the size of a very small town), all that is needed is a form of local representativity of each sim at the RA level, but not necessarily "more government".

Despite what model will prevail (the first one, having more supporters at the RA level, has currently a good chance of succeeding, although it calls for a bigger constitutional change; the second model just needs a revision of the voting procedures, which could indeed just need a bill to be approved; both models call for an "executive branch" which will almost certainly need a constitutional change as well), there is always a trade-off between a "more federal" (even if not technically a "federation") and a "more republican" model. The first model allows for many more decisions to be made locally, which would slowly and over time become more distinct from the "overall" concept; the second model creates a stronger union, but it can give individual sims and franchulates a sense of having too little local power.

Actually, I don't see how there is a way to conciliate both systems :) Having uninominal circles [i:3oklml1u]and[/i:3oklml1u] a locally elected governor seems overkill, for instance. Remember that one of our biggest hurdles to overcome is dealing with absentism at the very few branches we have right now; the more branches and offices, the more important this issue becomes.

Imagine what would happen what would happen if the governor of one administrative region would be "away" for a few months. Well, very reasonably so, people would suggest that there should be a pair of governors elected (a governor and a vice-governor — the DPU's model suggests two senators per sim). But sometimes that is not even enough, so people would suggest, for instance, 3 or 4 "local authorities", to make sure that at least one is always available. Obviously this also means that you'd need to define a quorum (and the same problem we currently have at the RA right now)...

"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

Jon Seattle
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 6:18 am

Post by Jon Seattle »

Several comments (and I probably should catch up with the rest of the debate on other threads before posting, but here I am living dangerously.)

I like the idea that each sim and franchulate does not have its own deliberative body. The idea of one for every group of 25 to 35 people seems as if it could be difficult to manage.

Having said that, I have some worries:

1. Second Life is full of autocracies, and I would worry that the governor of each sim might evolve into the real decision maker, with the central RA rubber-stamping local decisions. The RA would be reluctant to enforce it’s will on the local population.

2. The Governor's role is bound to be a heavy one, and maintaining long term commitment and involvement is a problem in Second Life organizations in general. (And RL ones also.)

3. I am not at all comfortable with a political system that places competition between persons above competition between ideas. My worry is that the competition between joe and jane for governor will easily eclipse more substantive conversations about the social and economic systems we are establishing.

To the degree that the community can really pay for services, those are always symbolic payments that amount to trivial amounts in RL terms. A real command-based system is unlikely to work here,

Fortunately, we have a very large percentage of extremely bright and capable individuals who can and do contribute in small ways. The major question is how to organize things so as to coordinate and take advantage of those smaller contributions. We need to make sure that people are well organized, recognized for their work, and have a real say in how things are done.

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Gwyneth Llewelyn":1547avt0]Despite what model will prevail (the first one, having more supporters at the RA level, has currently a good chance of succeeding, although it calls for a bigger constitutional change; the second model just needs a revision of the voting procedures, which could indeed just need a bill to be approved; both models call for an "executive branch" which will almost certainly need a constitutional change as well)...[/quote:1547avt0]

I am not sure that I fully understand why you say that my suggested model would require a constitutional amendment to add a named "executive branch": does not the Representative Assembly have the power to pass an Act, such as that outlined above, revocably delegating some of its power to an individual or body under the constitution as it presently stands?

[quote:1547avt0]Imagine what would happen what would happen if the governor of one administrative region would be "away" for a few months. Well, very reasonably so, people would suggest that there should be a pair of governors elected (a governor and a vice-governor — the DPU's model suggests two senators per sim).[ But sometimes that is not even enough, so people would suggest, for instance, 3 or 4 "local authorities", to make sure that at least one is always available. Obviously this also means that you'd need to define a quorum (and the same problem we currently have at the RA right now)...[/quote:1547avt0]

Two points: first of all, my model does not entail any kind of committee, and therefore does not require any kind of quorum for anything. Even if a governer appointed deputies, there is nothing to say that those deputies should sit with the governer on any kind of formal committee requiring any sort of quorum.

Secondly, it would give governers the power to appoint any number of deputies or other staff as they saw fit, including, by entailment, temporary deputies to cover absences. However, an absence as long as 3-4 months would probably mean an entirely fresh governer being appointed, since, as I understand it, elections to the Representative Assembly are held every 4 months (and therefore, elections for the governers would probably also be every 4 months), and one could not very well stand for election as governer on an "I'm going to be on extended vacation" platform.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Justice Soothsayer
Pundit
Pundit
Posts: 375
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:14 pm

Proposed legislation

Post by Justice Soothsayer »

I'm submitting the following draft, based upon Ashcroft's proposal with a few modifications, for consideration by the RA.

This proposed legislation would make the Burgermeister an appointment of the RA, rather than an elected position. I agree with Jon that we should avoid making the selection of an executive a contest of personalities (avataralities?). One of the things I like about our little democracy is that our elections are about issues.

I'm also not including the provision of a budget, as I think that it best addressed by separate appropriating legislation.

[list:2t3yx9o2]
[b:2t3yx9o2]Burgermeister of Neufreistadt Act[/b:2t3yx9o2]

1. There shall be created the office of Burgermeister of Neufreistadt.

2. The Burgermeister of Neufreistadt shall, subject to any contrary provision in any enactment of the Representative Assembly, have the power:

(a) to determine the use to which any and all land in Neufriestadt shall be put;

(b) to expend monies held by the Office of the Burgermeister of Neufreistadt for the administration and management of public facilities (including, but not limited to, roadways, signage, public buildings, public events and similar), and to discharge any other duties or powers of the Office of the Burgermeister conferred by this Act or any other Act of the Representative Assembly;

(c) to publicise Neufreistadt;

(d) to appoint and pay deputies or other staff to hold office in the Office of the Burgermeister of Neufreistadt to facilitate the discharge of any function of the Office of the Burgermeister conferred by this Act or any other Act of the Representative Assembly;

(e) subject to the payment of adequate compensation to any citizen or citizens thereby affected, reclaim or swap any land held by any citizen of Neufreistadt for the purposes of discharging any function of the Office of the Burgermeister conferred by this Act or any other Act of the Representative Assembly, provided always that no citizen of Neufreistadt shall not be caused to have no holding in Neufriestadt at all thereby;

(f) to make regulations pursuant to the above; and

(g) to enforce such regulations in accordance with law.

3. Nothing in this Act shall give the Burgermeister of Neufriestadt any power to change the overall theme of Neufriestadt.

4. The Burgermeister of Neufreistadt shall be selected by the Representative Assembly from among any Neufreistadt citizen who shall make application to the LRA within ten (10) days of the passage of this Act. The term of office of the Burgermeister shall end at the conclusion of the current term of the Representative Assembly, but may be reauthorized by the following Representative Assembly.

5. Upon written request from any member of the Representative Assembly, the Burgermeister of Neufreistadt shall attend the next meeting of the Representative Assembly that is at least five days after the request was sent, and fully and truthfully answer there any questions posed by any member of the Representative Assembly about any aspect of the affairs of Neufreistadt or of the Office of the Burgermeister of Neufreistadt.

6. The Burgermeister may be removed from office prior to the expiration of the term of office by majority vote of the Representative Assembly.
[list:2t3yx9o2][/list:u:2t3yx9o2][/list:u:2t3yx9o2]

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Re: Proposed legislation

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Justice Soothsayer":1ok2r2k0]I'm submitting the following draft, based upon Ashcroft's proposal with a few modifications, for consideration by the RA.

This proposed legislation would make the Burgermeister an appointment of the RA, rather than an elected position. I agree with Jon that we should avoid making the selection of an executive a contest of personalities (avataralities?). One of the things I like about our little democracy is that our elections are about issues.

I'm also not including the provision of a budget, as I think that it best addressed by separate appropriating legislation.[/quote:1ok2r2k0]

I am very flattered that you would take my draft and use it in your official bill :-) I do have some comments about one specific aspect, though: I understand the policy objectives behind moving the assignment of a budget (as opposed to the powers to spend it), and the fact that the position will be appointed, rather than elected, but what was the policy behind removing this section:

[i:1ok2r2k0]4. Any regulations made pursuant to S. 2 (f) of this Act shall be taken to repeal any inconsistent provision in any of the Acts of the Representative Assembly set out in Schedule 1 hereto? [/i:1ok2r2k0]

The reason that I put that in was because the old Acts of the Representative Assembly dealing with detailed planning rules would be the sorts of things which would be dealt with by regulations under your clause 2(f). If the old planning acts were simply repealed by the [b:1ok2r2k0]Burgermeister Act[/b:1ok2r2k0], then there would be no planning regulations until the Burgermeister made some new ones, leaving a gap. If, however, the repeal of those Acts were left to the Representative Assembly on some later occasion, as and when needed, then the purpose of appointing a Burgermeister to create planning regulations would be frustrated, as the Representative Assembly would still have to act.

The way that I had drafted my clause 4 was to give a balance between preserving existing planning regulations in default and letting the Burgermeister create new regulations as and when he or she saw fit. If it is your policy to require the Burgermeister to work within the existing (and highly detailed) planning legislation, then that would explain the omission, but, then again, that sits somewhat uneasily with an act providing that the Burgermeister shall... "[i:1ok2r2k0]have the power: (a) to determine the use to which any and all land in Neufriestadt shall be put..."[/i:1ok2r2k0]. It would also render otiose clause 3 of the bill, [i:1ok2r2k0]"Nothing in this Act shall give the Burgermeister of Neufriestadt any power to change the overall theme of Neufriestadt[/i:1ok2r2k0]", since the overall theme is determined by those planning Acts of yore.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Justice Soothsayer
Pundit
Pundit
Posts: 375
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:14 pm

Re: Proposed legislation

Post by Justice Soothsayer »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":du5r9ae2][what was the policy behind removing this section:

[i:du5r9ae2]4. Any regulations made pursuant to S. 2 (f) of this Act shall be taken to repeal any inconsistent provision in any of the Acts of the Representative Assembly set out in Schedule 1 hereto? [/i:du5r9ae2]

The reason that I put that in was because the old Acts of the Representative Assembly dealing with detailed zoning requirements would be the sorts of things which would be dealt with by regulations under your clause 2(f). If the old planning acts were simply repealed by the [b:du5r9ae2]Burgermeister Act[/b:du5r9ae2], then there would be no planning regulations until the Burgermeister made some new ones, leaving a gap. If, however, the repeal of those Acts were left to the Representative Assembly, then the purpose of appointing a Burgermeister to create planning regulations would be frustrated, as the Representative Assembly would still have to act.[/quote:du5r9ae2]

I don't believe it would be appropriate to delegate the legislative power of repealing land use legislation to an appointed official. It could also lead to having acts on the books (or, more accurately, on the wiki) that have been superceded by administrative action.

I think a wise Burgermeister would point out to the RA any legislation inconsistencies still on the books. There is still a wide range of acts for our future Burgermeister to perform, consistent with the laws on the books.

Jon Seattle
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 6:18 am

Post by Jon Seattle »

This bill clearly replaces the Artisanal Collective (Guild). The new office clearly has the same powers and role as the Guild as established by the constitution and precedent. Because the AC is clearly established by the constitution you do need a constitutional amendment to remove or replace it.

I also note that Ashcroft’s proposal has the Governor elected by each sim by popular vote:

[quote:2cey2ee8]The governers would, I propose, in the city states (Neufriestadt and Colonia Nova) be directly elected by the population of those states[/quote:2cey2ee8]

while I read your proposal as having the governor appointed by the RA. Was this intentional? I prefer your version, but it occurs to me that by making this change you are in effect, supporting a variation on the CSDF proposal.

What this bill lacks, however, relative to the CSDF plan are provisions to support citizen participation and any involvement of a civil service in developing policy.

Justice Soothsayer
Pundit
Pundit
Posts: 375
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:14 pm

Post by Justice Soothsayer »

I don't intend to replace the Artisanal Collective with this bill. The AC powers are spelled out in Article II of the constitution, including "The Artisanal Collective (AC) is group of productive citizens who provide revenue through sales and infrastructure support. Its governmental role is to act as treasury and its service role is to provide goods and infrastructure. "

Yes, I intend that the Burgermeister be an appointed position as part of the RA and its constitutional "service role... to promote the city and perform long-term planning", Article I, Section 1. Jon, I fully agree with you that our elections should not degenerate into personality constests, and be about issues, which is why I propose that this position be subject to the democratically elected legislature.

User avatar
Gwyneth Llewelyn
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1183
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:00 am
Contact:

Post by Gwyneth Llewelyn »

Ashcroft, there are just two points worth mentioning:

1) Naturally, the RA is able to pass any bill that revocably delegates some of its powers to a newly created body.

The DPU's proposal — not yours — however suggested that the local "governors" or "senators" be elected directly from a sim's citizenry. Creating a new body that is elected could require a constitutional amendment.

On the other hand, delegating some executive powers to a group of 1 or many people, that are kept in check by the RA, is something that in my opinion does not require a constitutional amendment. The issue is only if those executive powers are delegated to a single body (Justice's, and the CSDF's proposal) or to a plethora of tiny groups (yours and the DPU's proposal).

2) There has to be some careful consideration of no overlapping of functions with other constitutionally defined branches. Jon mentioned quite correctly that some functions — namely, the financial ones, as well as the ones related to the preservation of the theme — are functions of the Guild. Unless the effective removal of the Guild as one of the governmental branches in Neufreistadt/CDS is accomplished through a constitutional amendment, the RA cannot legislate to remove powers from the Guild, or to empower other groups with powers the RA doesn't have at all.

I wish I could find one post where I somehow listed "powers of the Guild" vs. "powers of the RA"... but as an answer to Justice, the Guild has the role of overseeing urban planning, for instance (besides all matters financial, except for establishing the budget).

Sooo, at this point,

i) The RA [i:d2dn2ai4]could[/i:d2dn2ai4] amend the Constitution to get rid of the Guild (one possible example is [url=http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... 1:d2dn2ai4]this thread[/url:d2dn2ai4]) and make sure that it doesn't have "overlapping and conflicting" powers;
ii) The Guild could confirm the delegations of its own powers to this very same body. This would give it an additional check, but also make matters much more confusing, since the Guild has published no official procedures. It [i:d2dn2ai4]is[/i:d2dn2ai4] an alternative to amending the Constitution, though.

"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

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Gwyneth Llewelyn":319f3we1]Ashcroft, there are just two points worth mentioning:

1) Naturally, the RA is able to pass any bill that revocably delegates some of its powers to a newly created body.

The DPU's proposal — not yours — however suggested that the local "governors" or "senators" be elected directly from a sim's citizenry. Creating a new body that is elected could require a constitutional amendment.[/quote:319f3we1]

Ahh, I think that you're getting that the wrong way around: my original model was for an elected Burgermeister, but the DPU proposal favoured an appointed one.

However, I can see nothing in the constitution that prohibits the Representative Assembly from creating new elected offices and then delegating some of its powers to such an office. What passage in the constitution did you have in mind?

[quote:319f3we1]On the other hand, delegating some executive powers to a group of 1 or many people, that are kept in check by the RA, is something that in my opinion does not require a constitutional amendment. The issue is only if those executive powers are delegated to a single body (Justice's, and the CSDF's proposal) or to a plethora of tiny groups (yours and the DPU's proposal).[/quote:319f3we1]

I'm not sure that this quite accurately characterises the difference - the CSDF proposal is for one large Executive Branch, directly elected, with committees, and broad powers. The DPU proposal, based on my model, is for a series of officials individually empowered by the Representative Assembly to perform particular functions. In effect, the same number of people would be doing the same number of jobs, but, in your model, they would all have to work out for themselves who had what power by having further meetings, whereas in the DPU proposal, their functions would be defined in advance by the RA, and they would be able to discharge their duties without further committee meetings and voting decisions that require quorum, and, indeed, without [i:319f3we1]having[/i:319f3we1] to meet each other at all, although they certainly could if they thought that co-ordination was helpful.

It is essentially not so much a difference between a single body and a multitude of tiny groups all to do the same thing, as a difference between assigning a group of five people five tasks between them, and assigning five individuals one task each. The policy question is whether it is more efficient (or otherwise better) to have people undertaking the tasks in question together or individually.

[quote:319f3we1]2) There has to be some careful consideration of no overlapping of functions with other constitutionally defined branches. Jon mentioned quite correctly that some functions — namely, the financial ones, as well as the ones related to the preservation of the theme — are functions of the Guild. Unless the effective removal of the Guild as one of the governmental branches in Neufreistadt/CDS is accomplished through a constitutional amendment, the RA cannot legislate to remove powers from the Guild, or to empower other groups with powers the RA doesn't have at all.[/quote:319f3we1]

I'm not sure how all that follows from this:

[quote="The constitution":319f3we1]Article II - The Artisanal Branch

Section 1 - Artisanal Collective

The Artisanal Collective (AC) is group of productive citizens
who provide revenue through sales and infrastructure support.
Its governmental role is to act as treasury and its service role
is to provide goods and infrastructure.

Section 2 - Artisanal Collective Body

The AC is open to all participant citizens provided they create goods
and/or services for the city. The collective is a four-tier system of
apprentices, journeymen, masters, and a guild master. Site specific
names may be substituted provided roles remain the same.

Section 3 - Artisanal Collective Leader

Every election cycle the AC leader or guild master is chosen from
the pool of masters. Votes of the masters are weighted by the
size of their workshop. A vote using scores generated
by Borda-count ranked votes are employed.

Section 4 - Powers of the AC

In regards to the Representative branch:

* The leader of the AC may veto a revenue bill or resubmit a modified revenue bill for vote.
* The leader of the AC can call an emergency session of the Representative branch.
* The AC can seek impeachment of members of the Representative branch for failing to act with fiscal responsibility.
* The leader of the AC sits as the leader of the Representative branch if the Representative branch seeks to impeach a member of the Philosophic branch.

In regards to Philosophic branch:

* The Leader of the AC provides a vote of confidence on candidates to the Philosophic branch. This vote is in regards to their perceived likelihood to uphold the constitution.
* The Leader of the AC can seek impeachment of members of the Philosophic branch for failing to uphold the constitution.
* The leader of the AC sits as the leader of the Philosophic branch if the Philosophic branch seeks to impeach a member of the Representative branch.

Section 5 - Limitations of the AC

All goods produced by members of the AC remain property of the
citizens and must remain with them if a member departs.

Removal of an artisan of any rank can be achieved with a 2/3 vote
of all members of the AC for any actions which endangers the goods
or infrastructure of the organization.[/quote:319f3we1]

It states who the Guild are ([i:319f3we1]"[a] group of productive citizens
who provide revenue through sales and infrastructure support"[/i:319f3we1]), and what their powers are in relation to other branches, which, with respect to the Representative Assembly, seems to be confined to exercising a power of veto over "revenue bills" (which are left undefined in the constitution), calling an emergency session, and bringing impeachment proceedings against members of the Assembly.

Nothing about the existence of a group of productive citizens who provide revenue through sales and infrastructure support, and who have powers to impeach, veto certain bills, and call emergency sessions, entails that there cannot also be a Burgermeister who has the power to determine to what use any and all land in Neufreistadt should be put, publicise Neufreistadt, employ staff, and make and enforce regulations for those purposes.

The [i:319f3we1]removal[/i:319f3we1] of the Guild (i.e., a bill that provides that there shall no longer be a group of productive citizens who provide revenue through sales and infrastructre support, and who have powers to impeach, veto certain bills, and call emergency sessions) would, of course, require a constitutional amendment, but nobody has proposed that as yet. There is no reason, for example, why the Guild could not work together with the Office of the Burgermeister (and, in due course, Prerator), by organising labour, and then providing services to the Burgermeister (and Prerator). Indeed, is that not exactly what "infrastructure [i:319f3we1]support[/i:319f3we1]" means? "Support" is, after all, quite different from "management" or "control". There is certainly nothing in the Constitution that I can find that gives the Guild exclusive (or, indeed, any) power to "determine the use to which any and all land in Neufriestadt shall be put", nor is there any reference in the Constitution to any powers of the Guild over the theme: indeed, these seem to have been discharged by the Representative Assembly in the past, as is evidenced by all the planning legislation that eminates therefrom.

[quote:319f3we1]I wish I could find one post where I somehow listed "powers of the Guild" vs. "powers of the RA"... but as an answer to Justice, the Guild has the role of overseeing urban planning, for instance (besides all matters financial, except for establishing the budget).[/quote:319f3we1]

That might be the role that it has assumed by custom (no doubt, in default of any other body capable of doing it), but there is nothing in the constitution providing that that is how it must be done, at least that I could find.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Re: Proposed legislation

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Justice Soothsayer":1beh1jv7][I don't believe it would be appropriate to delegate the legislative power of repealing land use legislation to an appointed official. It could also lead to having acts on the books (or, more accurately, on the wiki) that have been superceded by administrative action.[/quote:1beh1jv7]

Presumably, a diligent webmaster would deal with any discrepancies in the Wiki - but it has the same effect as immediately repealing all of the old planning legislation, and re-enacting it straight away as regulations made by the Burgermeister ("The following acts shall be repealed... the Burgermeister shall be deemed to have made the following regulations, which he or she can at any time repeal..."). The purpose and effect is the same in each case: to move the powers of detailed planning forthwith to the Burgermeister.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Salzie Sachertorte
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 10:00 am

Re: Proposed legislation

Post by Salzie Sachertorte »

[quote:1rzqtv4t]Presumably, a diligent webmaster would deal with any discrepancies in the Wiki -[/quote:1rzqtv4t]

OOOh! Do I hear you volunteering? :lol: Contact Gwynn! :wink:

Justice Soothsayer
Pundit
Pundit
Posts: 375
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:14 pm

Post by Justice Soothsayer »

[quote="Gwyneth Llewelyn":1054oton]but as an answer to Justice, the Guild has the role of overseeing urban planning, for instance (besides all matters financial, except for establishing the budget).[/quote:1054oton]

The "powers of the Guild" seem somewhat ill-defined in our constitution. Indeed, the "Guild" is not mentioned, except as pertains to "Guild master"

Gwyn, how do you square the quoted statement regarding urban planning with the constitutional provision that commits to the RA the duty to "perform long-term planning"? (Art. 1, Sec. 1). It seems that the Guild's role constitutionally is to "provide goods and infrasturcture" (Art. II, Sec. 1), while the planning for such is commited to the RA.

Don't you just love these constitutional debates?

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”