A permanent 7-day vote for RA member

[Arria Perreault]

In the meeting of the 21 March, the RA has voted the principle of the 7-day vote to be added in the RA rules of procedures.

http://portal.slcds.info/index.php?id=281

During the discussion, the idea to have a permanent 7-day vote came. The RA refused to create a workgroup on this topic, but decided to postpone to the next meeting a discussion about a permanent 7-day vote. Instead of a workgroup, it was decided to launch a discussion in the forum about this question.

What do you think about this idea: a RA member would have 7 days of reflexion to vote? Do you have other ideas about the way the RA should vote? Please tell us.

[Pip Torok]

This is an excellent addition to the Rules of Procedure.

I do have one suggestion for citizens to consider:

At a given meeting, members present are pressed to vote for, against or abstain.

As I understand it, the 7-day vote is set-up for the benefit of members unable to be present at the voting process.

But there are occasions where a member who is present would like the same ability to reflect upon their decision. This might be achieved by having a fourth option: defer. So the choices would then be: for, against, abstain and DEFER.

What do you think?

Pip Torok

[Rose Springvale]

I'm unsure what the purposes of in world meetings are at all with this option. While i understand that RA members are volunteers with limited time, it appears to me that having the option to defer a vote based on indecision doesn't serve our community well. Parliamentary procedure provides tools to allow more time to the group if it is not yet ready to vote, by allowing motions to be tabled from meeting to meeting. So long as issues are properly placed on a timely posted agenda, RA members should have time to discuss the issue with their constituents and do the research they wish to do. If they don't have time to do this, the proper solution is to table the motion.

I'm mostly concerned about three things.

One, our meetings are open and public. Anyone can read the transcripts and see what arguments are made for and against a motion, and how each representative responded to those arguments. By allowing a rep to defer their vote, you open the door to influence that is not readily apparent to the population. The possibility of even the appearance of opportunity for impropriety or undue influence should be avoided.

Two, proponents of legislation and the citizens who depend on them have the right to present their motions and hear the objections. Deferral defeats this. RA members need to do their homework before the vote is called, not after.

Three, while the 7 day vote has been used to accommodate the real life conflicts we all have with meetings, extending this to all members of the RA, whether absent or not, doesn't respect the work and time that RA members PRESENT at the meeting have put into their work. Imagine the situation where the vote is tied, and the final RA member chooses to defer his or her vote. The community is left hanging for 7 days, unable to move forward, or to resolve their disappointment.

I'd rather see the institution of a proxy system, and elimination of the seven day vote entirely.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Rose has articulated many of the concerns I would have with a 'deferral' option for RA members. I think that RA members should come to meetings already prepared to discuss and, if necessary, vote on the agenda items.

The 7-day vote process has served us well in the past by allowing those who cannot attend the meeting for pressing RL reasons to cast their vote on key issues such as bills and constitutional amendments. I don't think we should extend that option any further though, it's a recipe for delay, indecision and game-playing.

[Soro Dagostino]

And there are those who have that agenda. They wish to use the assets of CDS for their own benefit.

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

I also agree with Rose and Pat on this. In my mind, if we all have permanent 7-day votes, we could simply forfeit the RA meetings and discuss everything in the forums instead

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

... although I have a problem with "voting-by-proxy". Citizens already complain that we are a representative democracy, e.g. one step removed from the citizens. How will they react when they know that all of a sudden their representatives might not even be meeting, but just send their proxies to vote on their behalf? I dislike any models where non-elected citizens suddenly get "temporary" voting powers. Proxies are not even accountable to citizens (e.g. they cannot even be impeached...).

Then there would be the issue of how to clarify the "powers" of a proxy. I imagine that all they would be allowed to do was to vote in a certain manner on a specific point of the agenda. But would they be able to discuss and argue? If the ongoing argumentation changed their mind, would they be allowed to cast a different vote? (After all, this is what happens with regular members of the RA: they might change their minds when better arguments are presented)

I think that this would need a bit more of reflection.