Chancellor candidacy, RA 12th Term

[Cindy Ecksol]

This evening I sent the following note to my colleagues in the RA, to Delia Lake in her role as Dean of the SC, and to Sonja Strom, in her role as an announced candidate for Chancellor for the upcoming term:

Dear colleagues,

On the eve of the 12th CDS RA, I am announcing my candidacy for Chancellor.

Six months is not a long time, and I anticipate that this term will have more than the usual degree of political, social and personal complications. Given those constraints, as Chancellor I intend to focus on three key areas:

1. Work with the RA, the community and the Chancellor to complete the Al Andalus merger. There are so many complex issues involved here, that I hardly dare start listing them for fear of leaving out something critical. But at a minimum we will need a clear operating agreement that satisfies both the concerts of the RA and the concerns of Al Andalus residents and a revamping of our payment and accounting systems to eliminate the inconsistent presentation of data that has been causing such confusion over the past six months and give us clear knowledge of our financial status as we move forward.

2. Develop and implement a framework to nurture arts, music, literature and intellectual liveliness in our community. Thanks in particular to Rose's long-term efforts in these areas we have a fine start on this, and I intend to work with her and others who have begun to spark fabulous ideas and events to identify and implement some "best practices" that may allow our community to stabilize this foundation and grow from it.

3. Work with the RA to rationalize the CDS constitution with respect to election rules and procedures for campaigns in time for the next election cycle.

There is certainly much more that could be done, but these are the things that I believe MUST be accomplished this term. The more committed assistance available from our community (meaning "active and responsible volunteers") the more we can do of course.

I hope you will support my candidacy, and I look forward to working with all of you.

Cindy Ecksol

[Patroklus Murakami]

Cindy

I think it would be helpful if, before the RA meeting on Saturday 12 June, you could say what you will do about being an RA member while you run for election as Chancellor. As you know, our Constitution does not allow the Chancellor to serve as Executive and on the RA at the same time.

When this situation arose before, Moon resigned her RA seat in order to stand for election as Chancellor. As you know, because we have discussed this inworld, I recommend that you do the same.

But, if you are going to retain your RA seat during the Chancellor election so that, should you not be elected as Chancellor you remain an RA member, I think you should state clearly that you will abstain from voting in the Chancellor election. It would be quite wrong, in my opinion, for someone who has been elected to the RA to then use their RA vote to help get elected as Chancellor. I think you agree with this too but would like to see this statement made publicly.

[Cindy Ecksol]

Well, then I guess you'll have to come and hear me address this publicly at the RA meeting tomorrow.

But regardless of what I decide to do because of the dictates of my own conscience, I can't resist asking the obvious rhetorical question: how is voting for oneself for Chancellor any different from voting for oneself for RA? Does one's opinion somehow count less in the former case than in the latter? After all, in both cases the one voting is a member of the class eligible to vote.

Just asking....

Cindy

[Sonja Strom]

Cindy, I think you would be a good Chancellor for the CDS, and I am happy you are volunteering, so I am not against your wanting to become the Chancellor. However, it does seem strange that you want to be both a Member of the Representative Assembly and to run for Chancellor at the same time. It seems even stranger that you could possibly feel fine voting for yourself to be Chancellor as a Member of the RA.

Given that there are only 13 Representative Assembly votes for the Chancellor selection, it would without any question be an unfair advantage in the selection process for you to cast one of those votes for yourself as an RA Member.

[Bagheera]

... I can't resist asking the obvious rhetorical question: how is voting for oneself for Chancellor any different from voting for oneself for RA? Does one's opinion somehow count less in the former case than in the latter? After all, in both cases the one voting is a member of the class eligible to vote...

I don't know how to sugarcoat this, but the underlying message of your "rhetorical question" is that laws are more important than the good of the people; that if there is a loophole in the law, there is nothing ethically wrong with exploiting it, even when it isn't in the best interests of the people the law is meant to serve.

Even in governments that have had centuries to mature and define themselves, there will always be loopholes in laws and the people look to their leaders - at least all the way back to Solomon - to make decisions that serve the people versus using the laws to serve themselves. CDS is still in its infancy and we are all in this together.

I hope my interpretation above is not what you intended to say and I ask you to clarify what you mean??

[Patroklus Murakami]

Well, then I guess you'll have to come and hear me address this publicly at the RA meeting tomorrow.

But regardless of what I decide to do because of the dictates of my own conscience, I can't resist asking the obvious rhetorical question: how is voting for oneself for Chancellor any different from voting for oneself for RA? Does one's opinion somehow count less in the former case than in the latter? After all, in both cases the one voting is a member of the class eligible to vote.

Just asking....

Cindy

Cindy

I PMd you about this post before putting it here on the forums. I also contacted you by notecard inworld to make sure it would not be a surprise. I thought it would be an opportunity for you to confirm what I thought was your position, that you would abstain from voting for yourself in the Chancellor election. You now seem to be backtracking from that principled position. What has changed?

The difference between voting for oneself to stand for RA and voting for oneself as Chancellor should be clear (which is why I assume your question was rhetorical). Anyone can stand and vote for candidates for RA. Anyone can put themselves forward to be Chancellor, but the electorate is restricted to the RA. So, due to the loophole which you are exposing in our electoral system, someone could stand for RA (with a pretty good chance of being elected given that the chance in the last election was 13/15) but *with the intention of standing for Chancellor* and then having an edge over the other candidates that at least one vote was already in the bag.

Now, I'm not saying that's what you did. I must believe that you are honest and that you decided to stand for Chancellor *after* being elected to the RA. But, until this loophole is closed, we need scrupulous behaviour from candidates.

[Pip Torok]

Well, then I guess you'll have to come and hear me address this publicly at the RA meeting tomorrow.

But regardless of what I decide to do because of the dictates of my own conscience, I can't resist asking the obvious rhetorical question: how is voting for oneself for Chancellor any different from voting for oneself for RA? Does one's opinion somehow count less in the former case than in the latter? After all, in both cases the one voting is a member of the class eligible to vote.

Just asking....

Cindy

Hi Cindy,

How is it different? Well, here are two approaches to an answer. There may be more, many more ...

1. When you vote for yourself as a member of the RA, you apply to be one of 13 people who represent the citizens. If you pull-out, you leave 12, whose coverage of representation will not have changed that much. When you vote for yourself as Chancellor, however, it's radically different. The post is unique, and each person's way of acting within it is likewise unique ... witness Jamie's, Sonja's, Alexicon's, and my own career in that position.

2. When we help ourselves to gain a position as an RA member, we make implicit promises to the community. To attend as many meetings as possible, to live up to our position statement, above all, to do one's best to remain the rep you've presented yourself as, for the whole of the term. If you accept these premises, then, somewhere along the line, you changed course. I'm curious to known if this did indeed happen, when it did, and the circumstances.

So much for the rhetorical question. Here's my main concern:

I know of at least one person who enthusiastically put you on the top of the list. It's not hard to imagine many more. Then suddenly you're no longer there, and that, before the term has hardly started! (this all assuming that you will have become Chancellor, of course). At the very least, they're entitled to an explanation, and that quite apart from those candidates (Joaquin and Mikelo) who would otherwise have had a chance to gain that thirteenth seat.

Pip Torok

[Tor Karlsvalt]

I have several points.

First I don't see anything wrong with a member of RA standing for election for Chancellor. In the USA, the granddaddy of constitutional democracies, it is very common for members of congress or state legislatures to run for other offices including executive offices. Sometimes this does occur very early in a person's legislative term.

Second, I do not see anything immoral in voting for oneself in this situation. I hardly consider it a loophole. I truly cannot believe that when the plan to elect the chancellor was written, a situation as this was not considered by the framers of the constitution. The constitution states: "The Chancellor of the CDS shall be selected by the Representative Assembly from among ANY CDS citizen who shall make application to the RA." This was a very simple statement. The section goes on to limit the Chancellor from holding a position on the SC or "be elected to or serve on the RA." The "or" here implies consideration of a situation where an elected member or RA might become Chancellor and thus unable to serve on the RA. Naturally, if Cindy is elected Chancellor, she will not be able to serve on the RA, nor will she be allowed to stand for election to her vacant seat on the RA.

Third, I see nothing laudable in stepping down from the RA in order to run for chancellor or abstaining from the vote in RA, when one's election is expected or assured. This action may be taken sincerely by a candidate, but the the action looses any moral high ground when it has not potential effect on the outcome.

Fourth, in a purely practical sense Cindy may have to vote for herself in order to avoid deadlock. We have a 13 member RA. Much has been written or suggested that there is a independent block of 7 in the majority. I believe Cindy is counted in this block. Thus removing her from the voting members of the RA, will result in a deadlock 6-6 vote for Chancellor. This does no service to CDS or the office of Chancellor. The current Chancellor would be a lame duck during this period, with her authority severely limited in a practical sense. At a time when planning for a new sim and Oktoberfest are prime issues, CDS cannot afford to have the Chancellor hobbled or the election delayed by bickering or the result of a by-election for a new RA member.

Finally we have to consider that the number of involved people is rather low in CDS. Further limits on who can run for Chancellor seems unrealistic. It would seem to me that it will be far easier to find several candidates for an RA by-election than for Chancellor. I say we elect a Chancellor and move on with expanding CDS and planning Oktoberfest.

As an aside, I would like to note that Cindy is the only candidate that has really asked for my vote.

[Cindy Ecksol]

One of the things I love about CDS is the way we manage to generate a fair amount of angst and misinterpretation of each other's thinking when it comes to small things and turn them into enormous questions of life and death. This is not a question of "life and death," but it IS a question of "law vs. conscience" in CDS. Those of you who have known me since I've been hanging out in CDS may also realize that this is a dynamic that I've been thinking about and poking at all along, but those who have not known me for so long deserve a bit more insight.

First, I did not intend to announce for chancellor when I ran for RA. And had the election turned out differently, or had the LRA selection process played out differently, or had others announced their candidacy for chancellor, I might not be a candidate right now. I ran for RA simply because I believe that democracy is a participatory sport, not an observer sport. If one is not happy with the crowd that is running things, it's incumbent upon one to (at least) get out and vote and (preferably) put one's money, time and energy where one's mouth is and run for office.

Second, I asked that "rhetorical question" not to telegraph my personal position on the question, but to generate enthusiastic and respectful debate on the issue of "law vs. conscience" in CDS. As Bagheera points out, at best our laws and constitution are incomplete...and at worst they are masterpieces of insanity. The latest example (perhaps of both) was the last election where a constitutional change passed at the last minute by the 11th RA turned out to be extremely incomplete and "not ready for prime time." Since the 12th RA chose not to take up an examination of the new law and institute additional regulations, CDS experienced an election cycle where unanticipated complications jumped up to bite us. And I'll note that the resolution to those problems was at least in part not "law" but "conscience."

This raises the interesting question of whether we ought as a matter of course to be closing every perceived opening (Pat refers to these with the pejorative "loopholes") for the application of conscience as a matter of course. That has been the inclination of the community especially in recent terms. And it's my feeling that the process of closing those "loopholes" has also been the source of much of the rancorous tone of discussion in CDS. The law says one thing, the path of conscience (or "best for CDS") seems to be another thing, and we argue vociferously over who is "right."

What I wonder is whether there is some way to capitalize on appropriate openings for the application of "personal conscience" in a variety of situations. Sonja's decision to equalize the unfair advantage of candidates who had group notice privileges over those who did not by granting such privileges to all was a good example of how this might work. The law was unspecific (or perhaps contradictory) so she used conscience as a guide. It wasn't "life or death" nor was it a decision that was likely to shake the foundations of our government. And had she decided in some other way, I'm sure those of us who felt disadvantaged would have created other ways to reach out to citizens. But the point is that she used her own conscience to inform the decision and executed it well within her own authority. And since it was not a matter of life or death and clearly made on the basis of reason, I can't imagine why anyone would challenge that authority.

Not EVERY decision can be made this way: sometimes the law is perfectly clear, preventing (or mandating) action. But if we elect someone to office, it seems that we ought to grant them a certain amount of freedom to act within law with the advice of conscience when the law is incomplete or unclear or even poorly enforced. In fact as citizens we should respect the right of ALL citizens to do this. Some of you may recall the incident three or four terms ago when a hot tub was built in clear view of the street in Colonia Nova. The covenants all specify "no hot tubs" so this was a clear violation, yet the chancellor at the time neglected his duty to take action. Several of us were fairly incensed by this, and after appealing the decision to no avail, took it into our own hands to build a wall at the edge of the street that screened the offending hot tub from the view of passers-by. Chaos ensued (our wall on public property was an "unauthorized structure"), but the chancellor realized that some of us felt this was a matter of law that could be brushed off lightly, and ordered the hot tub removed. And the principle that the chancellor does not have the right to ignore a law was confirmed because several of us acted according to our consciences and built an "unauthorized" structure at the edge of public property.

My decision on how to handle my candidacy for chancellor is another "law vs. conscience" issue. The law is actually very clear: any citizen can stand for chancellor -- no exceptions. And one cannot be both chancellor and a member of the RA, which clearly implies that if an RA member is elected chancellor he or she must resign from RA. There is nothing that states or implies that an RA member cannot be a candidate for chancellor. But it does somehow seem "unfair" for one to vote for oneself for chancellor -- it is different from voting for oneself or for the faction one leads in some undefinable way. Moon resolved this conflict for herself by resigning from RA when she announced for chancellor. Pip suggests that doing so (or maybe even the very act of standing for chancellor) would violate the trust and confidence placed in an RA member by those who voted for him or her. Pat seems to have only a little problem with the idea of an RA member standing for chancellor but feels that perhaps an RA member standing for chancellor should abstain from voting for him/herself even though it would deprive those who strongly supported that person from having a say in the election of the chancellor in our newly "non-faction oriented" RA.

The proper place and time for me to deal with this particular issue in public (rather than just discussing the issue as we're doing here) is at today's RA meeting during the vote to select the chancellor. I'll look forward to seeing many of you there, although I will may not make it until a bit before 10am due to RL commitments.

Cindy

[Arias Ahren]

Tor: I think it can be said that the U.S. is the granddaddy of all democracies. It can also be said that during the last one hundred years the U.S. have fomented more wars than any other nation. It owes more monies than all of the rest of the world’s nations combined. It's prepatory or high school students have dropped from fist place to last place amongst the twenty-seven industrial nations tested in mathematics and science over the last twenty-three years. I and many of my European constitutions believe that much of that has occurred as a result of the efforts of corrupt U.S. attorneys. Do we want to emulate the same here?

[Ranma Tardis]

Tor: I think it can be said that the U.S. is the granddaddy of all democracies. It can also be said that during the last one hundred years the U.S. have fomented more wars than any other nation. It owes more monies than all of the rest of the world’s nations combined. It's prepatory or high school students have dropped from fist place to last place amongst the twenty-seven industrial nations tested in mathematics and science over the last twenty-three years. I and many of my European constitutions believe that much of that has occurred as a result of the efforts of corrupt U.S. attorneys. Do we want to emulate the same here?

This is a cheap shot at Americans. Europe has had its own problems and from what I hear in big trouble. The CDS has always seemed to be "anti-american". Statements like this are hurtful and reinforce my beliefs which are shared by others.

[Arias Ahren]

No Ranma: I have a great love of America and Americans. I was educated in the U.S. and have spent some of the most exciting years of my life roaming its lands. I have maintained a home just north of San Francisco since 1969. My daughter teaches at U.C. Davis in Northern California. My sister has a ranch in Southern California which I frequent due to my love of the country and it's people.

Cheep shots are just that and they are very often made by those always crying wolf. The truth is rarely a cheep shot.

And I am not European, but love Europeans as well, even old Pip!

[Brian Livingston]

Tor: I think it can be said that the U.S. is the granddaddy of all democracies. It can also be said that during the last one hundred years the U.S. have fomented more wars than any other nation. It owes more monies than all of the rest of the world’s nations combined. It's prepatory or high school students have dropped from fist place to last place amongst the twenty-seven industrial nations tested in mathematics and science over the last twenty-three years. I and many of my European constitutions believe that much of that has occurred as a result of the efforts of corrupt U.S. attorneys. Do we want to emulate the same here?

Not to derail this thread (and I really tried to stay out of these debates), but do you have any sources for your rather offensive and dubious claims?

It can also be said that during the last one hundred years the U.S. have fomented more wars than any other nation.

The United States has declared a total of five wars throughout its history.
- War of 1812
- Mexican-American War
- Spanish-American War
- World War I
- World War II

In addition, there have been a total of twelve military engagements approved by the United States Congress and another seven by the United Nations Security Council.

It owes more monies than all of the rest of the world’s nations combined.

Again, do you have a source for this claim?

The United States has the largest single economy by GDP, according to 2008 stats from the World Bank. Of course it will have a larger debt load then other nations. What is more telling is the relative size of the public debt as compared to GDP. For the United States, we have a gross external public debt of approximately 13.4 trillion as of the end of 2009. That works out to 94% of the GDP and $43,758 per capita.

In comparison, the second most debt-laden country, in terms of gross amount was the United Kingdom, at just over $9 billion, or 416% of their GDP and $147,060 per capita. The global external debt was approximately $56.9 billion as of the end of 2009. As you can see, the United States does not owe more money than all of the rest of the world combined. No where close.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ernal_debt, Source Data: http://www.jedh.org/jedh_instrument.html

It's prepatory or high school students have dropped from fist place to last place amongst the twenty-seven industrial nations tested in mathematics and science over the last twenty-three years.

This 2007 NY Times article actually details how even the worst performing US States have generally higher standardized test scores at the eight grade level as compared to 45 other nations. US Students did, on average, performer less well than students in several Asian countries. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/educa ... dents.html

For further information, the US Department of Education has the full TIMS report online at: http://nces.ed.gov/timss/index.asp

It includes facts that refute your claims, such as:
"Six countries had higher percentages of eighth-grade students performing at or above the advanced international science benchmark than the United States. The percentages in these countries ranged from 13 percent in Hungary to 32 percent in Singapore"
and
"Seven countries had higher percentages of eighth-grade students performing at or above the advanced international mathematics benchmark than the United States. The percentages in these countries ranged from 8 percent in the Russian Federation to 45 percent in Chinese Taipei"

I and many of my European constitutions believe that much of that has occurred as a result of the efforts of corrupt U.S. attorneys.

Is there a public opinion poll that I somehow missed while researching this information? I could not find reference to the source for this claim.

Despite what many reading this might now think, I am not a Toby Keith loving, gun shooting, cowboy hat wearing American who sees us as the Top Dog and the rest of the world as our underlings. Rather, I agree that during the past three decades there have been some questionable decisions in regards to foreign policy, especially during the most recent Bush administration. However, to make such outlandish and factually inaccurate statements as those made by Arias is both reckless and extremely offensive.

[Arias Ahren]

Brian: Yes I can document these claims. I will need to dig up a number of recent academic testing results conducted by ETS and other agencies, but I do have them. I am amazed that you don't know the degree of indebtedness that the U.S. has incurred over the past fifty years, but this data is readily available from numerous sources.

For now let me just ramble a moment about the fomenting wars issue. I suppose that you don’t consider the current situation in Afghanistan to be a war? What about both of the U.S incursions in Iraqi? Sudan? Somalia? Korea? I guess Viet Nam, Cambodia, and Laos were not involved in a war with the U.S. What about Panama and Granada? My brother was killed in Guatemala in 1984 defending macadamia plantations that had been in my family for over 100 years. Those trees, over 3000, were burned to the ground by Guatemalan troops who were commanded and armed by the U.S. If your old enough you may remember that during the 80’s the U.S. was arming a number of dictators and revolutionary groups throughout Central America. I could go on with perhaps twenty others, but why bother. And other than post further about this I will defer. It is a very sensitive and emotional issue for me. But I do know and can prove that there are many more.

As for my lifelong shootout with U.S. Attorneys: Don’t blow your head off.

[Arias Ahren]

Brian, and any others that might have an interest:

Math and science offer the only common basis for comparing American schools to the rest of the world. Other subjects vary significantly from one country to another and are difficult to collate. Results of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) involving a half-million students in 41 countries are considered the most authoritative test results in the world. Oversight groups included not only the world's leading experts on comparative studies of education systems, but also experts in assessment design and statistical analysis.

Tests results completed in 2009 revealed that the U.S was in 12th place for grade four. 28th place for grade eight, and third from last for grade twelve. The 1997 tests results indicated that the U.S. was in last place for 12th grade amongst the twenty eight nations tested.

If you are truly interested in the collapse of education in the U.S. I would suggest that you contact, Educational Testing Services, located at:

ETS Corporate Headquarters
Rosedale Road
Princeton, NJ 08541 USA

1-609-921-9000

Or, the United Nations, located at:

United Nations
New York, NY 10017

1-800-860-7752.

Or, the educational arm of UNESCO, located at:

1, rue Miollis, F-75732
Paris Cedex 15
FRANCE

As for reliable data regarding the current U.S. debt I would suggest that you contact the World Bank directly.

World Bank
1818 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20433 USA

(202) 473-1000
Ask for: Ukido Takahashi

As of last week the World Bank records the following:

Public U.S. Debt of 19.6 trillion

U.S. Internal debt 19.2 trillion:

More telling of the truth of the current U.S. economy is:

A $14 trillion negative wealth effect from declining home values.

A $17 trillion negative wealth effect from weakened capital markets.

A $19 trillion consumer debt load amid "exploding unemployment", leading to "exploding bankruptcies."

A $3.7 trillion war expenditure debt load.

And all of it reflecting borrowed money and debt.

Reckless? Perhaps, if you mean, marked by a lack of thought about danger. I would like to think of it as bold.

And Brian: What happens to you people in law school. You all come out sounding exactly the same. You sound and act like you want to rule the world. All I ever wanted was for the world to rule itself.

And Brian: Regarding you rather flippant attitude about war and the effects of war, have you ever been shot? Have you ever even been shot at? Have you ever killed another man and witnessed the pain of his dying? I would be willing to bet that you have never set foot in a war zone, that it exists as nothing more than a figment in your imagination.