Request to the SC about the vote of the RA

[Arria Perreault]

Mrs Dean of the SC,

During the last RA meeting, we have voted to replace the Church. In the agenda, the decision was to make a referendum about this change. Pip has also proposed a text to put the new church for one month only and then to choose. During the week, the builder of the old church has destroyed it by accident. At the time of the meeting, we had to face a big hole in NFS. It was a pressure for us. We vote to replace the Church. In the discussion, Tor said that we should try to get a rollback by LL, but the rollback was presented as non-usefull as it did not solve the right's issue. After the meeting, Tor has asked Sudane to get this rollback and LL bring the old church back very quickly. This fact would have changed the way the RA meeting was held. For example, we would have voted the text of Pip.
The fact that Tor has requested the rollback so late is a problem for me. He admitted that he is in favour of the new church and I think he helped to make the decision by waiting the RA meeting to get a rollback. In any case, he did not need any approval of the RA for that, as far as I know.
I ask the SC to analyse this case and to confirm or infirm the vote about the new Church in the meeting of the RA on 17th July 2011. Agenda and transcriptions are in the forums:

http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... 494#p17748

Arria Perreault, LRA

[Callipygian]

Arria, I believe you owe Tor an apology.
To state that you believe he chose not to act as a way to further his personal preferences in this matter, in a post that you sign as 'LRA' is, in my opinion, unacceptable.

Inserting a personal accusation in a request to the SC about the outcome of the vote at the RA meeting is, in my opinion, inappropriate, unless you are bringing a formal complaint about his action (or lack thereof) along with some form of proof to support it.

Calli

[Arria Perreault]

Calli,

I don't share totally your opinion. In any democracy, an inquiry would have been made in the case of such an accident, to establish the responsibility of the different actors. It's my main concern here. If a risky action is planed, then you have to manage the risk and to have different plans. I don't want to blame Tor, who is a nice person. I nevertheless consider that the Chancellor as well as the person who made the action have a responsibility. Some people has to establish if they acted well, if they neglected some of their duties (for example a plan in case of problem) or if they act intentionnally. To be frank, I don't have the answer but I think that the question is worth to answer. It is a fact that this issue has influenced a decision in the RA.
More generally I think that the whole process is problematic. In this case, we got an already made building as alternative to an existing building. The process should have started differently:

1. Establish the needs: do we need a new church?
2. If yes, what kind of church?
3. Conception
4. Decision
5. Planning
6. Building

When the RA was first asked about the church, it choosed to address the issue more generally as a sims upgrade project. Rosie had to make a list. We had a town Hall about that. I think we should maintain this plan and work on it. We have also to work on the issue of the back up of our public building. The replacement of the Church is to be solved in the whole process.

[Ranma Tardis]

Hate to tell you guys but the CDS is not an democracy. It is a representational Republic. The typical citizen does not have a direct vote to make it a democracy. You elect representatives who make the actual votes.

[Arria Perreault]

Mrs Dean of the Scientific Council,

as LRA, I have a request for a ruling to the Scientific Council about the validity of the votes made in the RA during the following meetings:

17th July 2011
10th JULI 2011
26th June 2011

One of the RA member, Rosie Gray, was elected as Secretary of the New Guild on 26th June 2011 before the RA meeting. The Charter of the New Guild (http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1875) was approved by the RA on 7th June 2008 (http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1909). The article 22 of the Charter sais that the Secretary of the New Guild cannot be a member of the RA. Rosie Gray had during these three meetings two positions that one CDS citizen cannot have at the same time. I have asked Rosie to choose between the two positions and to inform us about her decision. If Rosie decide to resign her position in the RA, the SC will have to organize a by-election.I hope we will know her decision soon. Now I ask the SC to make a ruling about the validity of the votes made during this three meetings. If these votes are not valid, I will reschedule them. I would appreciate if the SC give a quick answer to me, as almost all important votes made since the beginning of the term.

Sincerely

Arria Perreault, LRA

[Arria Perreault]

After a discussion with Trebor, I want to make public the following statement:

The only mistake I have made was to forget completely the Charter of the New Guild. I knew of course the existence of this Charter as I was Chair of the Faculty at this time. I should have controlled the content of this Charter when Rosie was candidate or elected. I did not. Nobody else did. Only Rose pointed out this article of the Charter. The Charter was also accepted by the RA. This fact has consequences. It gives to this charter a status of a CDS law. When I have realized that, I have understood that we had a problem. The goal of my request to the Scientific Council is not to block our decisions, but to make them valid for ever. I have asked the SC because I don't have the answer. I see only the problem that we have currently. If the votes are seen as invalid, we will vote again.

I have made a mistake as LRA (errare humanum est) and I want to apologize for the inconvenient and the current situation. I hope that the SC can decide quickly.