Moderator: SC Moderators
Proposal
Considering the Referendum Bill, the RA will ask the following questions at the next scheduled ballot:
1. "Do you want the current Kirche of Neufreistadt to be replaced by the building created by Rosie Gray?"
2. "Do you want the New Guild to launch a contest for a new church in Neufreistadt?"
Referendum Bill:
http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... dum#p13057
Arria,
I understand I'm not a member of the RA but I am a voting citizen of the CDS. Reading through the transcripts of the last few RA meetings I do not see where the issue of a Referendum Bill being brought up in discussions with the other RA members much less being approved. Considering the significants of a Referendum Bill, "The Representative Assembly may place a maximum of one referendum per term, to be voted at the next previously scheduled ballot," wouldn't it be proper procedure for the all RA members to decide if they want to bring a Referendum Bill to the table. I may be incorrect on this point but it seems you're taking it upon yourself as an individual to make a decision for five people, "Considering the Referendum Bill, the RA will ask the following questions at the next scheduled ballot"
The wording of the new law is:
"Referendum Act - Preamble: A Referendum Question can be seen as a set of up to five questions, to be unambiguously answered 'aye' or 'nay', and posed to all citizens. Each Referendum Question addresses a specific topic, subject, or theme, and is advisory to the government as to the wishes of the citizens. Thus the RA determines: "The Representative Assembly may place a maximum of one referendum per term, to be voted at the next previously scheduled ballot, which shall not be legally binding."
Also by placing the issue of the Kirche as a Referendum Bill isn't this just a delay tactic on an issue that has been discussed in quite a length of time both in the forums and in-world? The citizens of the CDS have given their opinion in the forums, both positive and negative, in regards to replacing the old kirche. After reading all the forum postings I have to ask what is the RA waiting on in regards to voting on this subject? There seems to be enough opinions available to form a multiple point question and present it to the citizens and the RA.
With all due respect Trebor, Arria began her post with "proposal" and has merely placed the item on the agenda for the next meeting of the RA. Many more people are citizens of the CDS than have expressed opinions on the forums. There is disagreement among the members of the community. What is the harm here?
Rose,
I apologize if I misread or misunderstood Arria's posting. I agree that a disucssion in regards to the Kirche, even though it has been in discussion for almost two months now, needs to be addressed. In my opinion her posting leads one to believe that the RA as a group has come up with this proposal when in fact that's not the case. Maybe a less controversial posting would be there is going to be a discussion concerning the issue of the Kirche and all are encouraged to attend. Than if the RA as a group felt the need for a referendum bill it could be discussed at the RA meeting.
No disrespect intended but unfortunately there isn't "many more citizens of the CDS than have expressed opinions on the forum." At election time we had 55 citizens and of those 55 citizens only 30 of them chose to participate in the elections. Based on the many hours I spend in-world, which is available for public viewing at my office in Alpine Meadows, it seems to me that most of the citizens who are active in-world are also most of the citizens who are also active on the forums.
I would encourage all citizens who have an opinion, thought, suggestion, etc. to let thier voices be heard either in the forums or in-world at the next RA meeting or if we have to than at a public meeting. My opinion though is the citizens who are concerned or have an opinion in this matter have already made their voices heard. It has been a topic of discussion since June 7th. So in closing there is no harm in a discussion concerning the Kirche go on but I do have to ask when is enough, enough? Can we discuss what needs to be discussed in this next RA meeting and have a resolution by the RA meeting after this Sunday's?
"Not voting" is also a way of voting Trebor. And speaking on forums and spending time in world is not the test of citizenship in CDS. That question has been asked many times over the years, and no participation requirement has ever been created. So all 55 TAX paying citizens have the right to vote, and to give their opinions on the sims we jointly own, not just the ten or twelve who come online during the summertime.
I think that when a major detour is taken from how decisions about sims are constructed is proposed, especially without an active guild, then the only right thing to do is a referendum. You may disagree with me. The RA may disagree. if they do, they won't certify Arria's proposal. Again, what is the harm here?
Arria Perreault wrote:Proposal
Considering the Referendum Bill, the RA will ask the following questions at the next scheduled ballot:
1. "Do you want the current Kirche of Neufreistadt to be replaced by the building created by Rosie Gray?"
2. "Do you want the New Guild to launch a contest for a new church in Neufreistadt?"Referendum Bill:
http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... dum#p13057
I'd like to confirm, and stress that, at this stage, this is a proposal; a proposal from one member of the RA.
If that proposal had come from this member of the RA, it would have had this difference:
-- There would be one question only, and it would be this:
1. The building created by Rosie Gray has been installed in the MarktPlatz for one month. Do you now wish it to replace the original building created by Bladedancer Pendragon?
That question would have been put only after Rosie's building had been in place no less (but no longer) than one calendar month.
Two motives impel this post : a wish to see fairness, and a wish to avoid procrastination.
Procrastination first : let every reader imagine the time that a contest, of all things, would take up. Isn't it enough to see RL politicians commit the gravest disservice to their voters by "kicking the can down the road"? I put it to every reader that a prime reason for leaving CDS is a perception that nothing gets done. How is democracy to be served by such a perception?
Now for Fairness : it is simply not fair to ask a citizen to make a choice between two buildings, when one is in place (and has ever been so), and a second that has never yet been in place, but hangs isolated 500 metres above CDS.
If you agree, disagree or wish to qualify what I've said, may I ask you to reply? I guarantee that one member of this term's RA will heed you.
"The christians describe the Enemy as one 'without whom Nothing is strong.'
And Nothing is very strong: strong enough to steal away a man's best years."
C.S.Lewis "The Screwtape Letters"
Pip Torok
The content of my post is a proposal. Nothing. The questions are possible questions. In the Referendum Bill it is clearly said that the questions have to be unambiguous. Citizen respond aye or nay. The RA has to decide:
a. to make a referendum or not
b. if there is a referendum, what question(s) will be asked to citizen
The RA can decide not to make a referendum. The result of the referendum is not bidding. The RA can still take an other decision than citizen.
I have made this proposal for the following reasons:
- people seem to be shared between both churches
- the church is a public place. We all pay this place with our taxes.
As this proposal is based to the Referendum Bill, I did not include the way people can figure out how the new church looks on the Platz. I knew Pip's idea of course. The RA decides to make a referendum. The two other branches are involved in the process: the SC makes sure that the question of the referendum comes in the poll and the Executive can offer the possibility to compare the two churches properly if a technical solution is found (a back up of the old church).
It is not true to say that nothing happens in CDS and if it is true, the RA is the only one who is responsible. Since the beginning of the term, we have made a good job. The new convenants are effective. We have created a way to honor the most dedicated citizen to our community. We have accepted new fees for our parcels. We have launched a process to upgrade our sims. Rosie has volunteered to become Secretary of the Guild, a key position in our community. Now everything is blocked now for two reasons. First we wait for the decision of Rosie about the two positions she has currently. As you know, all our votes are subject to a ruling of the SC. The Dean told me that the SC will handle this question. It would concern all votes we will do until Rosie has taken a decision. Is it even wise to wait before to make new votes. Second we focuse on the church only, despite the fact that many other things could be quickly improved in CDS sims. In my point of view, the upgrade of our sims is an important project which goes much further that the replacing of the NFS church and that needs an active New Guild and the participation of citizen. That's how the CDS has added new sims in the past. The RA can only vote bills.
Finally - and it's about democracy- the forums are not the place where decisions can be taken. In forums we have only opinions that people make public. We know that the decision of a vote can be different. A democracy has defined processes to make a vote or an election. All is discribed in our code of law. It's not because a small group of people are active in-world and in the forums that they correspond to the opinion of the majority. My main concern now is not the NFS Church, but the respect of our democratic rules. If there is ONE thing that makes CDS a unique place in SL, it is our democratic traditions. If we want to use our democratic tradition in our advertising, we have to respect these rules ourselves. Change is welcome in CDS, but it is slow because of our institutions. Ask all the people who have tried to make changes or to launch a project. The fact that changes are slow is not bad. We take the time to think about what we are going to do. Despites all conflicts and issues we had, CDS is still there. I hope it is still for a long time. If there is ONE thing that makes CDS, it is our democratic traditions.