Resignation

[Arria Perreault]

I resign with immediate effect from my position of Leader of the Representative Assembly and from my seat in the 16th Representative Assembly. I have three reasons:

I have failed in my duties as LRA. I have made an error of judgement while I was participating in a non public email thread that began with financial and personal datas. For your information, I still get copies of mails from the same origin. It seems that some poeple don't learn. I should have made this issue public instead of organizing a vote using notecards. We had no secret meeting. I have misinterpreted the RA rules of procedures that allow closed sessions when there are personal matters.

RA may, by simple majority vote, enter into a closed session to discuss legal or personnel matters.

http://portal.slcds.info/index.php/cds- ... -assembly/

I did not provide all informations I had to the RA members, but only what I thought it was useful to make this decision. For the record, the content of the notecard I have provided is now online. There is no more secret things from this vote now. I also did not see that the RA was not allowed to make waivers to the Constitution. I have apologized for that. I let other judge if I should be impeached, revoked from my citizenship or even banned while my lands and properties are confiscated.

I want to get back my free speech. As LRA, I have to be neutral in the debate, but also with the other branches of the government. I deeply regret that the RA remained under the light, while other actors stayed hidden. It's exactly the story of the fable, where the donkey looks more guilty than the bear or the wolf, just because he admitted his faults. I'd like to participate to the debate now as a person who doesn't hold any position. I want to be finished with the role of the scape goat.

I want the honor of the RA and its current members restablished. The members of the RA have worked very hard during this term and they were quiet successful. They have met regularly and they have given to the CDS citizen and friends the opportunity to express their concerns and they have tried to find solution for them. They have acted in good faith in this issue. They seem now to have committed inexpiable crimes, mainly because of my errors of judgement, but also on the request of different persons and authorities. No one of them is looking for more power. Most of them will not be part of the next RA. No one of them had the intention to block any candidates. I think that using words like "treason" can only hurt.

The best is to go forward the election process. Acting now would bring more troubles and wont fix anything. I think we could not act properly. Nobody could in fact repair the errors that was made. As RA, we could only choose between the worst and the less worst. At least, we did try.

I have nothing personal against anyone. I hope that we can all stay good friends ...

[josjoha]

I think that using words like "treason" can only hurt.

Hi Arria, hope you are OK ?

I see you reference the word 'treason,' which is a word I used, but not in relation to anyone. Where you referencing my post, or someone else's ? In case you where referencing mine, I was not talking about anyone in the CDS at all hon. I really hope you are ok. I assume you didn't talk about my post. Let me clarify again just to be sure: "high treason" and such is a term used wrt Constitutional crises and so on, where Governments 'go bad.' I just want CDS to have a good strong Constitution, and think that Beathans ammendment is a great one for this - that fixes the whole problem, actually Beathans ammendment is almost too strong even, this is debatable and should be fun to debate. I never called anyone a traitor, wasn't about that, was about hypothetical futures. You're a great chairperson Arria, any RA would be super-glad to have you.

laters,
josjoha

P.S. I should have made these things a separate thread i guess, since it has nothing to do with the elections, to prevent confusion. Such a thread could be named "Procedure for changes to the Constitution." The only reason it got attached in these complicated thing about elections (that I honestly don't understand and don't even try, I just hope we can soon all go on in a good way); is that I was surprised to see that the RA could change the Constitution (with the SC). I didn't know that, and that caused my opinions on this fundamental issue of Constitutional law (which i think is important, but has nothing to do with any specific RA much less the current election trouble). Sorry in any case, please feel well soon. Ban you ? I certainly hope not !!! Ban me too then.

[Rose Springvale]

Arria,
I'm sorry you felt the need to do this. Thank you, and the 15th RA, for your service.

Rose

[Patroklus Murakami]

Arria

While I'm critical of some of your actions and of the RA in respect of your original decisions by notecard I want to reiterate that I believe the RA, all of the RA, acted in good faith. You were trying to do the right thing and, though I disagree with you actions, I don't doubt you motives.

There's rather too much politicking, manufactured hysteria and ridiculous accusations being bandied about on the forms righ now. Some people need to calm it down a notch.

[Rosie Gray]

Thank you for all your work as LRA Arria. I think you may have made some mistakes, but you weren't the only one to do so, and that you had the best interests of the CDS in mind. There are certainly no hard feelings from me towards you or anyone else.

I agree with Pat that people need to calm down a bit. Let's remember that these are our Second lives, and maybe use some of that energy to spend on the real world that could certainly do with it.

[Ceasar Xigalia]

Aria

I too am sorry to see you go, I believe history will treat you more kindly.

Ceasar

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

Arria,

I personally don't think that you did anything worth resignating for. But that's just my opinion. For instance, the justification you give on the issue of the so-called "secret meeting" is more than adequate; the RA can, indeed, do that in extraordinary cases, and be prepared to reveal everything at a later date (as the Constitution requires) and notify the SC accordingly. Which was done; I read that on the public SC meeting transcript! Those meetings simply cannot approve laws and such which require being published. But in this specific case, that wasn't the case. Of course, others might interpret it differently, but I didn't. Also, I'm not even aware that there was a complaint about that — I mean a formal complaint, not a rant in the forums.

Obviously the right to your free speech is something vital, and I perfectly understand that reason for resigning, even though I still think that you are entitled to your free speech when holding office... well, except in matters of national security which require secrecy... but we really never codified that, to be honest.

I also don't think that the reputation of the RA (much less of you as LRA) was ever questioned. One thing is having people disagreeing with the laws passed by the RA and inventing conspiracy theories to justify why those laws were passed. That's just gossip and rumours; or, put into more typical forum speech, "drama". I would personally shrug off any conspiracy theories, because for every theory presented, a contradictory and equally valid one will be argued — so there is never any good coming out of either admitting or denying those theories. The way I saw the recent discussion, the RA members mostly avoided participating in those discussions, and just acted as passive watchers, allowing citizens present whatever conspiracy theories they wanted without interfering. What could possibly be a better conduct than that?

Sure, there might have been some misguided judgments and some "bad" laws (in the sense that they didn't benefit all citizens). But that has always been the case. The RA is not "forced" to be "always right" and "always benefitting everybody", because that is simply impossible. Not even the SC can guarantee that. All that the RA can hopefully do is to follow the legislation, and pass new legislation according to the rules; and if they fail to do so, that's not a problem, because that's when the SC has the opportunity to check that the legislation is written according to proper procedure, and veto it if it isn't. It's not a "bad" thing if the RA attempts to do something beyond their power and gets checked by the SC; that's why there is a SC, to prevent those things from happening. But not even the SC can guarantee that all laws are "good" — they have no such power, they can only prevent uncompliant laws to be passed, and nothing else.

So, sure, some people will be unhappy with some laws. That's why we're a democracy: we can vote on RA representatives that make laws that make us more happier! That's the only way in democracy.

There was nothing "proved" against any RA member. Sure, people can invent all wild theories they want; but all RA members are innocent until proved otherwise. Not only there has been no attempt to file any complaint with the SC against any RA member, but even if that happened, the SC has not announced any public meeting to analyse and review those complaints. So for all effects one has to assume that no such complaints really existed: they were just, well, "drama" and nothing more.

In my mind there are no reasons for you (or any other member of the RA) to resign. But of course that's just one opinion; your own opinion in this is much more important, and it should be respected, and applauded for the courage to do so.

I'm definitely looking forward to see you in office again And since I've not publicly declared my support to any candidate, the least I can do as a friend is to wish you the best of luck in the upcoming elections!

[josjoha]

Arria,

There was nothing "proved" against any RA member. Sure, people can invent all wild theories they want; but all RA members are innocent until proved otherwise.

Hi,

I'm sorry that I will (again) break out of this conversation and attempt to argue fundamentals of law which do not pertain to anyone at all ... but: politics is not a court-case, until it is a court-case. I am not saying anything about the current situation, I don't really care about it, only hope everyone feels ok. But I do care about law and the legal culture in general, the social contract etc etc. A politician in a system where such politician has true power for a duration (such as the Dutch democracy, to stress that I'm not even talking about the CDS, although they have that too), you have to be able to have extensive trust in the character of someone who wields that power. Because they are beyond reproach for the duration of the mandate (which I consider to be a dangerous system of representation, and I advocate we all start using mandates on immediate and effective recall by voter-blocks, but that is again a 3rd other matter).

A second part of being able to have good faith in a politician is that the power in Sovereign politics is immense; they can destroy the nation through war or other decisions. You see this reflected in demands that the politicians shed their special interests such as any stocks they might own. Why can they not own stocks in businesses, while being part of the Government (this is at least the Dutch law, they have to temporarily shed their link to such holdings) ? Nothing has yet been proven about their bad conduct or ill intentions, on the contrary by being elected they have harvested an extensive amount of good faith already. Yet they are still required to do so, because the power is so great and the danger is so great. The politician is not innocent in political matters until proven guilty: the politician is innocent until proven innocent in politics, and guilty until proven guilty once in court.

This then brings up the issue of what right there exists to formulate arguments that a politician has alterior motives, even if these can not be proven. I see two conflicting interests which are both important: 1. the politician is a human being, deserves to be treated with respect and feel safe, and if there is too much raging suspicion going on this may tear apart the fabric of the society and we may loose the democracy, and 2. the duty of the citizenry to guard their nation from (I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT ANYONE HERE!) nefarious crime circles who are for the time being able to hide their schemes. Without much evidence citizens must have the freedom to point to possible yet still unproven crimes/corruption, because a) this can lead to the proper investigation to lay the issue to rest, b) the suspects are in great power, they may at that time be conducting their crimes and may be stopped by nothing more then the explained suspicion of citizens which may safe the nation from great harm, c) it is the Government itself which is suspected, while it is also the Government itself in the general sense that investigates crimes. That last point means that there is an increased chance that crimes will not come to light in the normal manner, but it requires an active citizenry and possible revolution to correct the crimes. Every adult human being on the planet should be well aware of the extensive crimes that are being conducted and have been conducted by Governments over time. The money is enormous in Government, the crimes are gut-wrenching (usually culminating in Empire and war, genocide), yet proof is hard to come by.

What does this have to do with CDS then ? Nothing more then that issue of culture to what degree it should be acceptible for citizens to point to possible fraud in a representative democracy, as a general issue, a principle for all democracies in the world, of which CDS is one. It should be possible to argue issues of law and principle without people taking it personal; I am talking about myself as a possible guilty traitor also, because one day I could be elected into something as well.

Having said the above, I think that because CDS is such a small group, that there is an increased relevance of treating each other well and friendly. Arria, RA: I am not talking about you, I am not ! I only care about general principles of law. By the way I find the CDS Constitution a clear document (finally came around to reading it a little).

What do I think about possible corruption in the current RA ? I have no opinion about this at all, I don't even care. I am sure that if these elections go on however way they go on, that in time we have another election; hence the republic has not fallen. That being the case I don't really care that much. Principles of law and governance as such interest me, though. I go on about this because I fear people will feel bad by thinking I talk about them, sorry. Please don't feel bad, thank you.
\
regards,
josjoha

[Sonja Strom]

Arria, I am very sorry to hear you have resigned, and even more that you wanted to do so.

Thank you for all of the work you have done for the CDS and the RA as Leader of the Representative Assembly.

[Beathan]

Arria,

I have always respected you -- and your announcement here confirms that I have been right in doing so. You are doing the honorable thing, and that is more impressive because in this case it is hard (and even a little unfair).

I wish that your fellows in the current government -- RA, SC and Chancellor -- would take a lesson from your demonstration of true class and do likewise -- stepping back from CDS government (at least in policy-making or interpreting roles) for at least one term while new and old blood tries to sort things out.

Beathan

[Arria Perreault]

I was travelling until today. I had only my iPad with me. When I came home, I have read all your messages with a big emotion. I would like to thank sincerely you all the persons who have written in this thread, who have sent to me a mail, an IM, a notecard or a gift after my resignation. I have really appreciated all these messages.

CDS is a great place!