Proposals for First RA Session

[Beathan]

1. Amend the error made by the previous RA in the passing of the special voting amendments in failing to limit the disenfranchisement of new citizens to the general election only. Therefore, we should amend the second prong of Pat's proposal to include the word "general" before the word "election." Pat recognized this as a friendly amendment and the previous RA apparently and erroneously considered it as implied.

2. Pass a new Constitutional amendment on by-elections as follows:

Any by-election to fill any vacant seat on the RA shall include a recalculation of the number of available seats of the RA based on the number of citizens qualified to vote in the by-election. If the current voting population supports an increase in the size of the RA, then seats shall be added to the RA and filled in the by-election. If the current voting population has decreased such that the voting population no longer supports an RA of the currently configured size, then a by-election shall be held only if the number of vacant seats would reduce the RA to a smaller size than the currently supported size and then shall only be for the number of seats needed to bring the RA to its currently supported size.

3. Consider my by-election statutory proposal previously posted http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3588 with the amendment that I will drop the whereas terms and merely request that the substantive paragraph be presented for passage.

4. Appoint a committee to consider Constitutional revisions for later presentation to the RA, specifically including: 1. A change in the mechanics for amendments to prevent ad hoc, circumstance-specific Constitutional amendments (perhaps by requiring that Amendments be approved by referendum in the next election, whether a by-election or general election), 2. a reform of the SC both in terms of function and in appointment to enhance its democratic purpose and reduce its aristocratic effect, and 3. other amendments, including housekeeping (clean up) Amendments to produce a more usable document by removing cluttering artifacts and lapsed provisions from it.

Beathan

[Patroklus Murakami]

I'm unlikely to attend the next RA meeting on 7 January where I expect these issues will be discussed. I would like to request a 7-day vote on them. Here are some thoughts as a contribution to the debate.

First, I don't think there is much need for any of this. The election was free and fair and conducted in line with our laws, constitution etc. The SC has said as much and I agree with them. That said, I respect anyone who chooses to resign from the RA because they disagree with my analysis. I can't agree that people can force other people to resign though! That does not show reciprocal respect for a different point of view. It is, in my view, tyrannical and would be a dreadful precedent to set if it were passed.

On the substance of Beathan's proposals. I'm not sure that point 1 is needed. The intent of the previous RA was pretty clear, the date was to restate what the cut-off date was for the general election, it was not intended to change the arrangements for any subsequent by-election. Rather than debate a potentially unnecessary constitutional amendment I think we should seek clarification from the SC. There was a by-election about a year ago, what rules did the SC use? Did they set the cut-off date for voting at 28 days before the by-election or use the date set for the general election? What date would they use if a by-election were called now? Then we can work out if the RA really needs to do anything.

The proposal to alter the size of the RA every time we hold a by-election is not one I support. As I made clear in standing for election, I think we should fix the size of the RA at five members. Five is more than adequate for the size of our community over the past five or more years I have been here; even if we are really good at expanding to several hundreds of citizens, five representatives would still be perfectly fine in my view. Scaling to fit the size of the citizenry has only caused problems - we have had a couple of elections where we have failed to persuade enough people to stand. Beathan's proposal takes account of expansion but, as with your real-life investments, the size of the CDS can fall as well as rise! What happens if people leave and, at by-election time there are fewer seats than existing RA members? For example, in a 7-member RA one person resigns but the population declines from 71 to 69 people? You would have 6 sitting RA members but only five seats. Should we hold a 'de-election' to remove someone? This just seems unnecessary to me.

Proposal 3 would allow the RA to nullify the result of the last general election. I don't accept that the RA has the right to do this. It would mean accepting that a majority of RA members could force out of office the minority irrespective of whether they thought there was a need to resign. This would be 'the dictatorship of the majority' indeed and a dreadful precedent to set. If people want to resign as a matter of conscience that is their right but they don't have the right to impose this view on other duly elected representatives and to negate the votes of our citizens.

Proposal 4 is a bit of an 'omnibus' proposal. I'm not opposed in principle to a 'Constitution Commission' but, to be honest, I'd rather we worked on a new sim than amending the Constitution.

• On the detail, preventing 'ad hoc, circumstance-specific' amendments would have meant constitutional deadlock before the last set of elections. The SC could not vary the dates of the election so preventing the RA from doing so would really have tied us in knots!

  I'm in favour of reforming the SC, limiting it to 3 members and having nominations made by the Chancellor with the RA ratifying appointments. And term limits.

  Housekeeping would be fine but, as I said, not a huge priority for me really.