First census under the new law

[Sudane Erato]

Here are the results of the first census as specified under the new law. Perhaps someone can post a link to that new law in a follow-on post here.

The census was held yesterday, April 3 at Noon SLT. The census listed both the payers of the Hippo boxes and the named owners of parcels. The full table of names and dispositions is here: http://bit.ly/HevYSb

The result of the census is as follows:

Fully in compliance:
Alexicon Kurka
Anna Toussaint
Arria Perreault
Asterix Beresford
Avenge Titanium
Avoca Novi
Bagheera Kristan
Beathan Vale
Bromo Ivory
Callipygian Christensen
Ceasar Xigalia
Cindy Ecksol
CLEOPATRA Xigalia
Crux Maximus
Daniel Sosa
Dee Shepherd
Delia Lake
Elblin Resident
emilia Avindar
Fern Leissa
Gelf Yalin
Gonta Maltz
Gwyneth Llewelyn
HonestHeart Resident
Jerad1976 Resident
Jeroma Wycliffe
Jon Seattle
josjoha Resident
Junius Inaka
Kazuhiko Shirakawa
Kim Rongyu
KlausWulfenbach Outlander
Konrad Jansma
LadyJ Celestalis
Lef Leven
Lilith Ivory
MaryanneRobberts Resident
MaryElizabethbc1 Resident
Mikelo Serevi
Mizou Vavoom
Moonrise Azalee
Mothercard Warden
Oriscus Zauberflote
Patroklus Murakami
Pip Torok
Rain Ninetails
Rose Springvale
Rosie Gray
Roxxxy Foxdale
SDolphin Resident
Shadowgirlsk Resident
Shep Titian
Soro Dagostino
Sudane Erato
Tanoujin Milestone
Timo Gufler
Tor Karlsvalt
Trebor Warcliffe
Ulysse Alexandre
Vespasian Cortes
Yogeswari Padar

In compliance except all parcels remain under group name, which will ultimately need to be corrected for full compliance
Alexia Carnell
Aliasi Stonebender
Amitia Resident
Amulius Lioncourt
Balder Laasonen
Claude Desmoulins
Deningunparte Resident
Jonty Peel
Moon Adamant
Naftali Torok
Rubaiyat Shatner
Sonja Strom

Sudane.....................................

[Beathan]

I would hate to see the longtime citizens on the group ownership list disenfranchised for technical noncompliance with the new law. Perhaps we can get a quick SC ruling so the RA can pass a corrective action if necessary.

[Sudane Erato]

The legislation specified that if the tool for reading the land owners of a sim was not yet ready by the dates of the election census, we would rely only on the Hippo boxes, which we already had a way to read.

In other words, the RA intention seemed to to acknowledge the need for transitional flexibility.

My interpretation, as an executive staff person, would be to extend that flexibility to those owners who are present, current with their tier, and perhaps only needing to grapple with the process of converting group owned land to individual.

I haven't discussed this with Trebor, but I suspect that all of the executive staff would be inclined to offer this flexibility as an intepretation of the approved legislation.

Sudane.....................

[Beathan]

Sudane,

I think you are right. That was certainly MY intention (but I wasn't present at the actual session -- voting on a seven day vote). Technically, I think the SC should address this before the election, and in time for the RA to fix it, to avoid challenges seeking to invalidate the group-voters after this vote.

Maybe I'm paranoid -- or made jaded from American election litigation I have seen since 2000.

Beathan

[Sudane Erato]

The follow up census, as required by the recent act, is complete. A full table can be seen here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub ... utput=html

Citizens fully in compliance:
Alexicon Kurka
Anna Saarinen
Anna Toussaint
Arria Perreault
Asterix Beresford
Avenge Titanium
Avoca Novi
Bagheera Kristan
Beathan Vale
Bromo Ivory
Callipygian Christensen
Ceasar Xigalia
Cindy Ecksol
Daniel Sosa
Dee Shepherd
Delia Lake
Elblin Resident
emilia Avindar
Fern Leissa
Gelf Yalin
Gonta Maltz
Gwyneth Llewelyn
HonestHeart Resident
Jamie Palisades
Jerad1976 Resident
Jeroma Wycliffe
Jon Seattle
Junius Inaka
Kazuhiko Shirakawa
Kim Rongyu
KlausWulfenbach Outlander
Konrad Jansma
LadyJ Celestalis
Lef Leven
Lilith Ivory
MaryanneRobberts Resident
MaryElizabethbc1 Resident
Mikelo Serevi
Mizou Vavoom
Moonrise Azalee
Mothercard Warden
Nolligan Nino
Oriscus Zauberflote
Patroklus Murakami
Pip Torok
Rain Ninetails
Rose Springvale
Rosie Gray
Roxxxy Foxdale
Rubaiyat Shatner
SDolphin Resident
Shadowgirlsk Resident
Shep Titian
Sonja Strom
Soro Dagostino
Sudane Erato
Tanoujin Milestone
Timo Gufler
Tor Karlsvalt
Trebor Warcliffe
Ulysse Alexandre
Vespasian Cortes
Yogeswari Padar

Citizens in compliance except that they own no parcel in their own name
Alexia Carnell
Aliasi Stonebender
Amitia Resident
Amulius Lioncourt
Balder Laasonen
Claude Desmoulins
Deningunparte Resident
Jonty Peel
Moon Adamant
Naftali Torok

PLEASE check this to make sure that what is presented is accurate to your understanding, as you have only a limited time to appeal.

If others would be kind enough to devise a way to distribute this table out to those who may not access the forum, I'd be greatly appreciative.

Sudane................................

[Callipygian]

The follow up census, as required by the recent act, is complete. A full table can be seen here:

ht

PLEASE check this to make sure that what is presented is accurate to your understanding, as you have only a limited time to appeal.

If others would be kind enough to devise a way to distribute this table out to those who may not access the forum, I'd be greatly appreciative.

Sudane................................

Sudane, is this the list you are certiying as the Citizen List? If so, the way it is dsitributed, and by whom, is legislated through RA. I copy the relevant inormation here:

Bill #2: Citizenship membership publication for election purposes

Preamble

It is the law of the CDS that citizens must hold the title to their land for more than 28 days, and have tier payed in full to qualify to vote or to run for office. However, due to the complexities of the electoral calendar, the validation of that requirement is unnecessarily complicated.

The Citizen List shall be the certified list of CDS citizens eligible to run for office or vote in CDS Elections. The Citizen List will be created in the following manner:

1. At 12 noon SLT on the dates designated by the Scientific Council, the Estate Manager or his or her designate, will generate both a Hippo list of tier payors and a Land Scanner list of parcel owners. They will then compare these two lists to determine that a given name appears on both lists, and that that given name is current in at least one parcel tier payment. The Estate Manager or his or her designate will use these lists to create one list of the citizens who are qualified to run for office or vote, the Citizen List. (In the event that the upgrade to the Land Scanner is not available in time for the generation of the Citizen List for the June 2012 elections, the Hippo List alone will be used).

2. Within 24 hours this List will be delivered to the Chancellor, who will publish the List on the CDS Forums, by notecard to the SL group 'CDS', by notecard available at the Praetorium and any other public location the Chancellor may choose, and on the CDS web portal.

3. Only those citizens whose names appear on the published Citizen List may run for office or vote in the CDS elections.

4. Any citizen may challenge the inclusion or omission of an avatar on the Citizen List by petitioning the Scientific Council. Any such petition challenging the Citizen List must be received by the Dean of the SC no later than midnight SLT, 21 days after that Citizen List is published. The SC will make every effort to resolve such challenges within 7 days, so that nominations and elections can proceed with an accurate Citizen List.

So, you certify that the list is correct, you deliver to the Chancellor, the Chancellor circulates, and with specific methods and locations.

This was passed on the same day as the second part of the new Citizenship Law.

Calli

[Sudane Erato]

Yes. Well....

The law I thought specified two "census" lists, one for office qualification (done this time on Apr 3), and a second one for voter qualification, which is this one. This is me in my inattentiveness to the rules implementing paragraph 2, which I guess should be published by the chancellor. Trebor and I worked on this together, since I couldn't collect both the Hippo data and the in world data at the same time. I then compared the two lists, as you can see on the referenced chart. Further up in this thread, the first post, you can see that we did the same thing on Apr 3, in compliance with our understanding of the law.

So yes, I have prepared the lists as close to specified as possible, and, acting for the chancellor, with whom I collaborated in this work, published these lists here. My request, then, I guess was to the chancellor, to publish these in other media as well, but I'm sure he wouldn't mind if others helped.

My concern is that since this is the first time we have used this system for voter qualification, that this be brought to people's attention as thoroughly as possible, as quickly as possible. In future years, when this system is ingrained into our community consciousness, there will be less urgency... we will simply need to comply with the letter of the law. But now I think we need to go an extra mile to get people to look at this, see why they qualified or did not qualify, and if need be, appeal. I personally feel that the people who have not yet converted their land ownership to their own names should be given more time to do so, and not be excluded from voting this time around.

But I will vouch for the "machines". This data is gathered by machine, which means that it is not subject to interpretation by Trebor or I, or by anyone. At the time these datas were collected, these names appeared. In future years, we will seek to make this more and more automated, since Trebor and I still had to sort the lists by hand and align the comparative names. But the basic appearance of names, which is the fundamental principal of our new law, is quite non-debatable.

Sudane............................

[Callipygian]

Yes. Well....

The law I thought specified two "census" lists, one for office qualification (done this time on Apr 3), and a second one for voter qualification, which is this one. This is me in my inattentiveness to the rules implementing paragraph 2, which I guess should be published by the chancellor. Trebor and I worked on this together, since I couldn't collect both the Hippo data and the in world data at the same time. I then compared the two lists, as you can see on the referenced chart. Further up in this thread, the first post, you can see that we did the same thing on Apr 3, in compliance with our understanding of the law.

So yes, I have prepared the lists as close to specified as possible, and, acting for the chancellor, with whom I collaborated in this work, published these lists here. My request, then, I guess was to the chancellor, to publish these in other media as well, but I'm sure he wouldn't mind if others helped.

My concern is that since this is the first time we have used this system for voter qualification, that this be brought to people's attention as thoroughly as possible, as quickly as possible. In future years, when this system is ingrained into our community consciousness, there will be less urgency... we will simply need to comply with the letter of the law. But now I think we need to go an extra mile to get people to look at this, see why they qualified or did not qualify, and if need be, appeal. I personally feel that the people who have not yet converted their land ownership to their own names should be given more time to do so, and not be excluded from voting this time around.

But I will vouch for the "machines". This data is gathered by machine, which means that it is not subject to interpretation by Trebor or I, or by anyone. At the time these datas were collected, these names appeared. In future years, we will seek to make this more and more automated, since Trebor and I still had to sort the lists by hand and align the comparative names. But the basic appearance of names, which is the fundamental principal of our new law, is quite non-debatable.

Sudane............................

Hi Sudane

I wasn't questioning the how or the accuracy - just whether you were intending this to be the 'official' posting of the Citizen List.

The discussions that went into the wording of the law regarding creation and posting included a desire that the creation and confirmation of the List be in the hands of the Estate manager (you , the posting be in the hands of the Executive, and any challenge be directed to the SC - each completing their role, no conflict of interest (e.g. the SC hearing an appeal that challenges a list that the SC confirmed as accurate etc), and specific people responsible for specific actions.

Since it *is* legislated, in my opinion, the 21 day time to challenge this list does not start until the Chancellor posts it on the Forums (hopefully under some noticeable heading like OFFICIAL CITIZEN LIST FOR VOTING), sends it out by notecard in an inworld group notice, and makes a copy available in the Praetorium. This doesn't preclude others from circulating it etc - but as our experience has shown us, if it is a law someone is likely to challenge that it wasn't carried out to the letter..and therefore the List was never actually 'official'...therefore any election using it is invalid... you see where that is going

You are correct - the same protocol should have been followed with the first publication and that should probably be corrected now with the Chancellor posting the official Citizen List for Candidates, or some similar heading - all that really does is extend the length of time for any challenge to that list.

As for those not in compliance, it was my understanding that an attempt would be made to contact them directly in the last two weeks to explain the requirement and offer assistance in how to reset land if needed. I think Patrolkus posted another inworld notice reminding people, but either this has not worked or those with their land still set to a group have chosen to give up the right to vote.

There was some mention at the time of 'maybe we should get the SC's opinion on whether or not those not fully in compliance can run (or in the case of this second posting, vote)'. No one has actually *asked* the SC to do so however.

You and I are on the same page Sudane, get the info out to everyone through as many channels as possible, but to really ensure that there is no question of the List being official I believe the legislated methods of distribution *must* also take place.

Calli

[Patroklus Murakami]

The RA passed the following motion at the meeting today:

"i move we ask the SC to rule on whether people who own land with a group title (and have not switched it to individual) should be allowed to vote in teh coming elections" (apologies for my lousy typing).

Soro has agreed to put this on the agenda for tomorrow's SC meeting.