Moderator: SC Moderators
I have notified the LRA that the SC has flagged, for review, the validity of the RA meeting held on Saturday April 28th.
The rationale for this is posted on the SC Discussion forum and can be read here: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=3806
Callipygian
I would like to point out that I posted notice that the Constitutional Amendment to set the number of RA seats at five was posted here and that notice the meeting would take place was posted here.
The agenda was not posted 24 hours in advance (as per the RA Rules of Procedure) due to the LRAs computer problems. I do not know if any other RA member was asked to carry out this task (or, indeed, whether they could have been invited to do so).
I hope the SC will take these factors into account when considering the validity of the last RA meeting.
Patroklus Murakami wrote:I would like to point out that I posted notice that the Constitutional Amendment to set the number of RA seats at five was posted here and that notice the meeting would take place was posted here.
The agenda was not posted 24 hours in advance (as per the RA Rules of Procedure) due to the LRAs computer problems. I do not know if any other RA member was asked to carry out this task (or, indeed, whether they could have been invited to do so).
I hope the SC will take these factors into account when considering the validity of the last RA meeting.
Not much of a notice of the meeting if you ask me.
Cindy
Sadly,
I think this has a point, but the problem with notice arose from computer problems by the LRA. Some (but not all) of the agenda was publicized in advance. The time and date of the meeting was also publicized (and was set at the conclusion of the last RA meeting).
I think that most of the agenda was regular RA procedure or was publicized by its proponent. The exception is the repeal of term limits, which was not publicized and which was added to the Agenda at the meeting. I think a revote on this measure, after full and proper notice, is probably called-for, but I hope that the rest of the meeting is upheld as adequately publicized given the rl difficulties of the LRA, which not only prevented her from publishing a full agenda, but also prevented her from attending the meeting or telling the vice-LRA to step in with regard to pre-meeting duties.
Beathan
The fact no malice was at play doesn't really matter - if we're going to have those rules, they have to be followed, otherwise... well, why have them? (And that's a wholly valid question, although not one that will be considered by the SC, obviously.)
I hope that the SC will consider that the 28 April RA meeting was a valid meeting. There was notice that the meeting was taking place and the agenda was the standard one with the items I flagged for discussion. The only addition was the repeal of term limits which was added at the meeting (in line with the RA Rules of Procedure).
A decision that the meeting was not valid has consequences. It is not just a case of holding a revote on the items at the next RA meeting. If the SC decides that the RA has to vote again to repeal term limits for example, some people who would be able to stand in the next elections will not be able to do so. This is because the deadline for nominations is tomorrow 2 May. Currently Rosie has indicated a willingness to stand but she has been on the RA for two terms. If the SC decides that the RA decision was null and void then we still have term limits and Rosie can't stand. The RA can reverse the SC decision at its next meeting but it will be too late by then. Rosie will have been disqualified and won't be able to stand in the elections.
None of this is a reason for not declaring the meeting null and void if people truly believe that the meeting was not a valid meeting. Let's just be clear that there are consequences which flow from that decision.
Aliasi Stonebender wrote:The fact no malice was at play doesn't really matter - if we're going to have those rules, they have to be followed, otherwise... well, why have them? (And that's a wholly valid question, although not one that will be considered by the SC, obviously.)
May I respectfully suggest that the SC carefully consider, then, at their discretion, speedily issue a waiver in this particular and, in my opinion, exceptional case?
Pip Torok
Pip Torok wrote:Aliasi Stonebender wrote:The fact no malice was at play doesn't really matter - if we're going to have those rules, they have to be followed, otherwise... well, why have them? (And that's a wholly valid question, although not one that will be considered by the SC, obviously.)
May I respectfully suggest that the SC carefully consider, then, at their discretion, speedily issue a waiver in this particular and, in my opinion, exceptional case?
Pip Torok
I don't like the idea of the SC issuing decisions based on special waivers. That seems arbitrary and dangerous. The SC should confine itself to yes/no compliance decisions -- does the act comply with the Constitution, or not. There should be no "well, it does not comply, but we'll allow it" decisions.
Beathan
I can see the arguments on either side, and regret the part played via my computer problems. It was certainly not intentional, but as Aliasi points out, rules is rules. Due notice seems especially important when a potentially contentious amendment such as term limits is added at the last minute. I will not be offended in the least if the SC considers it null. It will be doing it's job either way.
However, the harm to Rosie remains ... is there a way of alleviating it?
Don't worry about me, I wasn't going to run for RA this time. Thanks for the concern though, and I look forward to an exciting election!
Rosie
Late Comment on the SC Meeting 5/5 2012
http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3823
/me bows to Ms. Gray
Dear fellow citizens,
being heavily involved in RL I will always stay a less active citizen of the CDS. All the more I am dependent on public servants who keep up the idea of low threshold opportunities to participate. I am dependent on transparency and proper procedures. As long as I have access to a well-kept public layer I will be fine with all the clandestineness which is natural in any society.
Therefore I appreciate the decision of the SC to invalidate the RA meeting 4/28. IMO there was a good example set. Thank you very much.
Tanoujin Milestone wrote:Late Comment on the SC Meeting 5/5 2012
http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3823
/me bows to Ms. Gray
Dear fellow citizens,
being heavily involved in RL I will always stay a less active citizen of the CDS. All the more I am dependent on public servants who keep up the idea of low threshold opportunities to participate. I am dependent on transparency and proper procedures. As long as I have access to a well-kept public layer I will be fine with all the clandestineness which is natural in any society.
Therefore I appreciate the decision of the SC to invalidate the RA meeting 4/28. IMO there was a good example set. Thank you very much.
I may be reading your post incorrectly.. but I find myself feeling somewhat indignant, your use of the word 'clandestineness' and the sentence 'IMO there was a good example set' seems to allude to a purposeful action of the RA that was uncovered and duly punished.. whereas you know (as you were present) that the only reason an agenda was not produced in advance of the said meeting was because LRA had severe computer problems. The actions of the SC were purely on a point of procedure ... nothing more ...
A misunderstanding, Shep. Isn't clandestineness natural in any society? Might be my fault. Point of procedure, nothing more. Wasn't the SC meeting a good example for proper procedures? Thanks for your last group notice. I am looking forward to your campaign.
The SC has decided to invalidate the RA meeting held on 28 April. I propose that, at our next RA meeting on 12 May, we revote on all items.
I don't propose that we spend very much time on this. The RA discussed the issues at the earlier meeting and there has been debate on the issues on these forums. I propose that we allow a brief time for people who have not spoken on the issue previously to make any points they would like to and then move the vote. I think it would be best if we tried to complete this item of business in about fifteen minutes at the next RA meeting. We have other new issues to discuss which will take time to consider.