20 May 12 Transcript of RA/SC Cttee on SC Reform

[Patroklus Murakami]

Callipygian Christensen: I am thinking that perhaps we start with what we agree on and go from there lol
Callipygian Christensen: but I'd like to ask if Delia could lead us?
Patroklus Murakami: fine by me
Delia Lake: yes let's start
Callipygian Christensen: She is the one who has put a lot of time and reasearch into this for the last year and more
Delia Lake: ok
Delia Lake: let me say at the get go that I come to these talks from the position that some reform of the SC is most certainly in order
Delia Lake: in my experience there are some aspects that do not work well and some that are even impossible to carry out the way the current structure is
Delia Lake: that being said, I see our task today as this committee, to lay out what the issues are, why they should be addresses, what possible recommendations might be to make things better not just different
Patroklus Murakami: perhaps we should identify what we think is broken? or at least 'in need of reform'?
Delia Lake: and to prioritize import of actions, and also what contingent laws and constitutional duties our recommendations might change
Delia Lake: first if we may could we look at the purpose? why have the SC?
Delia Lake: we have all given some thought to this I think
Callipygian Christensen: I think we are generally in agreement about the purpose from posts to the forum and email
Patroklus Murakami: dispute resolution is a bone of contention though
Delia Lake: I can put out here what I think it is if you'd like. and Pat and Calli also. yes I think so too Pat. but if we could then have a statement to which we would all subscribe I think that would help
Callipygian Christensen: hmm.I think I see it more as a matter of to what degree
Patroklus Murakami: that's right calli
Delia Lake: for me to start, here are some thoughts. What is and should be the purpose of the SC in the CDS community?
I agree with what Pat posted. ?The purpose of the SC, in my view, is to act as the defenders of the Constitution. They are the ones who 'keep the RA honest' by insisting that rules of procedure are followed, they defend the interests of minorities who might otherwise be abused by the results of majority rule, and they hear any appeals about who is/is not permitted to vote or stand for election.?
To that I would add that the Scientific Council is from its origination, specified in the archived discussions and codified in the CDS Constitution, to be one of 3 equal and balancing branches of government, holding all branches, the RA and the Executive was well the SC itself, true to the Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the CDS Code of Laws and the SL ToS
?PREAMBLE (of the CDS Constitution)
All branches of the government are bound to serve the public before themselves and to up
Delia Lake: hold the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, Founding Philosophy, Constitution, local laws, the SL ToS, and Community Standards without exception.?
Patroklus Murakami: i have an issue with 'equal'
Delia Lake: how so Pat?
Patroklus Murakami: the SC cannot be an 'equal' branch of govnt with the RA and Chancellor if we are a democracy
Sudane Erato: we consider the US a democracy
Patroklus Murakami: both the RA and Chancellor derive their mandate from a vote of the cds citizens, the SC does not
Patroklus Murakami: in my view, and previous SC activity upholds this. the SC is there to act as a 'brake' on potential excess
Patroklus Murakami: the power is purely negative - to stop something happening, not a positve, activist role
Callipygian Christensen: I think the intent of 'eaual' is tht they all have powers..but those powers exert in different ways
Delia Lake: in the US many of the courts from the supreme court on down do not derive their mandate from the vote of the citizens, and yet I think most people would consider the US to be a democratic country
Patroklus Murakami: and the constitution does not say 'equal'
Callipygian Christensen: Pat, I think originally it *was* an activist role..but that is ancient histroy
Patroklus Murakami: i agree the US is democratic (and so is the UK with an unelected legislative chamber)
Delia Lake: the constitution does not say equal but the founding discussions to talk about the need for balance of power and so the 3 branches were set up to be that way
Patroklus Murakami: but let's agree the proper place and behavior for the SC. 'equal' is a dangerous precedent in my view, and novel
Delia Lake: so might we rephrase that in line with the language that is in the constitution, that the limits on power of each of the 3 branches is enforced by the other 2 branches or something to that effect? there are limits clauses for each branch
Patroklus Murakami: yes
Callipygian Christensen nods.. I think something more descriptive like that is better
Delia Lake: ok. are there any other additions or mods that are in order?
Callipygian Christensen: pat mentioned dispute resolution
Delia Lake: yes
Callipygian Christensen: Beathan's concern , I believe, has always been that there is no method of appeal as things currently work
Patroklus Murakami: actually i agree with most of the dispute resolution that is about citizens seeking redress from the govnt. where i part company is on refereeing disputes *between* citizensh
Delia Lake: I agree with you, Calli and with Beathan that there is some implied function for dispute resolution but imo it should be very limited
Callipygian Christensen: we've moved a bit towards that with the 'estate manager and chancellor produce citizen list'..SC hears challenges..
Patroklus Murakami: yes
Callipygian Christensen: and that is what I'd personally like to see..the SC serving as the appeal stage of any issue
Delia Lake: I agree with that, Pat. between citizens has the ToS
Patroklus Murakami: and we always have had that with RA actions. any citizen can challenge an RA action as unconstitutional
Callipygian Christensen: most issues come under the perview of the Executive or RA
Delia Lake: I think dispute resolution should be limited to those areas that are already in the domain of the SC such as perceived violations of the constitution, the laws, the covenant
Callipygian Christensen: so 'other' that people are concerned about are, I assume, things like 'Pat called me an obnoxious bitch' and I want a public apology'
Callipygian Christensen: not that he did (although he might have) - just an example
Delia Lake: and I strongly feel that categories of violations should be matched up with consequences that are within the agreed upon actions that the government can take
Patroklus Murakami: yes. i think the SC should not be involved in those disputes (except on the forums)
Sudane Erato: for that to work, wouldn;t we need a law on the books re "defamation of character"?
Callipygian Christensen: Delia.yes..action - consequence, clearly laid out
Patroklus Murakami: and forums maoderation should be pretty light
Delia Lake: I really feel that there should be little room for charges of arbitrariness or favoritism here
Patroklus Murakami: (as it is)
Callipygian Christensen: the whole banning thing fro months ago made the need for that clear
Callipygian Christensen: Sudane - it could probably be argued under human rights
Patroklus Murakami: as for hearing issues raised by non-citizens. i'm pretty relaxed
Sudane Erato: only if we presume to enforce "human rights"
Delia Lake: what is a banning offense? 1.--- 2. ---, 3. ---. here is the public list of those banned and why
Callipygian Christensen: One of th challenges of course is providing reasonable recourse, without inviting petty feuds
Patroklus Murakami: give a griefer a chance to come and explain is way more than anyone else would do!
Sudane Erato: hehe
Delia Lake: non citizens who grief imo should be handled by the chancellor or other execs and there is no recourse. follow the ToS here
Patroklus Murakami: and 99.9% will never take up the ofer
Callipygian Christensen: I agree..but its one of those things that, if it isnt in writing, can become an issue, as we saw
Delia Lake: citizens who might grief do have recourse and a chance to explain
Delia Lake: yes Calli
Callipygian Christensen: Basically what you are suggesting is what the SC *did* in that cae Pat
Delia Lake: these are areas that need to be clearly laid out imo
Callipygian Christensen: and that led to accusation that we were not giving fair hearing *shrug*
Patroklus Murakami: yes. i think it's fair to give ppl a chance. it's ridiculous tho to have to respond to petitions raised *on behalf of someone else* by a 3rd party
Callipygian Christensen: I dont have a problem with people having an advocate if the process or whatever concerns them..but *they* should be the petitioner and name an advocate
Delia Lake: I agree with that, Pat. we are not set up for that nor do I think we should be. the CDS rejected having a professional judiciary
Callipygian Christensen: ok..this is leading towards process and policy too..so can I pull us back to 'what level of DR is the SC responsible for'
Delia Lake: here's what I posted earlier in the forum re dispute resolution.
Delia Lake: I also agree with Beathan and Calli that there is an implied role of dispute resolution in the purpose and function of the SC. I believe that should be a limited function though, related to citizens complaints to do with the implementation of the Constitutionally defined duties of either the Chancellor and rest of the Executive or the RA. It is my opinion that what kinds of issues should be brought to the SC for resolution vs what should be brought to the Chancellor, at least first, or what should be brought to the RA for exploration via committee or proposed legislation should be clearly laid out. Furthermore, there should be at least a general if/then set of guidelines connecting violations with consequences that would be imposed. As a community of choice these are very limited but still hold weight.
Callipygian Christensen: I think Beathan would also be in agreement as long as there is a first and second level of being heard
Delia Lake: but there will not always be 2 levels
Sudane Erato: first=Chancellor, second=SC ?
Callipygian Christensen: here is what he said in e-mail:
Callipygian Christensen: I think I agree with most of what you say here, except, as you note, I believe that we should have a single, central and formal forum for dispute resolution. I note that, historically, divided or fractured, multi-jurisdictional dispute resolution has not worked well. That generally results in what we call "forum shopping" -- in which each participant tries to have the dispute resolved in the forum they consider most advantageous (usually because of real or perceived bias), which results in doubt as the fairness of the procedure and result. Further, that can lead to conflict among decision makers -- as in case in which the dispute was decided, and decided differently, by different forums. While this can be addressed by creating a hierarchy of dispute resolution authority -- if we do that, we might as well have a streamlined single process.
Delia Lake: what i didn't write but think should be is that hearings be with a minimum of 3 SC and could include the whole SC
Patroklus Murakami: i think the SCs practice (in contradiction to its rules of procedure ) is the right one. meet in session to consider a case
Callipygian Christensen: Delia..in what circumstances would there not be a first and second level?
Delia Lake: if there was a citizen complaint against the Chancellor, that the chancellor had violated the constitution
Callipygian Christensen: well that is back to process..the whole process laid out now is impossible since the SC isnt structured that way
Patroklus Murakami: that would be an improvement delia - at least 3 SC
Callipygian Christensen: well my e-mail suggested that the SC be quorate with 3 instead of the current 1 plus
Callipygian Christensen: I think in the case you say there Delai there IS a second level of appeal..
Delia Lake: at least 3 would fit with holding timely hearings
Callipygian Christensen: to RA, that the SC has failedits duty?
Delia Lake: and i also strongly believe that any matter brought to the SC for a hearing should be posted to the SC discussion section of the forum within 48 hrs
Patroklus Murakami: ? @ calli
Delia Lake: I'm not getting that either Calli
Callipygian Christensen: Delia..you said it someone comes to SC with a complaint that the chancellor..
Delia Lake: if the SC makes a finding and supports it with documentation, what would be the recourse
Callipygian Christensen: if we give a decision and the petitioner feels we have done so unfairly, I'd assume they DO have a recaurse , to go to RA and suggest we have failed in our duty?
Callipygian Christensen: I am justy trying to think through all the possible outcomes lol..its how I process..that and provide Beathan's 'two elvels'
Delia Lake: not so sure that that would be within the purview of the RA to second guess the SC just because someone did not like the outcome, not because the laws weren't applied well or fairly
Callipygian Christensen: and since we do provide ddocumenttion, the appeal to RA may only be RA e=revewing it and saying 'they didnt err'
Patroklus Murakami: what would the RA recourse be? impeachment?
Callipygian Christensen: in that case then, a second level may not always be possible - will have to see how Beathan looks at that
Sudane Erato: but the RA can only render a political judgement
Patroklus Murakami: a pretty high bar to set
Delia Lake: if the SC flagrantly abused power in a finding I would expect the RA to initiate impeachment
Callipygian Christensen nods
Delia Lake: but not for applying the law with documented support for a finding a citizen did not like
Patroklus Murakami: and how do we define 'impeachment'? a majority vote by the ra to remove a named Sc member from office? or 2/3?
Callipygian Christensen: so, I think what I have heard is 'DR issues fall under the perview of RA or Exec where appropriate, and issues naming RA or Exec as the 'offender' are heard by the SC as a whole?
Callipygian Christensen: (and that requires the development of a list of trangressions and consequences)
Delia Lake: that is also something that needs to be specified, Pat. my opinion is that it should be 2/3 just like it is for the SC to remove 1 of its own members
Delia Lake: yes, Calli when the defendant is a gov official
Callipygian Christensen: I agree with 2/3 - impeachment or removal is a serious thing
Patroklus Murakami: i tend to agree
Delia Lake: so Pat are you in agreement with a limited and well defined role of dispute resolution assigned to the SC?
Patroklus Murakami: provided it relates to citizen disputes w the govnt
Callipygian Christensen: there is the phrase to use
Delia Lake: ok. lets write it up that way
Callipygian Christensen: clearly stated..not citizens vs citizens
Patroklus Murakami: yes
Delia Lake: yes, for sure
Delia Lake: not citizen to citizen
Delia Lake: Sudane, how are you with all of this?
Sudane Erato: it all makes sense to me... it seems within the bounds of practicality...
Sudane Erato: which is the real issue to me
Delia Lake: good. practicality is very important here. I do not want anything that is not doable within a community of choice which is what the CDS is
Sudane Erato: exactly
Sudane Erato: think of an example
Sudane Erato: Ulrika, a citizen
Sudane Erato: trashed the city
Sudane Erato: she was banned
Sudane Erato: who would she appeal to?
Sudane Erato: I presume the SC?
Callipygian Christensen: funny you mention that one Sudane
Callipygian Christensen: I've read the original 4 hour transcript
Sudane Erato: or was the dispute between her and the ban -er
Delia Lake: so I think we can distill from this part a purpose and basic functions upon which we would all agree.
Patroklus Murakami: well, she was banned by the SC wasn't she? and that was *not* our finest judicial hour!
Callipygian Christensen: Her dispute should be with the 'law' or 'rule' that says 'thou shalt not trash the city'
Sudane Erato: we were very new at it
Callipygian Christensen: So she would appeal to the Exectuive..and if she got no joy there, could go with final appeal to the SC..at least, thats how I see what we are proposing?
Delia Lake: well in that example and it is a good one, in a way, when someone trashes the city they are impairing community property and affecting the cds as a whole regardless of the origin of the dispute even if it was personal
Sudane Erato: i think in that case she had been banned by decision of one of the bodies... I think the RA
Patroklus Murakami: so, it would initially be RA or Chancellor or caretakers who ban ppl?
Sudane Erato: so she would appeal the decision of the RA
Callipygian Christensen: yes Poat
Patroklus Murakami: and then the SC hears an appeal if someone wants to make one? seems fair to me
Callipygian Christensen: thats my understanding
Sudane Erato: ok
Delia Lake: in my years on the SC I have never had ban rights even though the marshalls of the peace laws says I should
Callipygian Christensen: land matters , greifing, defacement, al those things come under Executive dont they?
Delia Lake: and i believe the SC should not have ban rights and be the body to hear disputes
Patroklus Murakami: maybe that is something we should change delia? so the separation of powers and appeal rights are clear?
Sudane Erato: I recall waiting for authorization
Delia Lake: yes Calli
Sudane Erato: so some body myust have decided
Callipygian Christensen: I dont want ban rights as an SC member
Delia Lake: one of the other areas that doesn't work as currently written
Sudane Erato: meaning... she would appeal the action of that body
Callipygian Christensen: use them andsomeone will scream 'abuse of power'
Sudane Erato: well... i think its appropriate that a "non-person", such as Rudeen, might do that kind of banning... because it was by action of a body
Delia Lake: I want this reform to be carried out so that it can be implemened practically
Sudane Erato: yes!!
Patroklus Murakami: i hope we will have time to discuss an issue where we largely disagree (appointment of new SC members) before we conclude? i also want to check our understanding of how we might resolve any ongoing lack of agreement
Delia Lake: we have basic agreement on the purpose and function
Patroklus Murakami: yes delia, we do
Delia Lake: let's move to the size and tenure and see if we can handle that , inc the flattening of the structure
Delia Lake: we have floated a 5 member SC at times in all our posts
Delia Lake: Calli is recommending that it might on occasion be increased to 7 at least temporarily
Delia Lake: I have found that a 5 person body works pretty well
Callipygian Christensen: I suggest that for a couple of reasons
Delia Lake: 3 was much too small in my experience
Patroklus Murakami: well, my original proposal was 3. could go as far as 5. but 7? sounds like 'no change' to me
Delia Lake: and I think it should be an odd number
Delia Lake: so why 7 Calli?
Callipygian Christensen: the possible 2 are a cushion' agaisnt the SC finding itself at only 2 members say (or even 1 as hashappened in the past)..
Callipygian Christensen: and to allow for the fact that this is not an actual job..that people have real lives..or may want tot take on other taskes in the CDS for a period of time..
Callipygian Christensen: so it allows for somone who has taken a leave, for whatever reason, to return
Callipygian Christensen: without booting their replacement off into the sunset :0
Delia Lake: hmmm. both you Calli and you Pat have in the past taken leaves of absence from the SC
Patroklus Murakami: we have *way* too many ppl involved in 'government' in my view in the CDS. we need to limit the number of govnt officials we need to run effectivley. 3 SC members is fine in my view. add 2 more for backup but that's really as far as i could go
Delia Lake: 3 didn't work well imo. Claude and I had too much work during that period.
Callipygian Christensen: well i dont think personal vies on how many people should be involved in govenrment are particualrily relevant - as that arm of government tasked with defending the Consitution, having a few extra sources of knowledge and viewpoint is a benefit
Delia Lake: and again when for a bit it was just me, Soro and Aliasi. too much to do
Patroklus Murakami: i've given a *reason* why i think we need fewer ppl in govnt
Sudane Erato: I can see the feeling of too many people in government, but I can't see how having more hurts the function which the SC must perform
Delia Lake: for me there was too much
Patroklus Murakami: i would not die in a ditch over 5 v. 7 so perhaps we should agree to differ?
Delia Lake: I can see that point Pat. if there are an over abundance of government in relation to the population we might just as well have a direct democracy
Delia Lake: I can see Calli's point also
Patroklus Murakami: and ppl *do govnt* instead of *doing other stuff for CDS*
Delia Lake: agreed, Pat
Callipygian Christensen: my concern is that X goes to Shanghai, Y has a rl baby..neither are in world for a month or two...so the 3 SC membrs left MUST attaned and MUST agree on any flagging or etc..
Delia Lake: I will retire from the SC by the end of this year at the latest and will focus my cds time on MoCA. would like to spend more on MoCA now but don't have that much total time
Callipygian Christensen: more likely things just wont get done..it's happeened before.
Patroklus Murakami: perhaps we should be a bit harder about kicking ppl off SC who just drift away?
Callipygian Christensen smiles
Callipygian Christensen: perhaps we should
Callipygian Christensen: but again, we have to have a balance of realizing it *isn't* a paid RL job..
Sudane Erato: attendance requirements?
Patroklus Murakami: it's in the power of the SC to remove members. perhaps we should make 'attendance' one of the requirements?
Callipygian Christensen: so we can be creative in procedures in how people can be active SC members
Callipygian Christensen: umm..gusy..I put that in my e-mail?

[Patroklus Murakami]

Patroklus Murakami: or at least 'availability'?
Callipygian Christensen: Did you not get them?
Patroklus Murakami: yes, but all the emails were quite long!
Sudane Erato:
Callipygian Christensen: ah
Callipygian Christensen: letme find my comments then
Delia Lake: I'd me more inclined toward an internal sc policy regarding participation. there may be really legit reasons for missing a meeting or a number of them but no excuse for not participating given the SC Discussion section of the Forum where only SC can post
Callipygian Christensen: (I had thought long there might be better than long here)
Patroklus Murakami: i agree delia. i woudl see that as largely an internal SC matter (though the RA could act if the SC failed to)
Callipygian Christensen: here it is:
Callipygian Christensen: I would suggest an SC with a minimum of 5 members, and a maximum of 7. The 2 additional spots are filled at the discretion of the Dean, in such circumstances as an SC member needing a number of months leave for personal matters, or to readmit an SC member who may have taken a leave to perform some other necessary role in the CDS. Larger than 7 poses the risk of a diversity of opinions becoming opposing 'camps' within the SC . 5 to 7 members should ensure quorum, diversity and productivity.
All members of the SC are equal, all hold one vote, and a Chair (replacing Dean) is elected yearly by simple majority vote of the SC members.
The SC is quorate with 3 members present at meetings.
6. SC Recommendations and Proposals
a. SC Policies and Procedures
The current mess of policies and procedures should be rewritten to provide clear and functional processes. Along with unused university structure of membership, and unworkable judiciary functions and procedures, the SC is currently quorate with 2 members presen
Callipygian Christensen: t and with other members having no ability to vote in absentia, or after reviewing meeting transcripts.
So a clear identification of 'what the SC does' and 'what it is required to do' allows the members of the SC to define the responsibilities of Chair, Secretary, and member and then enforce those requirements. Some changes i would see as beneficial would be a requirement to post on issues, an attendance requirement for some number of meetings, a mechanism for voting if a member cannot attend a meeting and so on.(Details in later discussions)
Patroklus Murakami: i agree with all of that (bar the size of SC at 7)
Patroklus Murakami: can we discuss selection? as time is pressing?
Sudane Erato: well, you could keep the SC at 5 and mandate that the SC had stricter participation internal rules ?
Delia Lake: yes. let's start that discussion re selection
Callipygian Christensen: good Pat..I was aiming for something that makes it clear to SC members that there are duties..and to give the Chair something to say 'here is what you arent doing..do you need to be elsewhere?' if necessary
Delia Lake: yes, Calli, agreed
Callipygian Christensen: I actually agre with Pat on this one - in that i dont think we wil find agreement
Patroklus Murakami: as i see it, delia and calli favour retaining the current 'self-selected meritocracy' (or aristocracy as i/ beathan would put it)
Delia Lake: so lets move into the SC selection process. I've thought long on this one. I've tried to imagine a number of different scenarios and their outcomes
Patroklus Murakami: beathan and i want to open it up to all citizens to nominate
Delia Lake: I favor a meritocracy
Patroklus Murakami: i can see your arguments have merit. but how do we resolve this?
Callipygian Christensen: All citizens *can* nominate now
Delia Lake: and I favor opening it up to all citizens to nominate
Patroklus Murakami: only in groups of 5. and the SC acts as a filter
Callipygian Christensen: Pat..you need filters
Delia Lake: here again is what I posted to the forum earlier.
Delia Lake: Both my experience on the SC and my research into the functioning of past SCs confirm to me that there is wisdom in having this body be a meritocracy. It is critical to the functioning of the SC that its membership become well versed in the content and past application of the existing body of laws and regulations--CDS and LL ones. I share Pat's concern that the SC not be a cabal of friends. I believe though that a meritocracy where new members are voted in by current members is actually better protection against that happening than either appointment by a Chancellor or the RA, or direct election of the SC would be. I say this because of the nature of the work of the SC. No currently sitting member of a SC will want to intentionally vote in anyone who will not pull their weight in doing the work of this body. No current sitting member would want to bring additional work onto themselves just to have a "friend" who would not shoulder their share join the SC. The SC sitting
members whose job it is to know the do
Delia Lake: cuments and background are also best suited to ascertain the willingness and knowledge of member prospects.
So perhaps it will seem counter-intuitive to some, but I have come to the conclusion that maintaining the SC as a meritocracy is what will serve the CDS democracy best. I do recommend some formal changes in solicitation of new SC members though. I believe that it should be mandatory to publicly post vacancies on the SC and the intent to fill them. This should be done both on the Forum and inworld. People who would be interested in serving may then approach the SC themselves. Additionally as Calli said, any five citizens may propose a candidate.
Patroklus Murakami: beathan and i have proposed the SC should 'advise' on nominations but not filter
Callipygian Christensen goes rummaging in the e-mail again
Patroklus Murakami: this is really at the heart of the matter
Sudane Erato: isn't the heart of it who does the primary selection... and then who has the right of veto?
Patroklus Murakami: i think we all agree the RA has the right of veto?
Sudane Erato: if so, then it can't do the primary selection.. ?
Patroklus Murakami: but the notion that the SC gets to choose its own members is ripe for abuse (even if it has not happened so far)
Sudane Erato: one or the other
Delia Lake: the reason I believe it should remain a meritocracy is on account of the responsibilites and the nature of the work. but for the submission of candidates to the SC I do believe that it should not be restricted to who the current SC knows and would nominate but should be open to citizens to self select their interest
Delia Lake: then though because the SC is the body most familiar with the duties and the supporting documents it needs to fall to the current SC to question the candidates
Patroklus Murakami: you know, the SC has been accused of being a self-selecting clique previously
Patroklus Murakami: i'm thinking back to the michel manen CARE days
Patroklus Murakami shudders
Delia Lake: the current SC is not by any means a self selecting clique
Delia Lake: and I would hope it would not ever be again
Sudane Erato: why not drop all the emotion laden words and just decide this on, who makes the first level selection, and who approves or disapproves that selection
Patroklus Murakami: but there is nothing to stop it from becoming that
Sudane Erato: meritocracy, clique... these are just words
Delia Lake: the SC thrives on a diversity of opinion and a commitment to support those opinions with documentation
Sudane Erato: "who selects"
Delia Lake: did you all read through what I wrote above?
Sudane Erato: thats the issue
Callipygian Christensen: may I interject something here that I posted in the forums in response to Pat's legislation suggestion?
Delia Lake: yes Calli
Patroklus Murakami: no sudane, they're not just words. they are legitimate concerns around an unelected branch with significant power
Patroklus Murakami: imagine if one of the former cliques or factions even had total power in the SC? what might that have brought about?
Patroklus Murakami: yes calli?
Delia Lake: imo though either the chancellor or the RA could stack the SC with cronies
Callipygian Christensen: (and I want to address that significant power later too!)
Callipygian Christensen: You would replace this with a process where one person, including the nominee, can put their name forward.
So SallyQ Citizen, new and eager puts her name forward - and the SC has the unpleasant task of saying 'you don't qualify'. Or JoeQ Citizen, long time resident and crazy as a loon, puts his name forward and the SC has the equally challenging task of explaining why this person is not suitable.
If no other candidates have come me forward perhaps JoeQ's name is actually placed before the RA as a candidate - I can't imagine that RA members, as part of whatever questioning they do, will actually say 'Joe, we love you, but your nuttier than a fruitcake' - more likely they will ask various questions, listen, then not give a vote of confidence. Since you have not built in *any* description of the questioning process or any requirement for the RA to be transparent and accountable about it's reasons for affirmation or denial, Joe might well feel that he has not received a fair hearing and has no way to appeal t
Callipygian Christensen: hat. If the RA *does* get into questions that reveal Joe's craziness, it will resemble many of the nomination hearings for that US Supreme court that keeps being mentioned - a rather ugly process to most who have watched it in action.
Delia Lake: US process is ugly and often personally vindictive as well as partisan
Callipygian Christensen: again..it's about a balance..I dont thinkpublic spectacles of why a citizen isn't suitable benefit anyone...
Patroklus Murakami: so we need to spare the SCs blushes at saying 'sorry joe, come back in a few months'? i'd hope you guys are made of sterner stuff!
Callipygian Christensen: so *some* vetting of what names go public makes sense
Delia Lake: the best protection against cronyism is 1 that the current SC will not likely want to up their individual workload by inviting a free loader to join them
Callipygian Christensen: Pat
Callipygian Christensen: tha'ts just rude
Patroklus Murakami: but, since we clearly disagree, can we discuss how we resolve? would you agree that the RA has the right to determine the outcome by amending the Constitution?
Patroklus Murakami: sorry calli, how so? i did not intend to be rude
Callipygian Christensen: I amnot going to name any of the resident loons that have graced the CDS..but come on, is every RA going to be strong enough to say 'no..and here is why'..or every SC..its possible to sturcture this in a way that doesnt make that neccessary imo
Delia Lake: and the RA should make sure that it does invite new SC members to a vote of confidence hearing but that should be questioning only on matters of constituion, code of laws, udhr, tos and never on personalities
Patroklus Murakami: so how do you cope with petitions from clearly unsuitable ppl? same issue, surely?
Delia Lake: we have a clear and publicly available code of procedure for selecting nominees. I started one that could most certainly be amended if need be
Callipygian Christensen: we meet with everyone and talk about the job..what it entails..ensure they understand what is required and so on..and the odds of 5 people supporting a loon are less likely than the loon 's best buddy nominating them?
Patroklus Murakami: i got the impression at the last RA meetng that some SC members were ready to veto any nominatin procedure they disagreed with. but i think think this is in the RAs purview to decide. do you agree?
Delia Lake: this process did work very well with the most recent SC attition. Calli and I both talked individually and together with Sonja and Arria, both of whom were nominated by citizens via the forum
Callipygian Christensen: Pat..any SC member can flag something..so no one of us can 'speak for the SC'
Delia Lake: following our discussions Arria wanted to move ahead and Sonja did not. both were qualified and had demonstrated public service behind them
Patroklus Murakami: i'm asking for your personal view. do you think the RA has the right to decide this question?
Patroklus Murakami: it's quite an important question in my view. rather critical actually
Sudane Erato: you ask whether the SC would gorgo its right to decide upon the constitionality of an RA decision?
Callipygian Christensen: well, my personal view and my SC view might be differnet pat
Sudane Erato: *forego
Patroklus Murakami: oh the SC can consider the constitutionality of an RA decision. but i think the threat was 'I will flag this and try to veto because i disagree' *not* because of a consititutional reason
Delia Lake: if the RA were to pass an ammendment regarding the SC that significantly diminished the protections of citizens rights currently in the constitution, and that would include making the sc a weak sister to the RA then the SC would be obligated to flag that law or amendment and have hearings on it
Patroklus Murakami: but the SC cannot just act in its own interests because it does not agree with teh direction of refomr
Patroklus Murakami: that's what i'm trying to test
Callipygian Christensen: but my answer would be that when I see the actual wording of any legislation, I will consider whether I think it oversteps the powers of the RA based on the COnsitution and so on...
Sudane Erato: i think you have diiferent interpretations of the "SC interests"
Callipygian Christensen: and the bottom line of this may well be that if the RA and the SC are deadlocked on this, then it may need to go to referendum
Patroklus Murakami: what if the RA decided to remove 'self-selected meritocracy'. would that be 'constitutional' in your view?
Delia Lake: the SC cannot act just to preserve its current members desires for power if there ever are or would be that. SC action has to be supported by our fundamental documents. that is the only course open to the SC
Patroklus Murakami: that is reassuring delia
Callipygian Christensen: Pat..just a comment here..
Delia Lake: any sc who violated that should be impeached imo
Sudane Erato: Pat, the meaning of those words are only what is defined by the procedures... that's why i say the words themselves are irrelevant
Callipygian Christensen: you mention a threat back there..
Callipygian Christensen: but you felt quite within your rights to 'warn' the SC about facing off with the RA, the *elected* RA, over our actions recently...
Patroklus Murakami: i think that's what soro was threatening. the reason i raise it is because it cuts to the heart of whether we are a democracy or not.
Callipygian Christensen: and threatening the SC does not?
Delia Lake: I was thinking about referrenda this morning. there should be among our recommendations a policy and process for binding referenda
Patroklus Murakami: if the unelected branch chooses to resist reform and veto is 'because it disagrees' then... we are lost in my view
Callipygian Christensen: My point is..it isnt up to Soro alone..or you alone..
Callipygian Christensen: so if you propoe saying we select by thrwoing darts, and anSC member flagsit..then the *whole* SC will come to a decision
Callipygian Christensen: Delia..re: referenda..yes! I couldnt find any actual descritors for it, other than 'one per polling cycle and only at election time'
Patroklus Murakami: i could see an argument beginning to develop which goes "we are an equal branch of government and we get to decide how we are/are not reformed". very dangerous in my opinion
Delia Lake: if soro were to propose or any of us on the sc were to propose and vote to approve anything for which we were unable to provide legitimate documentary support, to vote on opinion only, then the RA should impeach
Callipygian Christensen: pat..if it disagrees *based on the Consittuion etc* it HAS to disagree..and provide reasons
Patroklus Murakami: so, where do we go from here? we did not manage to reach agreement on the nomination issue
Patroklus Murakami: and the last RA meeting of this term is next saturday
Patroklus Murakami: (and we didn't even discuss the '30 day rule' yet)
Callipygian Christensen: pat, a question, how strongly do the citizens you have spoken with feel about this issue..RA being able to reform the SC etc?
Delia Lake: my opinion is that the nomination process should be open and public then the vetting process should be the duty of the current sitting SC in a public meeting and the RA then has a duty to vote confirmation on likelihood to uphold the constitution as it is now. so that both the SC and the RA need to perform these duties in public meetings
Callipygian Christensen: I posted my thoughts on the 30 day rule in the e-mail..will copy here quicky for the transcript record at least
Patroklus Murakami: i'm not sure that many feel strongly at all, bar one or two of us. but i don't see that as a barrier to action. two RA members were elected committed to SC reform so we have a mandate to pursue it this term
Sudane Erato: pursue it ys, which is happening now
Sudane Erato: but arrive at a final determination?
Sudane Erato: that might take longer
Callipygian Christensen: ha..I just got your email asking where we are meeting pat!
Patroklus Murakami:
Patroklus Murakami: it got stuck in da intanet pipes
Callipygian Christensen: big text copy coming:
Callipygian Christensen: . How should the RA "provide a vote of confidence on candidates to the Philosophic Branch" as the Constitution states? How do we make sure this happens every time and avoid loopholes which circumvent RA oversight?
I've responded to that in the Forums. I believe the RA should affirm, based on questioning within parameters - questions relevant to performing the duties of the SC. Since any potential appointment is on an SC agenda and the candidate is questioned by SC members first, then I think the RA should make every effort to be present at that SC meeting to hear the candidate speak, or at a minimum should review the transcript. Questions during a RA meeting could certainly be based n responses given, or perhaps some time might be saved by not repeating questions already addressed.
My thoughts on the loophole are in the Forums too - I'll just say here again that any 'failure to consider = failure of the candidate' is too easy to manipulate and again, cripple the SC. Have the Dean/Chair officially notifies
Callipygian Christensen: the LRA, have the candidate invited to appear at the RA meeting following the SC meeting that appoints him or her, have the candidate identify a time that they can be available with the LRA, if they cannot attend that first meeting, place a timeframe on this happening of 30 days - or 45 if that addresses the 'lame duck' claim - but if the candidate makes him or herself available, and is not interviewed because of a failure on the part of the RA, then the appointment goes through.
This places a burden of responsibility on *both* sides of the equation - which is as it should be. Neither side can manipulate the process - failure of one of the parties involved to act does not 'punish' the other parties.
Patroklus Murakami: i think the burden to show up and answer questions has to rely with the candidate. if the RA drags its heels and the candidacy fails well, thats a decision isn't it?
Delia Lake: Pat, if it is not possible to craft a practical, workable reform to put up to vote at this next RA meeting would you be willing to remain on this committee as a private citizen into the next RA term? I think it is very important to make this reform good and workable.
Patroklus Murakami: i would be happy to do that. but i think the current RA should take whatever reform action it feels comfortable doing.
Callipygian Christensen: Pat..so you support decision by inaction..circumventing the procedure? I dont believe that
Patroklus Murakami: at a minimum, sorting out the '30 day rule/loophole' is essential in my opinion
Callipygian Christensen: I want more accountability in the CDS in general..and I thinkstarting with branches of govt is a good place
Callipygian Christensen: my comments bakc there address the 30 day imo
Delia Lake: I don't want any loopholes. I want the RA to exercise its duty to vote its confidence
Patroklus Murakami: it may be that the next RA completes the process, but this one should begin SC reform in my view. or teh momentum will be lost
Patroklus Murakami: i agree with you delia. there may be a way to amend the current law to both our satisfactions
Delia Lake: at the same time I am concerned that having no deadline would leave the SC in the same prediciment that my US gov't is in now. some nominations have been held up in the US congress for 3 yrs! never out of committee
Patroklus Murakami: again. that is a kind of decision. not one we may like but....
Callipygian Christensen: I think putting a sytem in place tha allows that, when we have the option not to, is totally irresponsible
Patroklus Murakami: that's why i like the candidacy failing if not addressed. it makes the candidate keen to meet the RA and if the RA fails to consider well, that's a statement of confidence (or rather lack of it)
Delia Lake: so how would it be if ther ewere a 30 day imposition on both branches. the SC must submit nominations to the RA previous to the last 30 days of the term and the RA is obligated to either conduct a vote of confidence on that nominee or if no meeting vote by acclimation. if there is a vacancy within the last 30 days of the RA term then the SC must submit to the next/new RA
Callipygian Christensen: Pat, I find that really disappointing..that is saying 'maniipulating the system is fine'
Patroklus Murakami: automatic entry to the SC is wrong in my view. i think it has not helped that soro was not affirmed positively by the SC
Patroklus Murakami: 'manipulating the system' is exactly what i'm worried about!
Callipygian Christensen: then dont replace one way to manipulate it with another! lol
Callipygian Christensen: its still aloophole even if you turn it around.so lets find a way to remove it
Delia Lake: that was not a manipulation of the system. soro's vote of confidence was on the RA agenda. the RA didn't have quorum and didn't arrange a subsequent meeting
Patroklus Murakami: mine is less messy. we don't get SC members who were never ratified in accordance with the constitution
Delia Lake: 30 days is 1/5 of a term. somewhere in that period the RA should be able to raise a quorum
Callipygian Christensen: one couls as easily say that yours allows the RA to watch the SC shirvel and die *shrug* I think there needs to be a burden on BOTH sides to act
Delia Lake: and i do think that the SC should agree not to submit a nomination later than 30 days left of the term
Patroklus Murakami: and it's not about the individual. i would feel the same about *any* SC member who was appointed due to the 30 day rule kicking in
Sudane Erato: that makes sense to me
Sudane Erato: if 30 days isn't long enough for the RA to get a quorum, make it 60
Callipygian Christensen: Sudane..Id' meet you in the middle at 45
Patroklus Murakami: that may be the best solution sudane (i.e the simplest!)
Callipygian Christensen: 60 is a third of a term..thats awfully long
Delia Lake: if the RA is obligated to meet 1x a month then within that 30 day period they should be able to raise a quorum
Callipygian Christensen: 45 days would cover 2 RA meetings Delia..so allows for agreement on a date that works for RA and candidate

[Patroklus Murakami]

Patroklus Murakami: make it so the RA *has* to consider at its next quorate meeting. and keep 60 days as a backstop in case they are late in meeting
Sudane Erato: Pat wants to let the RA make a statement... by its inactivity... so finwe... just negotiate how long it gets to make the statement
Delia Lake: otherwise the RA is saying they have been elected to a 6 mos term but only serve a 5 mos term
Patroklus Murakami: no RA would delay meeting at all for 60 days just to filibuster a nomination. they would just meet and reject it!
Callipygian Christensen: but Sudane..if they hang around 60 days and let the nomination fail..the SC has to start over with a new nominee..
Sudane Erato: a good argument for a larger SC
Sudane Erato: i think the key point is that the RA should not game the system... it must vote or lose its right over the decision
Sudane Erato: but how long it takes...
Callipygian Christensen laughs..well if the SC is limited in size, and no hearing = failure..you could have an SC of 1 or 2 people in the course of a year or 18 months
Patroklus Murakami: make it so the RA *has* to consider at its next quorate meeting. and keep 60 days as a backstop in case they are late in meeting
Callipygian Christensen: that is what I am trying to say Sudane..that *neither* RA nor SC can 'game the system'
Callipygian Christensen: Pat..you still need to have the 'or SC candidate appears at a second meeting on an agreed date
Callipygian Christensen: there are legitimate reasons that a person cant attend a meeting a few days away..but in the timeframe an agreed meeting should be doable
Patroklus Murakami: we need to place an obligation on the candidate member to appear at the RA meeting. or else they can game the system by just being unavailable and waiting for 30 days to pass
Delia Lake: I'm at the end of my available time. My rl colleagues called in 30 min ago and I begged another 30 min but that is past now. I have to log off because I cannot run sl and the graphics program I need to open at the same time.
Patroklus Murakami: i think we agree calli
Sudane Erato: that makes sense Pat
Patroklus Murakami: i'm happy to call it a day. other things to do today!
Callipygian Christensen: I repeat :::: invited to appear at the RA meeting following the SC meeting that appoints him or her, have the candidate identify a time that they can be available with the LRA, if they cannot attend that first meeting, place a timeframe on this happening of 30 days - or 45 if that addresses the 'lame duck' claim - but if the candidate makes him or herself available, and is not interviewed because of a failure on the part of the RA, then the appointment goes through.:::
Callipygian Christensen: me too..and still no electin results :/
Delia Lake: lol. can't help that with Jon away.
Patroklus Murakami: hmmm. we will need to talk more. it seems open to abuse and who would arbitrate? the SC?
Sudane Erato: so we'll have another mtg?
Delia Lake: I'm for no abuse and manipulation and loopholes
Callipygian Christensen: Pat..Sudane..how about Delia and I throw this into draft form..what we've covered so far?
Sudane Erato: fine w me
Patroklus Murakami: happy to consider that. ty
Callipygian Christensen: then we can edit en masse if needed..and move onward
Delia Lake: sounds good
Sudane Erato: great
Patroklus Murakami: i'll post the transcript tomorrow
Delia Lake: ty Pat
Callipygian Christensen: thankyou pat
Patroklus Murakami: i'll turn off the recorder

[Shep]

Hi guys ... Can I make a suggestion about RA approving new SC members ... I'm hoping RA will still be meeting once a fortnight .. so a 30 day leeway should be ok .. however you never know when a quorum might not be possible... so I suggest it be left at 30 days but with a further 30 days available but only by request to SC ... that way it's taken seriously and would only be implemented in an emergency ... after the full 60 days automatic approval ...

[Beathan]

I have a simplistic thought as to how the three branches should work together and in check and balance with each other. It's half-baked and not thought through -- but I would like to throw it out here. I think it might address the "equal" aspect of the SC while addressing Pat's concerns.

Could we set up as rock/paper/scissors. The RA passes laws, but does not implement them or provide any direction to the Chancellor. The Chancellor and his delegates implement the laws -- with the limitation that the Executive powers are limited to those procided by the Constitution and Statutes (that is, ultimately, by the RA) -- but the Executive has discretion in the manner of implementation to make decisions as to appropriate implementation. The SC has the power, on its own authority -- or on request by a citizen -- to scrutinize any action of the Chancellor (but not the RA) and reverse or direct the Chancellor's decision if it finds that the decision (including an implemention of an action by the RA) is contrary to the Constitution or other applicable law (including statutory law passed by the RA, provided that the Constitution and UDHR trumps all such statutory law). Thereafter, the RA has ultimate review and reversal authority over the SC can can respond to correct or reverse an SC action by passing corrective legislation or a Constitutional Amendment.

That is -- the Exec checks the RA by implementing its rules based on Executive discretion in the implementation -- but the Exec does not check the SC; the SC checks the Exec by evaluating its actions in light of the applicable rules (Constitution UDHR, statutes), but the SC does not check the RA (does not rule on the Constitutionality or other propriety of RA actions until it sees how the Exec is implementing it and actually has a test case to evaluate; the RA checks the SC by legislative action that can overturn or otherwise reverse an SC determination -- provided that the reversal is at the appropriate level of action (Constitutional Amendment to check a Constitutional ruling; statutory amendment to check a statutory ruling), but the RA has no right to provide specific direction to the Executive (only general direction through general legislation).

I note that personal dispute resolution has no place in this picture. I think that having somesuch mechanism may be important, but I don't think it is a major concern and I am willing to wait to see if the need emerges. Of the "cases" that came up over the last year -- I can think of no case involving a truly personal dispute. All the cases involved some official action -- usually an action that is inherently an executive action (even if taken by a private citizen rather than the Chancellor) -- such as decisions about franchise and banning.

Another thing to note in this is that there should be NO implementing role for the SC. The Executive, not the SC, should run elections and should determine voter and candidate eligibility. The SC should be able to disapprove those decisions if they violate some applicable rule -- and the RA should be able to impelment a saving rule to overrule that disapproval. I also think that forum moderation might also be better transferred to the Executive as an appropriately Executive function.

To use another metaphor -- the RA sets the direction; the Executive steers and drives; the SC hits the breaks. When the SC hits the breaks, the RA agains sets the direction and the Executive starts driving -- even if that direction is the same as before.

Beathan

[Shep]

Beathan .... much as I enjoyed your road trip around the CDS .. I have to ask .. what the hell?? When did RA and SC become opponents that need to be seperated by the executive, with stops starts, balances and counter balance... I know I'm still fairly new but I thought we were all on the same side? I might be naive, but I think there are enough checks in place, and if the three arms of government decend into ...'I can do X to you'.... so you'd better behave ... then democracy would be over and the end would have begun .....

[Beathan]

Shep --

Actually, I think my proposal would reduce the negative interactions and direct checks. Right now both the SC and Chancellor have veto authority. That is missing from my picture -- which means that the RA veto override is also missing. My thought was to set up the checks in linear form rather than in web form and thereby simplify them and reduce the conflict points. I wasn't intending to imply that the SC/RA interaction is so fundamentally broken that we need to be separated from each other by a big, daddy, adult arm of government in the Chancellor.

And, in my defense, I did say that my idea was half-baked.

Beathan

[Cindy Ecksol]

S
And, in my defense, I did say that my idea was half-baked.

Beathan

Yes. Yes, it is.

Cindy

[Delia Lake]

I think the whole discussion of balance of power should be removed from the discussion about reforming the SC. I think this topic deserves its own thread and some serious discussion. This is because balance of power among government branches of government pro or con can fundamentally change the operation of that government and affects all the functions not just the SC. Since the original Constitution was drafted, all three branches have undergone significant changes. It is probably time that we took a good look at the relationships among these branches, solicit and put forth ideas from a wide spectrum of our citizenry, and hold public discussions inworld and in the Forum. We have seldom used referenda, but if after an inclusive discussion some changes in power relationships among the branches seem to be in order, a referendum might be an appropriate course of action.

Below is the link to Gwyn's original post, reposted by me, regarding balance of power.
http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3838