PCA: Compensation for Governmental Positions

[Aliasi Stonebender]

Text:

[b:1d634yt8]Amendment[/b:1d634yt8]

The Representative Assembly is empowered to determine a rate of compensation for all governmental positions, namely, members of the Representative Assembly, members of the Scientific Council, the Guildmaster, and the Chancellor. All increases in the rate of compensation will take effect at the start of the next term of the Assembly.

[b:1d634yt8]Ordinary Law[/b:1d634yt8]

The rate of compensation for members of the Representative Assembly, Scientific Council, the Guildmaster, and the Chancellor, shall be a credit of L$1,000 per month against land-use fees incurred by that individual. All excess credit against fees is forfeit.

Philosophy:

It has been suggested to me that some form of compensation might help to keep the members of our government more involved. While I'm still idealistically opposed to such - the actual positions of power are compensation enough in themselves - but I thought, before anyone else gets any ideas, to propose a method I could tolerate.

In order to remove any self-interest, from either the RA or myself for proposing, the amendment portion holds that any increases don't take effect until [i:1d634yt8]next[/i:1d634yt8] term. (Decreases take effect immediately.)

The law portion - since I think it can be safely left out of the constitution proper - does not specify a direct L$ payment. Instead, by offering a land-credit I hope this would work to draw the involvement of those most involved and emotionally invested in the CDS. (It is also slightly cheaper, if the person doesn't use the full amount!)

I welcome any commentary.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Thanks for drafting this Aliasi, I had been thinking the same thoughts after some discussion with Ashcroft on the same topic. I agree with the intent in principle.

I recall though, that here in RL, the question of the UK Parliament 'voting for its own pay rise' is extremely controversial and, even when they exercise restraint, looks bad.

I wonder if there's a way we could inject an independant element into determining the fees so that it's not just the RA. Similarly, some form of checks and balances from a part of government that doesn't end up benefitting would make me feel more comfortable.

[Pelanor Eldrich]

I do like the idea (naturally I'm in the RA) of some kind of compensation.
Land credit is fine, as long as we sure to pay the sim costs each month without raising land use fees elsewhere. I'm not opposed to a $L1k (or whatever) monthly payment on the 21st either.

This small amount reminds me of the CDN $15,000-$25,000 that a Canadian small town mayor might earn. Being a mayor or councilman is typically a part time job in these smaller towns and villages. It's compensation and appreciation for work, but by no means can you "make a living" at it. Often it's middle and upper-middle class retirees (often entrepreneurs) who have 15+ years of citizenship who run for mayor.

In terms of the "wage economy", this is something I've spoken with Zeus Zeitkin about. The reality for all but roughly 500 SL residents is that labor is performed as either a fun hobby or as a voluntary service. The reality is that you can't get skilled SL labor in the market for less than $L600/hour (e.g. Wuhan, China). In the RL case of Ashcroft, being a barrister, it'd be more like $L26k+/hour.

It like to see commercial success to the extent that we can move to a wage economy. I don't want to see burnout and people who are swamped with work leave because it isn't fun. To be honest, some of this work, is well, work, and someday it'll require market rate compensation to be reliably performed.

[Aliasi Stonebender]

I certainly agree, Pel. But that's out of our reach for the moment, and the idea here was to at least "show appreciation".

I am aware of the troubles of "voting oneself a pay raise". I'd hoped the delay and natural democratic forces would allow for it. Perhaps language on consulting the treasurer as to feasibility of any changes?

[Claude Desmoulins]

This may be unavoidable if you want to have the elected body controlling the purse strings, which I believe to be , in general, a very good idea.

I wonder if the prospect of having to face the voters provides enough of a check. It might provide too much of one with RA's unwilling to vote raises even as costs rise for fear of political fallout.

Could one index it to the exchange rate and land fee rate? For example, $L1000 pays for just under 420m2 of monthly land fee [i:9kzdeqbc]intra muros[/i:9kzdeqbc]. I propose that the compensation rate , if we do it be automatically set on the first day of the term to the average land fee for 400 m2 inside the walls. This depoliticizes the actual $L figure, and ought to reduce the frequency with which this issue must be visited by the RA.

[Aliasi Stonebender]

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":1n7l3kdc]
Could one index it to the exchange rate and land fee rate? For example, $L1000 pays for just under 420m2 of monthly land fee [i:1n7l3kdc]intra muros[/i:1n7l3kdc]. I propose that the compensation rate , if we do it be automatically set on the first day of the term to the average land fee for 400 m2 inside the walls. This depoliticizes the actual $L figure, and ought to reduce the frequency with which this issue must be visited by the RA.[/quote:1n7l3kdc]

That's a good idea. Makes it clear the intent is to help alleviate the 'paying to work' problem without making it crassly L$-related.

[Claude Desmoulins]

At the last RA meeting this was tabled to encourage broader forum discussion. I hope a few more folk might chime in with their opinions.

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

I think that the major issue will be how to place this in a tight budget, which still needs to repay the loans for Colonia Nova

Besides that, I also agree with Aliasi's suggestion that the changes don't take effect until the next term.

If we were really mean, we'd require those changes to be on the start of term, thus, making it even harder for RA members to "vote their salaries" (imagine that this would come up a few days before the end of term, when RA members could predict who would be winning the next elections by sensing the "mood" of the citizens)

[Aliasi Stonebender]

[quote="Gwyneth Llewelyn":39dbl4ae]
If we were really mean, we'd require those changes to be on the start of term, thus, making it even harder for RA members to "vote their salaries" (imagine that this would come up a few days before the end of term, when RA members could predict who would be winning the next elections by sensing the "mood" of the citizens) [/quote:39dbl4ae]

It's an idea, although the advantage of Claude's suggestion (which I incorporated into the submitted amendment) is it is linked to a specific amount of "service" as opposed to a flat amount of money; we need only modify it rarely, in theory.

I do admit the tight budget is my worry, but that's' the other advantage of delaying it.

[Chicago Kipling]

I like what I'm hearing. It would be great to see the revised document when you have the time, Aliasi. Claude's idea seems workable IF we make sure that we can afford this in the next budget before its voted on.