I see no reason not to have the S.C. handle this function -- either collectively or through special individual appointment as we have in our (conceptual) judiciary.
I would propose that we think about the branches of government (including the New Guild -- although it technically does not qualify) in terms of kind of expertise, not merely role. The Guild should be the organization of pooling and directing SL talent (builders obviously -- but also all other recognized SL professions). The RA should provide us with over-all direction and coherence. On this model, the SC should be the place where we pool and organize RL skills and talents. (I think it is already considered to be the pool of RL political philosophical talent -- but there is no reason not to further leverage the SC to include and recruit a broad range of RL skills and talents.) I have previously argued that legal talent, rather than being segregrated into its own branch, should operate through the SC (insofar as legal talent is necessary to administer justice in the CDS). I think that accounting or financial talent (at least in its oversight, "Auditor General" capacity) should also center on and arise from the SC.
This is consistent with both Claude's and Justice's posts in the RA discussion. The Auditor General (per Claude) would be appointed by (indeed part of) the SC. Further, as part of the SC, the Auditor General (per Justice) would have a [i:10zckkw9]post hoc[/i:10zckkw9] review role -- not a prospective budget advisory role. Thus, the SC would "look over the shoulder of" the Treasurer, much as it "looks over the shoulder of" the RA.
This also minimizes the need to multiply roles and offices -- keeping our governmental structure simple and consolidated by using those institutions we have already to respond to emerging needs and problems. (Thus, it is well in line with what I understand to be the insight and commitments of the Simplicity Party.)
This still raises two problems -- neither of which is unique (both of which have to be addressed -- by this RA if possible). First, as Sudane points out, who, other than her, has the financial expertise to do the job. (If we find such a person, we should make an effort to place them on the SC where they can perform the function.) Second, how do we increase democratic control over the SC, without undermining its authority or role, so that it can be effective while being insulated from the criticism that it is "elitist" or "authoritarian" -- in a word, that it is "undemocratic"?
From this perspective, we should undertake an active recruiting role, both within the CDS and throughout SL more generally. (Ash was exceptionally good at this -- and he will be missed. However, as with the judiciary, our recruitment would be better as a community effort than as a one-man show. We must not create a cult of personality, based on feelings of personal loyalty to the individual who did the recruiting. Such personal ties can cause a mass exodus if the recruiter becomes unhappy and bitter. Even if there is not such an exodus, such personal ties are corrosive and dangerous within a democracy -- as the debate about the Judiciary Act proved so vividly.) I have proposed such a process for the new Guild. Something similar can be done through the SC.
Recruiting people with useful RL skills to the SC is contrary to the CDS history concerning SC appointment. SC service (it seems) has been based on a proven track record of service to the CDS. This is important. However, I think that we can address this problem by differentiating between kinds of SC members. Currently, Pat is a nonvoting member of the SC because he is simultaneously serving as a voting member of the RA. Why not treat new professional recruits similarly? Make such people provision members of the SC, without a vote, but with a specific purpose (such as Auditor General, or judge, or somesuch), with the prospect of promotion to full, voting membership upon a sufficient showing of service and commitment to the CDS?
Beathan
Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
