How about some actual discussion on that referendum amendment, eh?

If you don't mind my asking, what's the hearing about? I figure the SC has a few things to dicuss:

Ulrika's Ban
Ulrika's IP case
Alisi's citizenship (didn't know this was an issue)
Forum Moderation
Impeachment pollicy and procedure (block impeachment possibility)

Can an SC member please let me know the agenda and dates of SC meetings/hearings if it's ok?

Thanks!

First, the transcript from Wednesday has been posted to the wiki. It should help shed some light on things.

Second, I thought Patroklus 62 was what we were in essence discussing by the end of the meeting. The big question was do you vote on amendments separately or as a block. I have always prederred separately.

There are two things I think we should wait on:

I would like to wait and see precisely what clarification the SC comes out with and make sure this is clarified.

Gwyn indicated at the RA meeting (I believe) that she felt there were still ambiguities that needed to be fixed via amendment. We may want to fix those before approving this, rather than subject the citizenry to numerous referenda on what are essentially language cleanups. I have asked the SC to provide a list of constitutional matters on which they believe there is a need for RA action.

Pending those two items, it seems we have spent a lot of energy arguing about what we infact agreed on. (Note the nearly 90 posts between Patroklus's proposal and our stating we all agree with it)

Hi All!

I did some back and forth because if you look at the RA transcript it seemed that Diderot thought any referendum was politically untenable and Kendra seemed opposed to it.

With some clarification, all are now on board Patroklus '62 with separate amendment referendum vote (60% participation +1) at RA term end election.

BTW I think amendments should not be able to "overwrite" each other if they pass in a given referendum. Another less restrictive alternative is multiple choice on overwriting amendments, e.g. RA consists of: a)3 seats b)5 seats c)7 seats. A 3rd bizarre alternative is to allow the SC to dictate the order the overlapping amendments occur on the ballot with the later passed items overwriting the previous passed overwriting items. (Yuck!)

E.g. A) 3 seats (passes) B) 5 seats (passes) C)7 seats (passes). In this scenario it's 7 seats. If the SC had ordered it differently you'd get something else. (Yuck!)

Claude: I agree that if you want to get the small amendments passed, we should keep the status quo and pass this last in the term. Alternatively, you may permanently prefer the status quo without referendum given that the SC veto is unchanged.

-Removed Deletion
-Added "and SC" to 2.1
============================================
Add article VII - Referenda

Section 1 Scheduling

1.1 The RA may by majority vote, add one or more referendum items to the ballot of the next RA election.

1.2 Referenda at other times must be approved by
* A unanimous vote of the RA and
*The Gildemeister and
*A unanimous vote of the chairs of the SC

Section 2 Types

2.1 All constitutional amendments must be approved by a referendum after their approval by the RA and SC.

2.2 There may also be non-binding, advisory referenda on important city issues, at the discretion of the RA.


Section 3 Approval

Referenda are approved by simple majority vote of the citizens, with a required voter turnout of 60%+1.

I'm fine leaving the SC veto as it presently stands as long as the impeachment process allows the SC to be held collectively to account if it behaves tyranically. Hence my desire to wait at least until the SC completes its clarification of the impeachment procedures.