RA Meeting Wednesday 5/3 3 pm SLT - Note time change.

The RA will meet tomorrow at 3 pm SLT. I moved the meeting up an hour since I imagine it will be a busy evening. Accordingly, please submit agenda items no later than noon SLT tomorrow.

I would also suggest that the meeting might be more productive if people submit concrete proposals as to what they wish the RA to do in the current situation rather than come for a long, wandering discussion.

Your meetings are impossible to attend for most folks living on the West Coast. Is there an alternative time you could meet?

~Ulrika~

regrettably I won't be able to attend as I need to get my hair did.

1. Scientific Council hearing into abuses of power
There has been some considerable debate about the Scientific Council hearing into alleged abuses of power. After reading the transcripts and considering the matter I feel that the verdict (temporary banning Ulrika Zugzwang from holding citizenship) was a fair sanction reached by unfair means. If the RA agrees with this assessment I'd like them to pass a motion of censure on the SCs conclusions. I doubt the RA will wish to do so but I make the request regardless!

More importantly, the RA should request that the SC establish rules of procedure for dealing with offences caused by non-citizens and establish the interrelationship between Linden, Neualtenburg, State, Federal and International law. It is important that we clarify matters for the future as the SC acknowledged in their posts on this issue.

2. Intellectual Property Issues
There have been many allegations regarding these issues. The majority are for the SC to consider.

It would be helpful, however, if the RA could commit to entering negotiations with Ulrika for a full and final settlement of the IP claims she has made against the city at the earliest opportunity and appoint a negotiator empowered' in the first instance, to begin discussions with Ulrika to establish exactly what is being asked for.

3. Replacement of city infrastructure
This is being debated at length in another thread here. I suggested (in post 63) that the RA needs to exercise its prerogative by seeking explanation for these actions from the Guildmaster. The explanation could be that these actions were taken in extremis in response to the perceived threat to the city. It would be up to the RA then to decide whether the explanation was adequate and either ratify the Guildmaster's actions or censure them.

Apologies to Gwyn, the other SC members and Sudane for not discussing these with you prior to putting this request together. I had intended to give you a heads up before making this post.

I would request that I be allowed to vote on tonight's agenda by e-mail or some-such --or that bills presented tonight be voted on by e-mail in general as I will not be able to attend a 3pm Wednesday meeting. It's simply impossible for me to do so.

Noted. Since we'll be voting on everything via email, it is especially important that all proposed items be in writing and available for both in-world and out-world distribution.

Thanks,

I appreciate this very much, Claude. Thank you.

This can certainly be looked at, but as it is the meeting is at 1 am CET, If it were to be later, say 6 SLT, to accommodate western North America, this pushes the Europeans to 4 or 5 am. The time zone spread makes anny single meeting time difficult for someone.

I agree very much with your second paragraph. As to your first, what would then constitute fair means?



I have no problems with this in principle. I would ask two things of Ulrika.

1) A full public presentation of all claims against the city.
2) Some indication as to the entities from the city with which she is willing to negotiate.



I believe the introduction of 4-26 will give us a mechanism to address this issue.

As for myself, a meeting time of 5 am (= 8 pm SLT) would be much easier to accommodate than one of 1 am.

Even better would be 11 am SLT / 8 pm my time, but if it's to be in the afternoon or evening SLT, 8 pm or 9 pm SLT would be better for me then pretty much anything after 1 pm.

(But I'm just one person, and not even a member of any part of government, so there's no need to take my preferences into account.)

I agree. I haven't been able to attend an RA since they started being held during weekdays in the afternoon PST.

There has always been a problem with aligning meeting times between the European and North American elements of Neualtenburg and the traditional compromises are to hold them later at night (PST) or to hold them at least on a weekend.

I for one don't mind getting up in the middle of the night if I have to but people have RL jobs. It makes it much much harder for any selection of people to get to a meeting during the week. I suggest holding them at least on the weekend days when we are all much more flexible.

Democracy that is inaccessible is democracy denied. I haven't been able to attend an RA meeting in the entire current Administration. I am not likely to ever be able to take a day off work for a virtual meeting and I suspect that many people are in the same boat regardless of whether they are in Europe or North America.

Just out of interest can someone quote me the relevant section of the constitution that allows votes by email? I don't have the founding documents available to me at this moment.

I don't think there is one --but I'm not sure I see the need for the Constitution to set internal RA procedures either.

If all the RA agree to a procedural change that should be sufficient I would think.

It's just that you and Ulrika are all particular about one word in the philosophical motivation for NL 3-10 yet you want the RA to be able to vote by email?

If we are going to have votes based on email and the reading of printed documents, why the whole charade of having a meeting at all? Why should I be denied the opportunity to participate in an RA meeting because its held at a time I can't attend and yet as a voting member you can?

It looks like we are now saying the RA doesn't even have to show up for the meeting, but any citizens have to if they want to have a say on the bills.

There are some important things that are going to be discussed, yet I won't be able to be in on the discussion. Why should you?

Getting your hair done is that important? Wow, what great respect you have for government.

Just sayin

See the RA procedures document on the wiki.

meeting times

I would be fine with 8 or 9 pm slt. Since we have this one scheduled, let's work with it. But we could look at later times for future meetings.

I happen to be attending a very important event in RL the next day where I am a guest speaker and I need to look my professional best. So yes --my hair appointment is very necessary. Sorry, hon --but I have responsabilities in First Life that are frankly more important.

Nobody is preventing you from going to the RA meeting. I am saying I would like a chance to read all the discussion about the bill and vote --it's been done before you know.

You can be in on the discussion all you like. The fact is --I can't but I still wish to vote.

Your attitude towards me is becoming particularly repulsive, Dianne.

If you feel I am such a threat to Neualtenburg then by all means, as a member of the SC, call for a tribunal or whatever and have me deported in a pre-emptive move to protect the City from my evil ways.

Claude, in reponse to my suggested agenda items for tomorrow's RA meeting you asked about my conclusion that the SC, in investigating alleged abuses of power, had reached a fair conclusion by unfair means. You asked what would constitute fair means.

The problem, as I see it, developed when the SC decided to impose a sanction against Ulrika Zugzwang for deleting a forum post without being empowered by the Constitution to do so i.e. she deleted a forum post but was not, at the time, a member of the Scientific Council. As soon as the SC moved towards considering sanctions they departed from the Constitution. The Neualtenburg Constitution provides limited guidance in these matters as the 'trial' of non-citizens does not appear to have been anticipated. Nevertheless, the only clause that appears to be relevant is Art III, Section 6 - Hearings, Trials and Ratification. This states "Hearings and trials not involving government officials will be overseen by a single Professor and judgment will be decided by a jury of peers." This is the only relevant clause that I can find that could be employed in the circumstances.

So the SC should have called Ulrika to trial and formed a jury composed of Neualtenburg citizens who were not members of the government. If Ulrika had refused to attend, as would be her right as a non-citizen, she could have been tried in absentia.

The procedure followed by the SC cannot be right. By their involvement in gathering information, evaluating evidence and passing judgement they acted as judge, jury and executioner (if you'll pardon the hyperbole!) and so the procedure cannot be seen to be fair.

Yes. Also take note of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Articles 6-11 which guarantee that everyone everywhere is to receive a fair trial.

Are you a member of the SC?

~Ulrika~

The big problem is, Ulrika, when in complete power over this government, decided outsiders are not deserving of the same rights citizens are. She used her power to silence people who were not citizens and refuse to allow them any recourse. No hearings, no trials, no jury, just a stick in the eye.

Several times she blocked my posts because I wasn't a citizen. She acted as the "judge, jury and executioner (if you'll pardon the hyperbole!)". She held all the power then, and wasn't much interested in what was fair. Now that she is no longer in power she wants to be treated exactly the opposite of how she treated outsiders.

The government has bent over backwards to appease her, and I think it's a bad precedence. In the future others will expect the same special treatment, causing the government much extra work.

The government needs to serve the citizens, not the outsiders. Or else the courts will be filled with this kind of frivolous trials and hearings.

IMHO the government should let her bring charges against the city in a RL court if she has a claim, and be done with it.

But that's just me

Thanks for sharing but unfortunately none of that is embodied in the city's law in any way. Given that a governmental sim exists to follow is laws and predetermined protocols, alas your suggestions will always remain but bytes on a forum server.

~Ulrika~

It is, however, embodied in precedent - precedent you set.

How so?

Well Kevn, with respect, that is not the problem. If, as you allege, Ulrika abused her powers while in government that is no argument for failing to uphold the rule of law when it relates to her. I can see why that must rankle if you feel you've been unfairly treated by her, but it's not a good enough reason for me to say "Well, it is Ulrika after all, guess she gets what she deserves."

Given that the city has limited powers of sanction against non-citizens, a temporary ban on becoming a citizen is a pretty mild sanction to my mind. But, in my opinion, the way it was arrived at is flawed.

Just for information, the sanction in question was looked on a purely administrative sanction. No "trial" was considered to have taken place and Ulrika has yet to ask for one.

There is little precedent for trying non-citizens of a country within said country except in rather extreme cases of treason and terrorism, something that Ulrika was vehemently denying at the time her actions could be construed as.

Most such trials in RL involve an individual who is currently detained within the country performing the trial. If Ulrika wanted to offer herself up as some sort of terrorist and perhaps be put in a cage in the Platz, I am sure we could hold a proper trial for her.

That would more be in keeping with RL precedents. We would then have a foreign "prisoner" accused of rather heinous acts and we could and should try them. Trials "in absentia" almost exclusively relate to trials of war criminals and other historical figures, which I guess we could do after she goes. (if she ever does finally go).

That even a hearing about non-citizens should also contain a "jury of peers" is true, but that particular wording makes no sense to me.

A hearing could be about any number of trivial items whereas a jury is almost uniquely associated with a criminal trial. Hearings also do not necessarily end with any decision let alone sanctions or punishments, in this case it was mostly a fact finding mission at the request of a non-citizen that culminated in a temporary administrative sanction against citizenship.

It doesn't make sense to me that *any* hearing about a non-citizen has to have a jury. It seems like yet another of the non-sensical or contradictory passages in our founding documents. If that was true then *any* hearing could be considered a trial and tehre is no basis for discriminating between the two. (although I am sure Ulrika will step in and tell us all what the law really means cause she wrote it etc.)

I would interpret the intent of the passage rather to be that any hearing that is *like* a criminal trial would require said jury. Something involving a real crime and a real punishment.

Any sane person would agree that if you are on trial for committing a crime it is a rather serious matter and you should certainly have the right to a jury or to be judged by your peers, but that isn't really what happened. Rather what happened was during the course of a hearing to determine a set of facts we decided that Ulrika's actions showed an extreme disrespect for the law and for the authority of the government and basically flew in the face of the founding documents themselves. The idea of such a person becoming a citizen of our country seemed a bit abhorrent to some of us so we applied a very common and temporary administrative sanction often used in such situations. We wanted to make sure that she could not become a citizen without first having some time to think about it and perhaps mend her ways.

As FlyingRoc said, this kind of thing is done all the time to people who apply to be citizens of a country. If you have flouted the law or have even a minor smudge on your record its quite normal that you be denied the right to become a citizen of said country. The Us and the UK both have a much higher bar to citizenship than we do for instance and deny many thousands of people entry on much lesser (equivalent) grounds.

To elevate the whole affair to that of criminal law and to apply rules normally only used in case of terrorism and war crimes is really to go too far. Ulrika makes it seem like we burned her in the town square rather than invalidated her visa.

So the labeling of her as a terrorist capable of coming back and committing atrocities is just a minor detail then.

Perhaps you should declare her to be an Enemy Of The State and then hold me to trial for fraternization.

I would think that a very prudent move on your part considering the invectives you have been hurling at me, and the level of distrust I seem to have garnered simply for consorting with someone "denied a Visa"

I believe I've already mentioned Kevn's situation, keeping in mind that I agree with Patroklus - if it was wrong then, that doesn't make it right now - but Ulrika was Dean of the SC then and thus in charge of figuring out what "right" WAS. So the precedent of "non-citizens have no rights" was set; while Ulrika's claim that the UDHR applies even to non-citizens actually is persuasive, it would have been more convincing had she not been bringing it up in a situation that is to her personal benefit to so do.