Proposed Amendment - Referenda and SC veto of constitutional amendments

I would note here that the meeting of January 29 which you reference was an SC meeting, not an RA meeting.

While I think it's a bit redundant to bring this up here, the Constitutional Changes are part of the DPU's platform, and thus I hardly find it "surprising" that the DPU is simply trying to follow its own agenda during this term!

From the PoV of someone that has not voted on the DPU on the last elections, I nevertheless can't fail to congratulate the DPU is strictly following its own agenda as per the platform that was voted upon by the citizens to get the DPU in the RA.

The DPU's platform had a very pragmatic agenda (pun not intended — their choice of party name reflects the absolute pragmatism of their agenda!), which anybody can follow. There are no vague comments like "we should foment participation and the well-being of citizens". Instead, what the DPU promised to implement was, according to my personal interpretation:

1) Changing the constitution so that constitutional amendments were clearly defined.
2) Set the election terms.
3) Codify what happens when a governmental official leaves its office, temporarily or definitely.
4) Duplication/redundancy of essential functions.
5) New City-Private partnerships.
6) Planning the second sim, to be handled under the current governmental system (and not a different one).

Although naturally "other" issues have been raised here and there during the many RA meetings, I cannot but commend the "pragmatism" of the DPU to pursue their own agenda, which was the one that the citizens voted to get implemented!

Points 2 and 4 have already been addressed; 5 has resulted in the MoCA and the School; 6 is under way and a selection among competing projects will be made by May; on point 3, the SC has been specifically and formally asked to present its views; and, naturally, point 1 is currently under discussion:



Now naturally, while the SC is theoretically apolitical, and in my view of the way the SC should work, it should provide help and assistance to the RA to swiftly help to implement their own agenda, since it was the citizen's views that resulted in that agenda to be the most important issues to address. I can assume that voters in the DPU expect the DPU to follow its own agenda, and that the DPU will be challenged on the forthcoming elections by being scrutinized by all citizens according to their ability and wish to implement the agenda they've presented as a party program for this term.

Independently of the SC (or some members of the SC) agreeing or not with that agenda, it is the citizen's will that the agenda be implemented! In my personal opinion — an opinion that I have certainly shared with the SC in full session — the task of the SC should be always to aid and assist the RA (if the RA requests that assistance) elected by the citizens desiring a certain agenda to be implemented, in swiftly proceeding to implement it. It should not act in a way that prevents the RA to work at all — that would nullify the allegedly apolitical nature of the SC, which has no job at all in defining "what's good for Neualtenburg".

This very strong emphasis on the SC assisting the RA to pursue the dominant party's agenda — independently of an "agreement" of specific members with the agenda or not, which is besides the point (one might agree/disagree with the DPU's agenda as an individual citizen; but the SC as a body is not qualified to agree/disagree with the will of the citizens who elected the current RA), there is no question to be that the job of the SC should be a positive aid to have the RA implement its agenda.

The excerpt quoted above from the SC meeting shortly following the first RA meeting on the current term shows the intention of the SC to help to organise the constitutional revision that the current RA proposed to undergo in the current term. The purpose of the meeting, to discuss some of the possible outcomes of the constitutional revision, did not fail to raise some of the issues that were vented by members of the RA, namely, the whole process of amending the constitution itself. It's no surprise to me that this issue is brought up over and over again.

Independently on my own personal views on the issue of the balance of powers, the answer to your question: I'd love to know the source of this desire to eliminate the most important sentence in the Constitution is plainly stated: it's part of the DPU's agenda to provide a clear mechanism for proposing and ratifying constitutional amendments.

The SC's job should not be to deny either the DPU's wish to implement their agenda, nor to deny the citizens the right to demand that the DPU pursues their right of implementing the agenda. The only task the SC should have in this process is to ensure that this process is carried to successful conclusion without violations of either the Constitution or the founding documents, by providing advice when requested.

Good thing I'm not a member of the SC but a concerned foreigner who took notice what could be an unfortunate modification of the Constitution.

~Ulrika~