Powers of the SC

Well, yes, but Ulrika'd have to do that search and replace on all the Neualtenburg.org webpages then.

That said, I think Dianne raises good points. Despite Neualtenburg's previous existence, the establishment as a private sim (thus adding in additional real-life financial concerns) and the currently low population both act as good stress tests. I don't know about "tearing it all down", but at the same time, we're going to find flaws and now is the best time to do something about them, before things become more complex.

That said, what's left to determine is if this is indeed a flaw. I suspect much of this is more the case of loose and unclear wording than sinister intentions.

This is close. The three branches function essentially as oligarchies (not autocracies of which a dictatorship is an example) with three different methods of selection. One is a representative democracy, one is a meritocracy, and the other is an ergatocracy. From a previous post:


I disagree with your analysis. The veto is in place to provide the Executive branch with a check against the Legislative branch, not to pay homage to English political concepts.

This is a flaw in the U.S. system, as it injects politics in to a branch that should be philosophical and not political (one can see evidence of it right now in the U.S.). Instead, members should be selected from those who are experts in their fields from a group of highly qualified candidates (this is actually the way it's "informally" done in the U.S.). We simply formalized the process and saved the ratification until after the selection, where a democratically elected body can grant or deny an individual admission to the SC.

It's functionally equivalent and in my opinion more logical.

The reason that these bodies aren't elected, quite logically, is that you can't elect individuals from the general population and expect them to build or think well. These are skills that people simply have.

For instance, I've found that only about 10% of the population in SL has any serious talent in the area of building and scripting. Further, I can count the number of people in all of SL who can hold serious and insightful virtual-world political discussions on one hand. Why would we ever seek to elect people like this out of the general population? Instead folks like this should be selected out of the general population based on their productivity and perceived ability by those who are in their field. So, once these artisans have demonstrated outstanding skills, why would you want to replace them? If they did something criminal, there is already a mechanism to remove them.

I should also point out that Judicial nominations in the U.S. are also for life.

This is incorrect. It says clearly in the constitution, that "the RA sets taxation rate and the city budget" and "the leader of the AC may veto a revenue bill or resubmit a modified revenue bill for vote". If it weren't for the RA, there would be no budget.

I agree. If you'd like we could call it a representative-democratic ergatocratic meritocratic multiolgarchy.

The problem is that the word "democracy" has almost a religious positive connotation. In fact, direct democracies (and other variations of democracy to some degree) have many negative aspects. What people really mean to say instead of "democracy" is "access to government". Access to government can be achieved in many ways, including voting; electing and communicating with representatives; having access to a legal system; participating in workers unions; lobbying; and so on.

Where I think our system really shines, is that we provide multiple avenues of engagement (RA, AC, SC), increasing the chance that individuals can have access to and be a part of the government through many diverse and orthogonal channels.

~Ulrika~

A lot of it also has to do with omission, interpretation, and misunderstanding. The vast majority of issues brought up (as can be seen above) are just not issues.

What's frustrating for me is that the critiques are worded as quasifactual attacks on the system, which leads to public confusion and replies that are inherently defensive (at best I try to make them educational). This attack-defend style of conversation is inherently unproductive as no consensus is being sought and no improvements are being made.

My time is so precious. Is this how I'm best used?

~Ulrika~

Well, I can't quite agree there. Just as it takes only one person to have a miscommunication, it only takes one to make it an issue - to them.

This doesn't necessarily mean it's a problem with Neualtenburg's setup - as said earlier, the time to do this reading is BEFORE signing on to the city.

While I personally always love the time you take to patiently explain most of the questions and issues people have with their own interpretation of Neualtenburg's governmental system, I understand your frustration...

But then again, as head of the Scientific Council - which, not by chance, has academic titles like "Dean", "Chair" and "Professor" - I also think that one of the missions of the SC is to educate the citizens, and provide them with information and interpretation of both the Constitution and the governmental system.

I know, I'm being mean - I'm actually turning your wonderful explanations into your duty to the City.

But after all, isn't the SC's job to clarify and explain issues arising from a reading of the Constitution and related material? The SC is proactive when dealing with things like dealing justice, but reactive when people ask for clarification (or a bill is passed but violates the Constitution).

So, well, I understand your frustration, Ulrika, but I also think that you're fullfilling your "job" as Dean of the Scientific Council

All issues are not valid, especially ones that are based on erroneous interpretations.

The real question is, should we devote an infinite amount of time in an endless attack-defend loop, simply to satisfy the need to address issues regardles of merit? It seems to me that stepping through the constitution one article at a time and collectively working on the wording would be vastly more productive.

~Ulrika~

Indeed it would!

You're absolutely correct. I need to strike a balance between my duty and my realistic time and energy constraints. (The problem with me right now and the source of my atypical attitude is my ever-increasing exhaustion.) Given that I have two weeks (or less) until I'm gone for a while, I guess we should make the most of it.

From now on, if we're going to address the constitution, let's do it one article at a time (in any order). All posts should be smaller than my hand (unless they qualify as "Shazam" posts). We don't move on until everyone understands the meaning and the text in the constitution matches that meaning.

~Ulrika~

Good plan, especially since I recently adopted the 1 hand forum rule.

Well I dont want any prizes really.
The sorts of things I lust after lately are intangibles that can only be granted by others.

I spent a lot of time on that first post where I posted all the references to "Article this" or "Section that," and other than copying it into this one, I am not sure what the utility of going over it all again would be.

Basicaly, for purposes of review, there are three sections in the Constitution that describe the power relationship between the three branches of the government. They are:

Article I - Section 7 "Powers of the RA"
Article II - Section 4 "Powers of the AB"
Article III - Section 8 "Powers of the SC"

It is my contention that if the intent of this part of the Constitution was to describe a reciprocal power relationship between the branches with similar wording, (as it seems it was), then the last one (Powers of the SC), it "out of whack" in the sense that it uses decidedly different language than the other two, as well as different language from that used in other places in the same document and other of our founding documents.

There are a couple of other places in the Constitution where more "different language" is used (a line here or there), that also tend to support the Scientific Council having this different power relationship to the other branches, but most of it is contained within "Powers of the SC."

Specifically it seems that the powers of impeachment of the RA with regards to the SC have been specifically limited, and that the scope of the Scientific Coucils' influence is specificaly increased over and above the other branches. (refer to my original post for references).

I feel this is mostly and primarily to do with "bad language" in the Contitution or "typos" of a sort, as no one has yet been able to tell me why this different language should be there if it has no meaning or that it does not have the meaning I am ascribing to it.

If I was doing this same thing (document analysis) in a meeting at work, I would already have pulled out the whiteboard as I find I can explain better with a pen in my hand. Since we dont have a virtual whiteboard, I will go straight to the fancy overheads!


Excuse the crappy graphics but this is a diagram of our governmental structure as best as I can make out for the present. I left out the proper descriptions of thier function in favour of just listing some real world occupations or members to give a idea of the functions of the parts.

The peach arrows are the "impeachment realtions" (get it?), and the white arrows show the vetos. the second diagram below shows how the power relationships change with the "typo wording" previously referred to. The bigger arrowheads indicate wider scope of impeachment powers, the sole veto of the SC is also apparent.

See the next post for the next exciting diagram!

From now on, if we're going to address the constitution, let's do it one article at a time (in any order). All posts should be smaller than my hand (unless they qualify as "Shazam" posts). We don't move on until everyone understands the meaning and the text in the constitution matches that meaning.

We will work this in two phases. The first phase will be clarification of the language. The second will be discussions of whether or not the relative checks and balances should be modified.

~Ulrika~

This is rich.
One sided arguments? "Attack-Defend Loop"?

For your information, aside from the content of my post, I thought it fun to take a page from your book and "style" my posts in the form of Ulrika ZugZwang, a noted forum personality! I have been using the exact same tactics that you employ, in (what I was trying to make), a close simulation of your patterns of argument. I thought I was being a little nicer though.

The diagrams were the only real departure from that, which is probably why they did not work as well.

.

Um. OK.

Well, at least your figures rock! (Seriously, nice figures there.)

~Ulrika~

Thank you. That was my main point that seems to have been lost.
And now I feel like a heel for picking it all apart, or trying to.
Indeed this does sound sensible. I would be happier if as in RL, the members of the SC were actually appointed by the RA as that is the Democratic tradition, but they ceratainly must be accountable in some way.
This is pretty much exactly as I envisioned the purpose of the constitutional checks and balances. I'm glad that I got that right at least. However I am not sure that merely "not passing a bill" could be grounds for impeachment, the SC would have to be acting "unconstitutionaly" to be impeached and it's not clear that merely refusing to pass a bill would be. They would perhaps argue that the bill was not being passed simply because it was unconstitutional or illegal and if they honestly believed that, there are no grounds for impeachment even with the altered wording.

Well technically a veto exists as an absolute power, so to talk of "limited" vetos is nonsensical to me and violates the definition of the term I think. I would say that the AC does not have a veto for that reason. All they can do is send bills back to the Assembly and suggest revisions based on their expertise. It is in their best interests to work together with the RA for that reason, and for that reason as well, I think this is an excellent model for the kinds of reciprocal realationships between the parts of our government we want.

Without the veto, there is the possibility of endless deadlock on legislation and thus an absolute need for co-operation and compromise. With the veto, either by the SC or the AC, there is no need to compromise at all, and (IMO) an excellent chance for the two unelected branches to manipulate the elected one.

I would add that a budget certainly should be a "law" in the sense that it is a bill passed by the house, with the approval of the other chambers. But there is that ambiguity of language again.

Again I would still argue that in actuallity this means that the AC just does not have a veto really, but that seems fair to me.

(rest deleted for strongly violating the one hand rule )

.

(continued from previous)
I am afraid I don't believe this is true at all, to me this is just semantics.
Sure, they are all "elected," in the same sense that elections with only one party are "elected."
I am not just trying to make fun here, I think we really have to get serious about our terms if we are seriously trying to be a real government.

The RA is "elected" in the very normal everyday sense that term is used, in that it is a fairly standard, democraticaly elected, House of Representatives. That is what I meant by "elected."

The Guilds have elections for their Meisters but even though I can find little information on that process, it is certainly not the same thing as a "regular" democratic, free, open election. Having a club and voting for the head of the club does not make you a democratic body IMO.

It is not fair to say the SC is elected at all in my view. Clearly by their own words they are a "self-selected" group, and have nothing to do with free elections. They have a selection process, not elections.

Interestingly, the division of the governmental branches into "meritocracy," "ergotocracy," and "representative democracy" is kind of false in itself in one way. Or at least it depends how you look at it. The SC is a meritocracy, but so is the RA and the AC. The people who were elected to the RA were also elected on the basis of their merit, its just a matter of what merits for what job, how those merits are defined and by what process they are adjudicated.

I think it closer to the truth, and fair to say that the only truly democratic, elected body is the RA. To talk of the SC having elections is kind of crazy-talk to me.

That does not mean there is no value in having the other two branches or that they actually need to be democratically elected bodies themselves. Just that they are not that. (democratically elected) I guess I am using shorthand by just saying "they are not elected," but I thought it was pretty clear what my meaning was.

I find the possible implications of this facinating also, which is why I sought the clarification of the language.

In fact, this is why I would continue to argue that it is perhaps "not our place" to worry about the laws of the wider world, or the US. I also don't feel, for this same reason, that other than acknowledging it's existence and using it for the basis of our own TOS, we should be concerning ourselves with the policing of the Linden TOS either.

I feel the powers of the Scientific council should be limited to policing our own constitution and local laws, period. The TOS, the USA and Arnolds California Adventure can take care of themsleves.

I mean, if not for the exaggerated sense of personal power, why bother?

.

Yes. It's a self-selected meritocracy with members ratified by the RA. Members are part of a democratic process, in that votes of confidence come from the RA. It's just like the judicial branch in the U.S. (I've said this about four times in the last two days. )

The use of "meritocracy" to describe all three bodies does not adhere to the strict definitions of governing bodies. However, in a casual sense, we could actually just call them all oligarchies that have different selection processes. Fundamentally, it doesn't matter what we label them provided they provide distinct services in the city, keep each other in check, and provide multiple avenues for citizens to interact and be a part of their government. (I've said that three times in the last two days. )

~Ulrika~

One clarification:

I have tried to post earlier (my browser broke ) but I have commited a mistake. Of course, only the heads of the SC and AC are elected, not their members. The RA is completely different -- it does not have a "head" but all their members are elected instead. Sorry for getting that wrong.

A few extra thougths:

1) Is a budget a bill? If yes, does this mean that the SC can override the AC's decision of accepting a bill, if it's termed "unconstitutional"? (ie. the budget would then be subject to two different vetos...)

(My opinion: no, a bill is something that will become law, and is thus controlled by the SC; a budget is just a budget, under control of the SC; a Constitutional change is not under control of either of the other branches)

2) Is the AC too limited? Despite all the good intentions we had 8 months ago, does it have too little power and influence? Should we give them a fully qualified veto?

(My opinion: in our discussions last year, we assumed that when a budget failed, it had to go back to the RA for revision. I propose a different system. When a new budget is not approved by the AC during a term, the old budget is used instead. Under this system, the AC should be given a veto without any overrule option. For the ones who love to dig old posts, I think I'm now defending a different opinion than last year -- it's quite possible, I never claim to be consistently and stubbornly defending the same position, when someone else points out the flaws in my arguments )

3) The issue on veto was mostly one of reciprocal control. Dianne, how do you propose that the SC and the AC control the RA, if they don't have some sort of veto power? (see 2. above for the suggestion of giving more power to the SC).

For whatever reason, budgets in the U.S. are called "spending bills" and are accepted when passed into law. Now that I think about it, it's odd how we do it in the U.S.

I was in favor of a full veto for the AC but Talen wouldn't hear of it. In the end I was able to get a budget-only veto through.

I like this idea!

We just have to decide if it will be codified as part of the RA operating procedure, a law, or a change in the constitution. I assume if it affects the RA-AC interactions, it should go in the constitution.

~Ulrika~

Just saying these over and over does not make them true, (I pointed out how the first part is *not* true each of those times), nor does it make the content anything but an endless repetitious "mantra."
What's next, the hypnotic coin?

.

I'm not saying that repetition makes them true, I'm saying I'm repeating them because they're true.

The N'burg Philosophic branch is very similar to the U.S. Judicial branch or the Federal Constitution Court of Germany. It was designed to be that way.

~Ulrika~

Yes, I could look it up myself (but I'm too lazy right now ) but I guess you're not only right, but that you'll find out that I very likely sided with Talen on that as well. Either way, at that time, it made sense for me that the SC had a constitutional veto, and the AC had a finantial veto (on the budgeting issues). I think it still does, but I understand that the 2/3 overrule really sounds like the AC has an artificial "limitation" on its powers...



... and should be proposed by the RA in their sessions discussing the Constititution I'll be glad to bring it up.