Actions of the RA 12 May 2006

At it's May 12 meeting, the RA:

Approved as amended the Housing Restitution Act (NL 4-22 pend,)
Approved as amended the Public Property Protection Act (NL 4-23 pend.)
Approved a change in procedure allowing for closed sessions in some circumstances
Approved as amended the Defense of the Republic Act (NL 4-24 pend.)

Tabled the Artisan Protection Bill and Sim Management bill.

Present: Desmoulins, Bancroft, Eldrich
Absent ; Metropolitan, Chung

*raises eyebrow*

Could you elaborate on this, expecially on the changes between the old and new procedure, as well as what circumstances warrant a closed meeting?

Thanks!

The old procedure allowed for secret journal entries but not a closed session. The new procedure allows the RA by majority vote to enter a closed session to discuss legal or personnel matters. The secret journal provision is not automatically invoked and must be voted on separately.

Why?. you ask.

Hypothetically, if the city were to enter a legal settlement the provisions of which included restriction on the city's comment related to the settlement, the publication of the transcript of the meeting at which the settlement approval was considered might in and of itself violate a no comment provision. There is, AFAIK, no provision for after the fact editing of transcripts, nor is there one for excluding non citizens from a meeting. Please note that the provision has never been invoked. The closed session was one way to make such a hypothetical situation workable. If someone has other suggestions, they are welcome,

Out of curiosity, is there some text of the new chagnes that we can ee? I am actualyl curious as to the breadth of reasons that a closed session could be instituted. The given example of a legal settlement and non-disclosure or no comment agreements makes sense, but is there anything that keeps the RA from arbitratially closing the meeting or are they entrusted with the responsibility not to abuse the power?

The RA procedures on the wiki have been updated to reflect the change. The procedure says that the closed session may be invoked for legal and personnel matters.

Thanks for the clarification!

I think all meeting could be closed in that case. Because in every meeting someone could logically argue something being discussed has to do with a person or a matter that might have legal ramifications.

Can we just redact those things that reveal personal information or things that would be illegal to reveal?

This makes you raise your eyebrow? This gives me the giggles something fierce.

You're in a city where a member of the SC and the GM conspired to create and distribute unauthorized reproductions of other's property. You're in a city where the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was turned into the Sorta-Universal Declaration of Human Rights (no due process for foreigners) to justify a trial that violated the constitution. You're in a city where various cliques of residents act as ad-hoc oligarchies behind a facade of a government, applying law (N'burg and RL) when it suits them and ignoring it when it doesn't. Of course there will be secret meetings, just like the ad-hoc oligarchies communicate behind the scenes via email and employ forums that are under their control.

But yes, this time they went too far. *Giggle*

~Ulrika~