Dear all,
After some requests (formal and otherwise) on the proper procedure to discuss, implement, and sell plots in new territory of the CDS, I felt very strongly that some clarification should be in order. This will be discussed (hopefully) at tomorrow's SC meeting (which sadly needs to be at an insane hour), so, although I'm violating my own rules of not interfering in the forums as well, I also thought it would be best to give everybody a fair chance to enter the discussion.
(There is also a good reason for posting now; in some fronts, heads have cooled down a bit, and they might be more eager to join the discussion)
There are a few important things that have to be taken into account from the very beginning of this process. First, we have to remember that we're a representative democracy (my apologies for the Swiss citizens that would probably prefer a different model, as well as several CDS citizens that are all for direct democracies — I'm sorry, but that's not what the CDS currently is). As you'll see below, representative democracies do things in a certain way. This has been cemented in the CDS with the word "tradition", but it is otherwise similar to what happens in any other representative democracy in RL.
The next thing to take into account is that the decision process in the CDS is complex, since it's not [i:31l1u61w]uniform[/i:31l1u61w]. Different bodies in the CDS decide things differently — at different rates, and through different models. Just because there is a difference between the way these bodies work, and the way the universally-elected Representative Assembly work, it doesn't mean that those bodies are, well, "less democratic".
This leads into the next issue. The RA is, ultimately, the guarantee of democracy. It has ultimate power (within the bounds of its checks and balances). It is — always — guaranteed to work with publicly elected officials, their members, through universal suffrage. It is always the body that has the "will of the people". No matter how different the other bodies might seem, the RA, ultimately, will validate them all. However, in spite of everything, the RA is bound to a system of checks and balances, to abuse power. Thus, elections are set every 6 months (for now), providing rotativity, and a different composition of its structure that better reflects the will of the people. The RA also has limited powers towards what passes for the judiciary branch in the CDS (the SC) — although it also validates that august body in several ways. It can, also, to a degree, delegate its own powers to other bodies. It is a sovereign body with the ability to enhance or limit the powers that get delegated; once delegated, however, they become law (or eventually amendments to the Constitution) and are enforceable by the SC.
The RA, finally, establishes policy and makes political decisions. In this sense, it is the ultimate body where political decisions are made. Someone very clever described politics as simply the scenario where two people decide what to do about a third one — in that sense, all decision groups in the CDS are, to a degree, political, but that's beside the point. Some bodies in the CDS are strictly forbidden to make policy: the Scientific Council is, for instance, a good example. Others are required to provide technical decisions, but these are done under a policy mandated by the RA. Others still (eg. the Citizenship Comission) are [i:]advisory bodies[/i], who might emit a qualified opinion on a subject and recommend policy, but they don't set policies (that's the sole province of the RA). And finally, others are executive only — the PIO being a good example.
A few roles are, naturally, not so clearly cut. And my belief is that because of the "overlapping" of these roles — and the people that are in those roles — that the lines get blurred, and conflict arises, when suddenly some bodies attempt to cross their boundaries — defined constitutionally, legally, or by tradition — and interfere with the work of other bodies. Naturally, this is something that should be prevented.
There is no clearly defined body in the CDS that has the role or the assignment to prevent conflict, but, traditionally, that has been (often) the province of the SC. Thus my post 
Let's tackle the creation of additional territory in the CDS — since this is what currently attracts most of our attention — to use it as an example where a plethora of bodies interact with each other, and what each body's mandate and powers are at each step.
We haven't expanded our territory often — just three times, in fact, beyond the first one. However, a certain sequence of steps has emerged (naturally or not...) from past experience, that lead to a successful conclusion: a sim is bought, deployed, terraformed and parcelled, built, sold, and new citizens have joined the CDS.
The process begins at where the "seat of power" of all citizens is: the Representative Assembly. Through their political agendas, defined to reflect what the citizens want, the RA decides, as part of their policy, to expand the territory further by buying a new sim.
At this stage, a consultation is immediately made: to the Treasurer. The Treasurer will report back to the RA if the decision, at a certain moment in time, makes financial sense or not.
The RA can, in fact, overrule the Treasurer, but it has never done so (ie. de facto, the Treasurer's opinion is highly taken into account when defining the expansion policy). It can even do more: since the Treasurer is part of the Executive, it can even relieve the Treasurer of its duties. However, it cannot ignore the Treasurer. This is where we see a balance of powers being in check: the Treasurer does not define policy (ie. the decision is made by the RA), but provides qualified opinions on whether it's financially reasonable to expand.
The concept of having experts providing qualified opinions is vital for any successful democracy. The citizens are not experts. They have personal opinions instead. These personal opinions are voiced at a political level, ie. "we want this, we want that" — and these are taken to a political body, in our case, the RA. Thus, unqualified opinions — from the public — are made into policies. However, the execution of those policies are made by experts, who, in turn, are validated/checked/appointed/nominated/whatever by a body that has been elected. This means that a reasonable Treasurer can say: "we can't afford a new sim right now" and the RA is bound to respect that qualified opinion. On the other hand, a completely unreasonable Treasurer can simply be kicked out of office by a vote at the RA. Thus we encourage the existence of "reasonable" Treasurers, while making sure that the citizen's will is reflected (at the RA).
The next step — assuming the CDS has financial leverage to buy a new sim — is getting a theme or project for the new sim. Traditionally, the RA has opened this to the public-at-large. It doesn't, in effect, need to do that. It could just pull it out of their sleeves. It could outsource it to a consulting and marketing agency to present the "best" idea. However, the tradition in representative democracies is that building projects, financed by the public moneys, are usually open to discussion and comments by the whole citizenry. In our case, the RA goes a step further: it launches a public contest to all residents, and allows all citizens to vote on it.
One might argue then: "well, what if the citizens proposing the projects don't have enough qualifications to present a solid, viable model for a new sim?" Or put into other words: isn't this decision way too extreme — in terms of keeping the balance of the budget in check — to place it into the hands of some lunatic group of citizens that might vote on something completely impossible to build (ie. requiring more than 15,000 prims) or financially irresponsible (ie. offering all plots for free)? If all the citizens vote on an absurd project, what confidence can we have that we're not placing ourselves in peril?
This is a question often asked, but the answer is quite simple: when voting for a theme, the citizens are — once more — establishing policy. They're voicing their will and their opinion. And the way they express it is via the vote: they vote on a theme they like best. The contest, thus, establishes the will of the people as regards the policy for expansion.
The way we do it in the CDS is actually way fairer than what happens in RL. In RL, contests for building, say, a road or the new Town Hall, are open — but you require credentials to be allowed to participate on the contest. And in most cases, the citizens may not vote on the proposals, although they're free to criticise them.
In the CDS, however, we go several steps further. First, anyone can participate in defining the theme and overall look of the new sims. They don't require credentials, technical expertise, or financial know-how. They just need to express their proposal in a form that conducts to policy. Secondly, the citizens pick the theme they like most directly, and not through their elected representatives.
Although this closely models how some projects are discussed under a direct democracy, the CDS is not a direct democracy. Still, this system of picking a project does not endanger our chosen model of government. At all stages and steps, the RA is there to validate things (the SC just checks if the voting procedures and the "campaigning" for a theme were fair and balanced, giving everybody a chance of winning, and that the voting system is not flawed or rigged). The RA sets the period of discussion and the dates for voting; it asks the Chancellor for some available space to display the projects; and it closes the polls and counts the votes, and announces the winning project.
The next step is getting the skilled professionals to build the sim that the people voted on. Here is where we suddenly leave the whole realm of "making policy" — through the vote — and enter a wholly different model. In RL, what would happen next is that the RA would outsource the building of a sim to an external company. They'd draw an agreement and the construction work would start.
In the CDS, we don't (usually) outsource to "foreigners" since we have our own equivalent of the "building company": the New Guild. One of the New Guild's roles is exactly to provide this kind of service!
So what happens is that the policy-makers will now get in touch with the trained and skilled professionals and say: "build me this sim. It should be like that. Do it". And here things leave the realm of "policy-making" and enters the nitty-gritty details of a technical level.
The New Guild gets the rough, overall idea and turns it into a building plan. In RL, an urban planner, some architects, and a few civil engineers would get together and draw a lot of blueprints. This is purely technical activity. The New Guild is not allowed to change the policy — it has to build a sim after the idea that won the contest, and not any other. The New Guild cannot say: "oh, fine, people voted on a silly idea, let's do something different though which is far more aesthetically pleasing". This is a power that the New Guild does not have, but only the RA (or, well, the citizens expressing their will through a vote).
And the New Guild, and its predecessor, in fact, never interfered with the policy established by the citizens. They simply rolled up their sleeves and started to work. If you remember, Colonia Nova was originally thought that it could be built joined to Neufreistadt. A technical evaluation found quickly out that this was not feasible. Nevertheless, the Building Workforce (which was the group responsible for the CN built) did not change the theme. They did not said: "well, yes, a Roman Empire theme is cool, but we could just add a few more Fachhäuser, and then we could join both sims together". They simply were not empowered to even make such a change of policy. Instead, they had to work out a plan to comply with what the citizen's wanted: a Roman-themed sim. And this was built, even if it was disjoined — a technical decision, not a policy one.
Technical decisions are emitted after reviewing qualified opinions of professionals, and not by submitting technical decisions to a popular vote. This is naturally obvious: each one of us has different skills and talents, but we all have opinions. An efficient society — in fact, the groundwork for what we call civilization — is one that places people with certain skills where they emit qualified opinions and thus make decisions based on them. The popular vote in a democracy is what makes sure that these decisions are made according to a policy, which does not require "skills", but just opinions. The beauty of democracy is that a society can be ruled by amateurs, since they will only require to determine policy but it will not be expected of them to additionally provide technical solutions, who are left in the hands of professionals.
On the other hand, if the New Guild (or any similar body) perverts the system by changing a proposal that does not fulfil the mandated policy, the RA is there to block this from happening.
Remember that at the beginning of this process, the whole expansion only occured when the Treasurer, analysing the coffers of the State, deems that the time is right for it. However, through this process, a final validation is required. The final blueprints have to make financial sense.
In the CDS our income currently comes from land sales. Although this might change, right now, the most important thing that needs to be kept in mind is that the Treasury has to be able to sell plots. And the sales have to cover the costs. As the money involved is public, extra care has to be taken that citizen's fees are not going to finance a project that is the ruin of the CDS, by creating impossible-to-sell sims. So, when the blueprints are ready, the Treasurer, using their expertise and financial background, will run a inancial analysis through the project and declare: "ok, we can sell these. We'll recover the CDS's investment. This makes solid financial sense". And it sets things like plot sizes, prices per square metre, or even different pricing depending on the zone (eg. on Neufreistadt, since the telehub is in the middle of the Marktplatz, it generates more traffic there: so plots neighbouring the Marktplatz are small and expensive, since they'll very likely be used for commerce. Away from the Marktplatz, the traffic is lower, so plots can be larger and less expensive, and they will be zoned for residential areas).
A good urban planner will help out in this case. The Treasurer might demand a certain mix of zoning and pricing that makes sense financially — although aesthetically it might not be pleasing. But, again, this is a qualified opinion — we, as citizens, want that the CDS continues to be slightly profitable, so that we can continue to self-finance our continued growth and not risk empty sims that we can't get rid of. So, in several cases — it happened in all three sims so far! — changes have to be incorporated into a blueprint of a sim to make it financially solid.
SL also changes way too fast. Almost all communities grow like crazy in SL; prices change every day, depending on demand and supply; new technologies are developed and deployed by LL, making things be completely unpredictable. The CDS, however, takes ages to decide. This means that our risk of failure to sell sims is exceptionally high, since we cannot "gamble" on selling a good idea very quickly, recovering the investment in weeks, and start on the next sim. We do it exactly the other way round. We have to predict in March what will sell well in November. Such prediction powers are way beyond the common citizen — not because they are not intelligent, but because they have no experience in long-term financial planning. Similarly, an SL architect might do the most nicely looking building in the world — but fail to price it correctly. The task of long-term financial planning is not "magic" — it's a skill that comes from experience in dealing with similar situations, it comes from a solid background of running successful businesses or entities. It is also not easy. And, last but not least, the person making those decisions is accountable for making a bad choice: before the RA, which can throw them out of their jobs if they're doing it poorly.
Again, however, the financial decision is a technical one and not a political one. The Treasure cannot overprice (or underprice) a new sim just because they're making a (political) point. If that happens, the RA gets a new Treasurer. In fact, the Treasurer is expected to provide adequate values for parcelling and pricing, so that the RA's (or the citizen's) policy can be successfully implemented (with a positive return on investment), and provide qualified advice on how to do that. The RA doesn't need to know. The New Guild is not required to know. The public most certainly will not have a clue on how it's done (except for a few individuals with the same skills and training; they are, in fact, good candidates for the Treasury or any Financial Commission, exactly because they have those skills and training).
So, to recap, two things have to be clearly separated in any working democratic society. Popular opinion mandates policy. Qualified opinions are emitted by skilled and trained professionals. Technicians (artists, architects, designers, programmers, finance managers) do not mandate policy; they provide advice on how things have to be done to be successful. The public does not provide qualified opinions; they provide policy instead. And technical advice is checked against policy to make sure it conforms to the citizen's will. That's how it works in an efficient, well-run democratic system, where all its citizens understand the difference.
And as a summary, here goes the whole process again:
RA decides on opening a new sim (policy; unqualified opinion)
Treasurer decides on the timing for that, based on the available budget and cash in reserve (qualified opinion)
RA opens public contest for sim designs (gathering unqualified opinions)
Sim designs are voted upon (they become policy)
RA "outsources" the sim to a building group [currently the New Guild] which provides a blueprint (technical expertise in urban planning, architecture, design, aesthetics)
Treasurer sets parcel size, zoning, pricing (technical expertise)
RA validates that the final plan is what the citizens wanted it to be (policy validation)
RA orders the sim and gets the building group on the job (this is an administrative/executive task really)
Builders build (technical expertise)
Sim is promotes (PIO; executive action; no policy here, just execution)
SC oversees the whole process, making sure that each agent in the process is not overstepping its boundaries (just process validation; no policy; no qualified opinions)
So, with due respect, the role of the whole of our citizens in expressing their opinions freely is supposed to affect policy — ie. forcing the RA to respect the will of the people, as their legitimately elected representatives — and never technical considerations, where the majority of the population is simply not qualified to enter the discussion. In fact, the ones that are qualified for a strictly technical role — and able to emit qualified opinions — are, very likely, at this stage, already on the relevant technical groups
Understanding all the above will lead to a more peaceful conclusion of this long process, and, most important for me, will have citizens addressing the issues on the appropriate bodies.