Govt Question Hour - Transcript Discussion

Here you might discuss basically everything.

Moderator: SC Moderators

User avatar
Tanoujin Milestone
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:42 pm

Govt Question Hour - Transcript Discussion

Post by Tanoujin Milestone »

This discussion started in legislative Discussion, http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=9416

The topic was discussed during the RA meeting of Mar 24 2020 and it was decided to continue on the forum.
Suggestions and comments are welcome. Share your thoughts, thank you.

Lyubov: Thank you once again Chancellor. Our next agenda item is *7. New Business. 7.1 Update to NL 7-1 Government Question Hour Act, see discussion at viewtopic.php?f=24&t=9416
At the last GQH, we discussed the need for an official transcript. As required by the present law. We all felt that the intended casual nature of the meeting would be best served by a less formal, "summary" of the meeting instead of an official transcript.

Kyoko Furse-Barzane: /me is in agreement with your proposal

Lyubov: I would like to add one further suggestion to the draft text: A time. When should this summary be posted? I would like to offer "within 7 days". The proposal is to replace section 5 with "The Chair will post a summary of the content of the meeting to the CDS forums. At the start, participants shall be informed that a summary will be posted."
I would like to revise this to "The Chair will post a summary of the content of the meeting to the CDS forums within 7 days. At the start, participants shall be informed that a summary will be posted.".

Callipygian Christensen: Sorry - I was travelling with no access so hadnt seen this before, so just asking a little clarification and referencing the history of why that wording is there. At a time when there was a fair bit of friction and not a great deal of commuication between some arms of govt and the people, that law was seen as a way to a) publiclly ask the govt to explain itself and b) ensure there was a record of the requet for accountability and any answer.
while those concerns arent currently at issue..does this put in place a weakness for some future time when it might - they say winners write the history.. in this case, who writes the summary can have a major impact on what is history going forward. So, no preference on what you choose to do, just a request to think through the other possible consequences.

Rosie Gray: thanks Calli for raising the point. I think that the reason for this is that these meetings have become quite social, and that sometimes we end up chatting about things that might not be prudent to show the full text of. I'm thinking about the last meeting as an example, where we talked about some of our missing friends. I can appreciate that in the past that if there was no accountability from the Chancellor, then this was an attempt to get some, but in the recent years, it seems that it's always the same people who show up and the meetings aren't formal.

Tanoujin Milestone: i think we have three possibilities: to keep the old rule and have a sign that states the transcript is recorded, to remember us to make no faulty remarks and take away the sharpness of a tool for direct accountability; or to allow the participants to give something to protocol, like "I move to take this on record“, so we switch modes. What do you think of the last option?

Lilith Ivory: I would like to suggest that we try a mix of both possiblilties: have a summarized chit chat and if someone asks a REAL question this question and the answer to it gets transcripted. (TM: „on demand?“) Yes if for example someone says: q: yada yada.

Almut Brunswick: As a relative new citizen, I would prefer to see these Q&A meetings as an informal means to get together and to ask things. As soon as it becomes more *official*, then such a meeting is not the right place. I thus would propose to omitand to strike the whole minutes- of-meeting thing from that law. CDS is actually bueraucratic enough for my taste. I don't say that there is no need for it, but there are other occasions like e.g. the RA meeting. So informal means informal and not an official meeting in disguise.

Hannah Marie Bloodwolf-Tempest: First off: Callipygian reminded us that this -official- meeting was created for the sake of transparency and for the sake of accountability. Those are vital in a democracy such as ours. So the transcript does serve a purpose as they do for all of the meetings our government holds.
I have an idea that I think would be a good compromise for the need for formal records and the need for a social bonding (as the GQH has turned into now). I would propose that there be two types of GQH: By default, semi-informal and chit-chatty; with a light set of minutes kept. But in the event of a conflict or such where accountability is needed (eg another repeat of 2014) then someone can request the more formal mode. In that mode a full transcript will be kept, and the conversation will be more formal.

Kyoko Furse-Barzane: I arrived at the end of the terrible times and the few RA meeting I attended in late 2015 indicated why such a government hour is good to have in reserve. I do like Han's suggestion. My only question is whether the request should come before a scheduled hour, or at the beginning or?
The RA agenda always provides for opportunties to quest the Chancellor and the RA members. The only addition to the Government hour is the presence of the SC. So we have 2/3 accountability already, if we can work it out I do like Han's suggestion.

Callipygian Christensen: just as a slight correction, the Chancellor is not required to answer questions from citizens at the RA meetings, often does, but not required.. so listening to all of the options and concerns and acknowledging what Han pointed out, the idea that the GQH was always meant to be official where ALL arms were available for info, how about -
post and announce in all area, group, forums etc and request that citizens send in any questions they would like addressed..

Lyubov: I would like to note, that the Constitution states that the Chancellor shall attend RA meetings and truthfully and fully answer questions of any citizen.
"Section 8 – RA Oversight:
Each month the Chancellor shall attend a meeting of the Representative Assembly, and fully and truthfully answer there any questions posed by any citizen about any aspect of the affairs of the CDS or of the Office of the Chancellor. The Chancellor will also attend upon three days notice at the written request from any member of the Representative Assembly."

Callipygian Christensen: start the meeting, transcripted, with any official questions that came in, then once they are answered shut down transcription and provide a summary of whatever chit chat subjects follow. That probably honours the law, the reasons for the law and improves things perhaps, since the right arm of govt can be notified of questions. it also allows for the informal, since there are seldom many questions :D

Lilith Ivory: I do like this idea Calli!

Kyoko Furse-Barzane: makes sense

Emilia Dagostino: Thank you all for your thoughts. Calli, your suggestions are very useful, although i'm not clear on who makes these various announcements.. It would be nice to know who they fall to, because "The Chair" is me and the PIO, and we both are busy in real life. Also, I have some small anxiety that the GQH would be mired in obscurity if too much formality is required. I would actually remain with the official transcript for transparency to be maintained in a stated location, and then a summary to be published in Notifications and/or Forum.

Hannah Marie Bloodwolf-Tempest: To head off the possibility of social engineering/malicious use/passive-aggressiveness, I'd personally like to see "formal mode" require advance notice. That way someone can't simply ambush the meeting for whatever reason. I'd be happy with 24hr advance notice to the LRA, SC Dean and Chancellor but I think a few days notice would be better -and either way it should be requested (by the citizen or offical wanting formal mode) on the forum (in writing).

Lyubov: Thank you Han, and thank you everyone for your valuable contributions to this discussion! I would like to motion that the Update to NL 7-1 Government Question Hour Act be tabled until the next RA meeting and that this discussion continue through Forum, where the topic will be moved to the General Discussion area to allow for public comment.

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.
Ian Maclaren
User avatar
Lyubov
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2018 6:53 pm

Re: Govt Question Hour - Transcript Discussion

Post by Lyubov »

For reference, the text of the current law is here, https://cdsdemocracy.org/faqs/nl-7-1-go ... -hour-act/

The intent of the act as stated in the Rationale is, "to make the government more accessible this Act establishes an informal Government Question Hour". A formal transcript is at odds with the intended informal nature of the meeting. Casual chit-chat is what makes the GQH unique and valuable.

Calli pointed out that in the past, there has been an adversarial relationship between the branches of government and citizens. In those times, the GQH was an essential resource for direct citizen contact with members of government, to ask questions, and hold these members accountable.

Today's question is how to balance the current iteration of the GQH which resembles an after-work social, with a mechanism to ensure citizen access to and accountability of, their government representatives. Several speakers at the RA meeting offered a variation of a hybrid proposal.

In the current law, section 5 states, "The Chair will post a transcript of the meeting to the CDS forums, which may also include a summary of the content of the meeting. At the start, participants shall be informed that a transcript will be posted.".

The replacement for section 5 must be very simple and transparent. I propose the following:

At the beginning of each Government Question Hour, the Chair will publicly announce the start of the meeting and ask all those in attendance if anyone will require a full formal transcript of the event. If anyone publicly requests a formal transcript, then the Chair will post the transcript to the forum within seven (7) days. If no attendee publicly states that they will require a transcript, the Chair will post a list of all GQH attendees within 24 hours of the meeting.

This makes a clear offer for a transcript should anyone require it, but this request must be made in public at the very start of the meeting. In the interest of accountability and transparency, the entire meeting should be transcripted in full; transcription should not be toggled on and off. It is important for transcripts to be posted in a timely manner and they are not particularly difficult to prepare. A week is more than sufficient.

If no one publicly states that they will require a formal transcript, a simple post stating the list of attendees serves the purpose of accountability and transparency by showing that the meeting did occur, and remains an objective statement of fact verifiable by those listed as present. Such a simple post should consume no more than a few minutes and could be done before the GQH even completed.

User avatar
Lilith Ivory
Forum Admin
Forum Admin
Posts: 587
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 1:43 pm
Contact:

Re: Govt Question Hour - Transcript Discussion

Post by Lilith Ivory »

I would prefer to follow Calli's suggestion and start any GQH with an official and transcripted part. After all questions got answered the chair should anounce the transcript is closed now and we can continue with casual chat.
I also like the idea that the GQH has to be announced 1 week in advantage asking citizens to submit questions to the dean, the LRA or the chancellor

"The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it."
Terry Pratchett
User avatar
Lyubov
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2018 6:53 pm

Re: Govt Question Hour - Transcript Discussion

Post by Lyubov »

Perhaps the simplest way to handle Calli's suggestion is to make little change to the existing law which states, "The Chair will post a transcript of the meeting to the CDS forums, which may also include a summary of the content of the meeting. At the start, participants shall be informed that a transcript will be posted."

There was an observation that a "summary" might not always be a fair and accurate assessment of the meeting. This part could be removed, allowing the transcript to speak for itself. I would still want to require posting of the transcript in a timely fashion, within a week.

"The Chair will post a transcript of the meeting to the CDS forums within seven (7) days. At the start, participants shall be informed that a transcript will be posted."

The meeting agenda may be: announce start of meeting, announce start of transcript, take attendance, question period (in-person or written questions submitted in advance), agree to adjourn, announce end of transcript. If there are no questions, the meeting and transcript end quickly. If there are extensive questions, the meeting may continue for up to an hour. Once the meeting is adjourned, all are welcome to remain for casual non-transcribed conversation.

I would also like to change the title of the act from "Government Question Hour", which implies a full 60 minutes of transcribed official questions, to "Government Question Time". For reference, parliaments around the world apportion various amounts of time, from 15 to 90 minutes for a question period. "Question Time" better reflects the indeterminate amount of time for each official meeting. A "question hour" may suggest that I can arrive 50 minutes into the scheduled meeting and expect to ask a question, have it answered, and the discussion will included in an official transcript. To allow the duration of the transcript to be ended sooner than 60 minutes, individuals must be present at the beginning of the meeting to ensure that they can ask their question or submit a written question in advance of the meeting.

Section 6 states, "For each Question Hour, the Chair will — in advance — announce date, time and location in a Forum and via group notice. In the minutes before each Question Hour begins, the Chair (or an alternate) will announce date, time and location via group notice and in group IM.". This could be updated to state that the meeting must be announced at least seven (7) days in advance and suggest that written questions be submitted beforehand.

"For each Question Time, the Chair will — at least seven (7) days in advance — announce date, time and location in a Forum and via group notice. Citizens will be encouraged to submit written questions via notecard in advance to the Chair, who will forward these questions to the Chancellor, Dean, and LRA in advance of the scheduled meeting. In the minutes before each Question Hour begins, the Chair (or an alternate) will announce date, time and location via group notice and in group IM."

User avatar
Kyoko
Pundit
Pundit
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:23 pm

Re: Govt Question Hour - Transcript Discussion

Post by Kyoko »

I'm with Lilith and Calli.

Formal transcripted session, followed by less formal chit chat if desired, but not required. I think the chair would be the person to best judge when the transition should be made.

CDS Citizen
User avatar
Lyubov
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2018 6:53 pm

Re: Govt Question Hour - Transcript Discussion

Post by Lyubov »

Kyoko, how would you write this into law? I intended to include Cali’s and Lilith’s suggestions into my latest draft, in blue. How exactly would you state it differently?

User avatar
Tanoujin Milestone
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:42 pm

Re: Govt Question Hour - Transcript Discussion

Post by Tanoujin Milestone »

I like your latest draft, Lyubov. Nevertheless it should be made clear that I can simply appear in timely fashion to the GQH, wait until the record runs and ask away, without the need to write notices to the Dean, the LRA and the Chancellor beforehand - while the answer might be „I do not know at the moment, may I answer in a forum thread / at the next GQH / in person at a later date“

Furthermore I would like to give the attendees the option to hand over the chair to another person present with simple majority.

Finally I want to stress that we have to trust our people to be souvereign in a plenum, the more because this meeting can not make binding decisions as long as we have a representative democracy.

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.
Ian Maclaren
User avatar
Lyubov
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2018 6:53 pm

Re: Govt Question Hour - Transcript Discussion

Post by Lyubov »

Those are good suggestions Tan. I certainly would not wish to require that questions be submitted by notecard in advance. This is a time for questions and discussion. There are other democratic structures in place where binding decisions are made.

The full text of the current law is below, with proposed changes in blue.

Rationale:

In order to make the government more accessible this Act establishes an informal Government Question Time with at least one government ‘official’ from each branch of government present, once per month. The Chancellor may schedule additional Government Question Time meetings based on public demand. These meetings will be open to all CDS citizens to come and ask questions. The meetings will rotate to suit the RL hours of our community.

1. The Chancellor is charged with organizing a Government Question Time at least once per month. All members of the government (Executive, Legislative and Philosophical branches) will be invited to attend with at least one official from each attending.

2. The Chancellor is charged with facilitating representation from all three branches.

3. The Chancellor will rotate the hours of the Government Question Time to take into account the different time zones of the CDS community and to ensure representation from the different branches of government.

4. Meetings will be chaired by one of the government officials present and will be open to all citizens to attend. The Chair may be handed over to another government official present by a simple majority vote of those in attendance.

5. The Chair will post a transcript of the meeting to the CDS forums within seven (7) days. At the start, participants shall be informed that a transcript will be posted.

6. For each Question Time, the Chair will — at least seven (7) days in advance — announce date, time and meeting location in the Forum and via group notice. In the minutes before each Question Time begins, the Chair (or an alternate) will announce date, time and meeting location via group notice and in group IM.

7. Citizens will be invited by the Chair to ask questions at the beginning of the meeting, or to submit written questions via notecard in advance to the Chair, who will forward these questions to the Chancellor, Dean, and LRA in advance of the scheduled meeting.

User avatar
Lilith Ivory
Forum Admin
Forum Admin
Posts: 587
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 1:43 pm
Contact:

Re: Govt Question Hour - Transcript Discussion

Post by Lilith Ivory »

My brain might work a little slow at the moment but for me it is still not clear that not the whole meeting has to be transcripted but only the part where actual questions get asked

"The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it."
Terry Pratchett
User avatar
Lyubov
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2018 6:53 pm

Re: Govt Question Hour - Transcript Discussion

Post by Lyubov »

The entire meeting is “the part where actual questions get asked”. Once the questions, if any, are complete, the meeting and transcript are ended. People are welcome to remain after the “official” part of the meeting for a non-transcribed social discussion.

I am not in favor of turning transcription on and off at request throughout the course of a one hour meeting whenever questions are asked.

Earlier I suggested,

The meeting agenda may be: announce start of meeting, announce start of transcript, take attendance, question period (in-person or written questions submitted in advance), agree to adjourn, announce end of transcript. If there are no questions, the meeting and transcript end quickly. If there are extensive questions, the meeting may continue for up to an hour. Once the meeting is adjourned, all are welcome to remain for casual non-transcribed conversation.

User avatar
Lilith Ivory
Forum Admin
Forum Admin
Posts: 587
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 1:43 pm
Contact:

Re: Govt Question Hour - Transcript Discussion

Post by Lilith Ivory »

I agree and am in favour of this.
I just want it to be made clear in the law so there is no confusion in furure :)

"The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it."
Terry Pratchett
User avatar
Emilia Avindar
Seasoned debater
Seasoned debater
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2018 8:01 pm

Re: Govt Question Hour - Transcript Discussion

Post by Emilia Avindar »

Whether for reasons of style or nuance, I'm not sure, but I will say that I much prefer the original "Government Question Hour" which suggests a casual, informal event, as it has been described. Whether a "...Time" is more modern, global language may matter to some of you. I simply prefer the designation of Hour with the intent being to provide casual access to ask questions or enjoy chit chat.

A transcript would be a simple solution for full transparency. If this will abridge open speech and chatter due to self consciousness and restraint, then all the more reason for the casual definition of the hour, so as to not be overburdened with formally submitted questions, which have to proceed through some mechanism to eventual answers in the forum.

In other words, to transcribe or not to transcribe is the question. Let the hour be casual. Transcribe it all, and if so, entrust it to a discrete person and/or process. If it is truly an informal hour for easy access and chatter, a light summary could be published which highlights themes of discussion, and yes a list of attendees. Otherwise, we are redefining this event, which was just recently pulled out of the hat and presented to me as previously mandated.

Chancellor, 32nd Term, December 2019 - May 2020.
User avatar
Kyoko
Pundit
Pundit
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:23 pm

Re: Govt Question Hour - Transcript Discussion

Post by Kyoko »

Sorry, my brain is a bit mushy these days. Will respond shortly.

CDS Citizen
User avatar
Lyubov
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2018 6:53 pm

Re: Govt Question Hour - Transcript Discussion

Post by Lyubov »

Lilith: We can add an eighth point, that clearly states the meeting may be adjourned after all questions have been addressed.

8. The Government Question Time meeting may be adjourned after all questions have been addressed or after 60 minutes, whichever comes first.

"may be adjourned": May, not must.

"after all questions": Whether submitted in advance or in-person at the beginning of the meeting.

"addressed": Addressed, not necessarily answered. Allows for "I'll look into that", "Let's continue on the Forum", "We can talk in private", etc.

"or after 60 minutes": Sets a maximum time limit for the meeting.

"whichever comes first": The meeting may end promptly if there are no questions, or the meeting may extend for up to 60 minutes if there are many questions to discuss.

User avatar
Kyoko
Pundit
Pundit
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:23 pm

Re: Govt Question Hour - Transcript Discussion

Post by Kyoko »

OK, not sure my brain is in better shape, but here I go.

I like the rewrite. What I want to be available, either informally or written into the law is that once all questions have been asked and the transcript closed that an informal discussion is welcome with a summary, if that.

CDS Citizen
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”