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
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.