Request for the SC to set a different Bi-Election schedule

This forum is used for discussion by members of the SC
Post Reply
User avatar
Delia Lake
Dean of the SC
Dean of the SC
Posts: 608
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:12 pm
Contact:

Request for the SC to set a different Bi-Election schedule

Post by Delia Lake »

Mrs Dean of the Scientific Council

I officially request the Scientific Council to set an other schedule for the bi-election of the 13th RA with the following arguments:

- the Scientific Council did not validate the schedule with a vote
- the confirmation of the schedule was not set in the official agenda of the RA
- the deadline for candidacy is too short, especially in a period of holidays where many people are travellling and have not the possibility to get the in-world notice from the Scientific Council

Regards

Arria Perreault

User avatar
Delia Lake
Dean of the SC
Dean of the SC
Posts: 608
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Request for the SC to set a different Bi-Election schedu

Post by Delia Lake »

The format for this discussion is UD (unstructured discussion).
We(SC) were remiss in not posting it here. Three of the five SC members ( a majority) are/were in agreement with the dates Claude Desmoulins proposed: Claude, Calli and Delia. No SC member posted alternative dates. Granted, the timeframe is not long. At the same time, this is a bi-election for replacing first one, then a second RA member who resigned from an already sitting Assembly not a wholesale replacement of the RA.

There is no Constitutional requirement for the RA to confirm the election dates set by the SC (although the majority of the RA did express a desire for a speedy bi-election process, re 29 July Transcript). As to the third item in this request, particularly

especially in a period of holidays where many people are travellling and have not the possibility to get the in-world notice from the Scientific Council

If interested citizens know they are likely to be away with RL commitments during a probable election declaration period they certainly can contact the Dean and express their interest to become a candidate ahead of leaving on travel. Although there is a deadline set for declaration of candidacy for the bi-election, and for all other CDS elections as well, there is no specified date before which interest cannot be expressed. In this particular bi-election case, all CDS citizens could have made themselves aware of the fact that there was an option to demerge the original CDS sims and the AA sims during the week of 22 July through 29 July of 2010. An obvious consequence is that anyone who was no longer a citizen of the 5 CDS sims would no longer be eligible to be a member of the RA. On 22 July, AA elected to demerge from the CDS. The demerger was widely announced. Unlike a personal decision by a single individual, the demerger that required a bi-election could have been anticipated and a potential candidate could have planned accordingly. At the RA meeting of 24 July, the setting of election dates was properly referred to the SC (see transcript). During the SC meeting of 26 July, Claude Desmoulins proposed the 1 Aug deadline for declaration of candidacy, 8 Aug for the opening of polls, and 15 Aug for the closing of polls. The SC during that meeting expressed a desire for an expedient bi-election process. It would be, in the opinion of the Dean of the SC, very poor policy and precedent to have the SC discern, attend to and account for the RL vacation plans of all CDS citizens as a prerequisite to the setting of election dates.

Soro Dagostino
Sadly departed
Sadly departed
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 11:28 am

Re: Request for the SC to set a different Bi-Election schedu

Post by Soro Dagostino »

Thank you Delia. I am in agreement. There is no rational reason to delay.

Bottle Washer
CDS SC
User avatar
Delia Lake
Dean of the SC
Dean of the SC
Posts: 608
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Request for the SC to set a different Bi-Election schedu

Post by Delia Lake »

Oops, correction and apologies. Three of the *six SC members (*strike majority)... And now Soro, making four of the six SC members (a majority) in agreement with the dates remaining as Claude proposed.

Post Reply

Return to “SC Discussion”