Michel --
The inquiries I made of SC are not in the nature of legal process. Nor are they inquiries mad on behalf of the Simplicity Party, but rather on my own behalf. I do not intend to publish my questions.
If the SC interprets the plain language of Article IV, Section 2 Constitution as I think it must, then I will undertake more formal process. I will at that time, but not before, place the issue before the Simplicity Party to see if the Simplicity Party wishes to be involved in a formal action to invalidate CARE as a CDS faction for violating the faction requirements of the Constitution.
I think that CARE is a good group -- even a laudable group -- but it is not a proper or lawful faction. So far, almost all CARE members I have spoken with told me that they thought they were joining a "think tank" like group -- not a faction. They believe that Michel specifically misrepresented the group and the purposes of the group to them when inviting them to join. I think that CARE can and should exist as the think tank it was apparently represented to be, but not as a faction.
The Constitution makes clear that CDS factions must exist for the sole purpose of allowing citizens to organize their thoughts and run for RA elections. The Constitution is absolutely clear that avs who are not CDS citizens cannot be members of the faction group. The Constitution is also clear that citizens cannot be members of more than one faction.
I see no reason why there can't be a nonfaction group. Surely a faction can have a different, associated group to bring in and engage noncitizens and citizens who are not members of the faction. Such a double-breasted process would be an excellent one -- and very Constitutional. However, there are strict limits on what a faction group is, what a faction group does, and who can be the members of a faction group.
Unfortunately, under these standards, I don't believe that CARE has a faction group. This means that CARE might not be a proper participant in the elections. This problem can and should be addressed by CARE prior to the election. CARE should create a separate faction group for election purposes as soon as possible.
However, I will observe that this whole mess about CARE being organizedin an unconstitutional way -- along with the mess concerning the Judiciary Act -- are both symptomatic of serious problems with new-comer aggressiveness. The CDS is an open community -- and an inviting one. However, it is also a longstanding one, with its own history, networks of relationships, and developed ethos. It is unwise and harmful for newcomers to come in and do what they want before they have integrated themselves into the community, learning at a minimum the social rules that govern their political goals. We should not create a second-class citizen status for newcomers -- but, at the same time, newcomers should act with proper circumspection and not make bold moves before they have learned the lay of the land. Unnecessary tensions, even hostilities, even feelings of exploitation, result if newcomers do too much too soon with too little information.
However, the fault here does not just rest with newcomers. I have found that I had to make noise and draw attention to myself to receive the attention of longtime residents who could show me the lay of the land. I have spoken to several other newcomers who have not made nuisances of themselves, and they have said that they feel rather neglected -- left unregarded in their lonely houses. We can and should do better than this. We need a process to draw the community together inworld -- at publicized social meetings without a political agenda that forces the kind of debate that turns many people off.
Beathan