Runboard.com
You're welcome.

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)


Page:  1  2  3 

 
Bill Mock Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderator
Global user

Registered: 01-2011
Posts: 213
Karma: 0 (+1/-1)
Reply | Quote
Re: Meeting discussion


I got the impression that this was another typo/wording fail in which it is meant that when the Assembly comes up with a decision, the citizens can revoke the council's decision if 3/4 of the citizens do not agree with it, then the Assembly must come up with a new/alternative decision that is agreed upon by at least 3/4 of the citizens in the original decision's place.

Last edited by Bill Mock, 1/15/2012, 12:36 am


---
-Meager
1/15/2012, 12:35 am Link to this post Send Email to Bill Mock   Send PM to Bill Mock Blog
 
Lasciel Caphra Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
Global user

Registered: 10-2010
Posts: 171
Karma: 1 (+1/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Meeting discussion


The way I wrote it originally is what we came up with at the meeting.
1/15/2012, 2:38 am Link to this post Send Email to Lasciel Caphra   Send PM to Lasciel Caphra Blog
 
Lasciel Caphra Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
Global user

Registered: 10-2010
Posts: 171
Karma: 1 (+1/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Meeting discussion


If no one has anything else to add and is ok with the general concept. I'm going to move on to the second draft.
1/18/2012, 8:31 am Link to this post Send Email to Lasciel Caphra   Send PM to Lasciel Caphra Blog
 
Cordane Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 02-2009
Posts: 180
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Meeting discussion


Lasciel, you clearly need to address the discrepancy above regarding the 2/3 vs 3/4 issue. Just stating that that's how it was decided before doesn't excuse the fact that there's a discrepancy in the numbers.
1/18/2012, 8:41 am Link to this post Send Email to Cordane   Send PM to Cordane
 
Lasciel Caphra Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
Global user

Registered: 10-2010
Posts: 171
Karma: 1 (+1/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Meeting discussion


I just meant the order he mentioned that things were in flowed the way they were written. I kinda forgot the part butter brought up >_>. Sorry about that. But we could change it to 2/3 or add another seat?
1/18/2012, 8:03 pm Link to this post Send Email to Lasciel Caphra   Send PM to Lasciel Caphra Blog
 
Bill Mock Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderator
Global user

Registered: 01-2011
Posts: 213
Karma: 0 (+1/-1)
Reply | Quote
Re: Meeting discussion


I don't think you're getting what Cordane is saying. There is a section that isn't clear about how decisions are revoked. It sounds like what you meant was 3/4 of the citizenry can revoke a decision agreed upon by the assembly (which would be made at the 2/3 majority by the assembly) and require that a new decision is made by the assembly where 3/4 of the citizenry can agree with it. But it is worded completely differently. Your responses to these questions aren't very clear. :O

The line in question is here:

quote:

With 3/4ths vote, the council can overturn a citizen vote. It is then resubmitted to be revote on by the citizens but it must pass with 3/4ths of the votes.



It sounds like someone misplaced the words council and citizen because I was under the assumption that the council makes the decisions and that these decisions/discussions were open to the citizenry but not decided by the citizenry. Though, the citizenry could decided (with a 3/4 vote) to revoke the council's decision.

 What the original wording sounds like is that the citizenry comes up with the decisions where the council can then overturn them. But this doesn't really make sense to me because isn't the whole point of having the council to make it so that people can elect responsible people that they think will best represent their interests and make decisions that they might otherwise not know how to make?

I propose that it be reworded to say:

With a 2/3 majority vote, a decision can be made by the council. If the citizenry does not approve of the decision, they can revoke the decision by way of a 3/4 majority vote whereupon the council must come up with a new decision, still agreed upon by the council with a 2/3 majority vote, in place of the old one that will satisfy the 3/4 majority of the citizenry.

---
-Meager
1/18/2012, 10:08 pm Link to this post Send Email to Bill Mock   Send PM to Bill Mock Blog
 
Cordane Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 02-2009
Posts: 180
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Meeting discussion


quote:

With a 2/3 majority vote, a decision can be made by the council. If the citizenry does not approve of the decision, they can revoke the decision by way of a 3/4 majority vote whereupon the council must come up with a new decision, still agreed upon by the council with a 2/3 majority vote, in place of the old one that will satisfy the 3/4 majority of the citizenry.



Alternatively, the concept could have been (at the meeting - I wasn't there) that the citizenry makes the decisions but that those decisions can be overturned by a majority of the assembly.

In general, I don't think there should be enough "decisions" to warrant having a republic system in place. Unlike the US government, our day-to-day operation doesn't include a multitude of decisions. Odds are that we can get away with bringing most of our major decisions to the citizenry directly. The assembly would function to veto these decisions, if necessary.


I'm not necessarily arguing for or against this conception, just saying that it was possible that this was how it was imagined during the meeting.
1/19/2012, 8:33 am Link to this post Send Email to Cordane   Send PM to Cordane
 
Shogunate Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 10-2011
Posts: 87
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Meeting discussion


That's true for right now Cordane, but While Canaur is small,it's growing rapidly. I don't think in a years time we'll be considered "small" any more (going on the increasing number of people attending Saturday Practices) Having a frame work in place now for how decisions are to be made in the future is a good preemptive measure.

For example part of the "council" or "assembly's" duties will be to try and requisition funds from the school. There should be a process for deciding what will be done with that money. Right now there are only a handful of people even discussing these issues and it's usually either on here or at leisure between games if there is money involved this cannot be the case.

I think the intention of those at the meeting (I know it was in my case) The intention of creating this assembly is to provide representation for the member base as well as give people an individual opinion on issues that could be coming up in the next year as our member base grows and outside funds become available to the group

---
Blood for the Blood God!
1/19/2012, 7:03 pm Link to this post Send Email to Shogunate   Send PM to Shogunate Blog
 
Cordane Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 02-2009
Posts: 180
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Meeting discussion


Well, Shogun, I can only hope you're right. But, I've followed the progress of this group for years. It doesn't just grow - it also contracts. Thus, the reason for the phoenix symbol. The population of the group rises and falls every semester.


Eventually, it could grow substantially larger, which would be cool. I think that would be the time to change the format to a representation.

Honestly, you might not want a small group of people calling all of the shots in a larger (but still small) group of people. Folks might think their voices don't matter.
1/20/2012, 8:39 am Link to this post Send Email to Cordane   Send PM to Cordane
 
Adm Buttercrust Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 10-2011
Posts: 27
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Meeting discussion


From what I remember, it was simply that the citizenry voted on matters, then assembly could overturn with the greater majority (2/3, 3/4, whichever it ends up at), and would be resubmitted to citizens to be voted on again. So the citizens do all the of decision making in the end.
1/20/2012, 4:47 pm Link to this post Send Email to Adm Buttercrust   Send PM to Adm Buttercrust Blog
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3 





You are not logged in (login)