Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
On 1/12/08, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Florence Devouard wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
I think you got EC:s suggestion backwards. His idea was that the board would propose and decide, but the council would approve. It isn't
implicit
what would happen if the council would vote down a decided change in the bylaws. As I see it, the disapproval would not mean the change could not be implemented by the board, but it might usefully force the board to reconsider, and re-vote on it. This is a very usual parliamentary
custom.
ok
I think it would put a very huge pressure on the wikicouncil
constitution... To clarify, I don't take any position yet about whether the Council should propose by-laws and the Board ratify, or vice-versa. I simply proposed joint responsibility over the by-laws. It would be premature to establish this kind of detailed mechanism before such a Council is even set up. The most that I can legitimately propose around this is that it be a priority item for its agenda when it first meets.
While I agree this is not the time nor the place for this yet;
my point stands that in my opinion this would be the most tried and tested method for apportioning power, responsibility and accountability.
The beauty of a system where the council would approve rather than propose, is that that feature would keep the council itself "honest".
If the council got led ashtray into becoming a purely political body directed into an interaction with the board, it would have to contemplate the possibility that in the case of it *not* voting to approve a board decision, the board could capitalize on the estrangement of the council from its real role as the representative of the communities, and leap frog the council, by simply reconsidering, and re-voting to affirmatively pass the decision, in the faith that it could justify its decision to the communities directly (assuming the council had truely lost touch with base).
I understand that where such a system is in place, it has nearly never had to be invoked, which IMO proves its efficacy.
To consider an arrangement where the council could suggest resolutions, which would always be subject to passage only by the board; I will say that my own countrys parliament has a system which is quite close to it, so I am quite aware of how it operates.
Let me show you them.
The way it currently operates in the Finnish House of Representatives, is the floor of the house is immensely busy in drafting bills, of which virtually zilch are passed by the government.
The role of these bills is understood by virtually everyone to fulfill merely the role of theatrical posturing by the members on the floor.
I really don't think we want to go there.
I'm sure that we could all find good examples of what not to do in our respective national governments. Canadian parliamentarians do propose meaningless "private members'" bills in large quantities, and I suppose they too could be viewed as posturing. They are mostly ignored by using strict party discipline. Limited amounts of time are available for debating these bills, and the government insures that enough of its members speak in support to make sure that debating time runs out.
My inclination would be to approach these details with an open mind, and in a spirit of compromise.
Ec