Hi Doug Everingham,
Several people have agreed with your concern that the mission statement
needs work. I particularly appreciate your proposing solutions to the
problems in the mission statement. But the subparts of the proposed
charter are separable, so I'd recommend approving the rest of the
charter -- with an eye to fixing the mission statement later. This
wouldn't leave us 'without direction' because the definition and goals
and methods sections do provide a lot of definition of what we're
about.
As to review time, this proposal has been circulating since 2/28. It
surely is not my intention to railroad it thru, but I'm reasonably
comfortable that all who want to comment have done so.
Best,
Mark
PS. I had taken your note of 3/20 to indicate approval for all
sections of the charter except the mission statement. Please get back
if that was not your intent.
---------------
Doug Everingham wrote:
Mark,
1. This discussion is constructive but I think not ready for your
motion.
2. The 31 Mar 2007 deadline I can meet but I guess I'm not the only
one that at times falls as much as a month behind in processing
e-mails. I think for important policies 6 weeks' notice is advisable.
3.I have no seen a constructive response to my misgivings about the
mission statement. Here are some of its self-contradictions:
...
"1.2 The power to formulate laws and policies must be vested directly
in the People without representatives at all levels of societal life.
[POSSIBLE AMENDMENT: AT THE END INSERT "EXCEPT WHERE DUE DELIBERATION
AND CONSENSUS OF RELEVANT STAKE-HOLDERS DEVELOPS A REPRESENTATIVE
PROCESS OPEN TO REVIEW."]
...
1.5 Peoples Initiatives, backed by sufficient number of signatures,
should mandate a binding Referendum and/or recall of unworthy
representatives (I&R+R) decided by public vote.
[UNLESS 1.2 IS AMENDED AS SUGGESTED ABOVE, THERE CAN BE NO RECALL
BECAUSE THERE CAN BE NO REPRESENTAATIVE.]
...
1.7 We as 'Facilitators' shall endeavor to help citizens to setup
Planning Cells, Citizen Juries, and Citizens Forums, as local bodies
to supervise municipal and local administrations and public
administrations. These 'Forums' will hear and attempt to settle
issues, and if they cannot, then refer them either to the courts or to
Citizens Parliaments.
[UNLESS 1.2 IS AMENDED AS SUGGESTED, SUCH
SUPERVISING BODIES, COURTS ETC. CANNOT ACT TO REPRESENT THE PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERESTS.
...
-- Doug Everingham
======
Hi All,
Charter proposal voting closes on 3/31.
Six votes to date, with all but Subpart 3 (mission statement)
receiving 2/3 approval.
Mark Antell
-------------------.
Mark Antell, editor CitizenPowerMagazine.net wrote:
Hello All,
The charter proposal below has had some history of posting and
modification. It was most recently posted on Feb 28 with a request
for seconds. It received three seconds which means that it's
supported for vote by 10% of the membership. On that basis I submit
it for adoption which would require a yes vote from 66% of the members
voting. Can we agree on a voting deadline of March 31?
Voting is performed by sending an email to the WDDM listserve
(wddm@world-wide-democracy.net).
Here are the key components of the charter proposal:
1. The eleven (11) numbered subparts are separable. You can vote on
some or all of the subparts.
2. The charter establishes structure, but a minimum of structure.
3. The charter incorporates direct democracy, not only as a goal, but
also as a operating rule. Initiative and referendum are encouraged
for WDDM decision making. Further, decisions of the executive
committee are always brought before the body as referenda. That's a
new concept, but it makes a lot of sense for a body that strives to be
an advocate and exemplar for direct democracy
4. In addition to calling for respect for minority opinions, the
charter requires that minority opinion be considered by incorporating
'supermajority' requirements for several types of motions.
WDDM has significant value as it is, a place for discussion and
announcement on direct democracy. This charter is an opportunity to
allow activity and coordination beyond discussion.
Mark Antell
Rosslyn, Virginia, USA -----------------
Charter Proposal for WDDM, unmodified from the Feb 28, 2007 posting.
I. Charter Review and Adoption Process
1. The sponsor for this charter proposal is Mark Antell. If 10% of
the membership second this proposal it will be considered a charter
motion. Due to uncertainties about the current membership, this
requirement shall be met by 3 seconds. (Sponsor's note: This
requirement has been met). The charter motion will then be
posted for a two week period of discussion and voting. The charter
will be considered adopted if it receives 66% approval by the voting
membership. Individual points of the charter motion are separable so
it would be possible, for example, to adopt several principles without
necessarily adopting any or all of the proposed business rules.
II. Principles of WDDM.
2. Definition
Direct democracy means enhancement and broadening of initiative,
referendum and recall. It also means improved methods for
deliberation and discourse.
3. Mission Statement
Posted at
www.world-wide-democracy.net
4. Organizational Goals.
WDDM is dedicated to the study, education, and implementation of
direct democracy, deliberation, and consensus at all levels of
governance from the local to the supra-national level. Our immediate
goal is to develop a multilingual global network of websites and
offline efforts committed to encouraging more direct democratic
processes for public policy decision making.
5. Membership.
Membership is limited to those who tend to think that governance would
be improved by expansion and facilitation of direct democracy,
deliberation and consensus. Members must also commit to review
proposals and vote on motions. Further, members commit to civility
towards each other, and respect for minority opinions. After all, we
have similar goals.
6. Organizational Methods - commitment to direct democracy
WDDM will be an exemplar for direct democracy. As much as possible,
decision making power will flow from direct vote of the membership.
And we will strive to test and implement cutting-edge methods to
enhance deliberation.
7. Organizational Methods - encouraging discourse
WDDM shall continue to maintain a Bulletin Board to which all members
may post proposals or opinions. Many electronic BBS systems are
afflicted with a problem that they provide high visibility to the most
aggressive multiple posters. The executive board shall propose (for
membership adoption) methods to calm this problem.
III. Business Rules
8. Structure
We will start with a very simple structure: a three member executive
board - elected for a one year term by majority vote from a self
nominated slate of candidates. Executive board communications, and
other committee communications shall be open for review by the
membership.
9. Initiative.
Initiative means a process which allows the membership to raise an
issue for discussion and to bring it to binding vote of the membership.
Any member may post an initiative for discussion. If, after a
discussion period of no less than one month, 10% of the membership
agree to second the proposal, then it will be posted as a motion. Due
to uncertainties about the current membership, for 2007 the seconding
requirement shall be met by 3 seconds.
10. Approval of Initiative Motions
Motions shall open for vote for two weeks after posting. Business
motions are adopted by a simple majority vote. Charter modification
motions require a super-majority (of those voting) of 66%.
11. Referenda on Executive Board Decisions.
Referendum is a process whereby actions of a governing body are
brought to the membership for validation.
The executive board is empowered to pass temporary business motions;
however executive board decisions will be posted for referendum vote.
A simple majority of voting members is required to confirm executive
board business motions. Decisions not approved will cease to have
any force.
The executive board is also empowered to interpret the charter,
subject to validation by the membership as above.
|