Posted by Dr. Bob on December 12, 2010, at 11:41:18
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by muffled on December 12, 2010, at 11:05:54
> > I'd very much like to know where things stand and how people are thinking about any and all ideas on the floor
>
> My sense was that it's stuck on the issue of Bob insisting that Council member candidates run and and elections be held.I enjoyed our discussion and appreciated the input from those who attended. My sense is that:
I'm stuck on council members representing the community.
Anger at council members shouldn't build up like anger at deputies because the community could un-elect council members, but can't un-elect deputies. Still, being "durable" enough to tolerate some rejection would be advisable. And IMO they could represent the rejection-sensitive portion of the community even if they themselves could tolerate some rejection.
If there were 5 candidates, none would be rejected. The vote totals wouldn't be posted, just who was and wasn't elected.
There was support for calling it a Community Council instead of an Elders Council.
Civility rules would remain in place during elections. I'd consider negative campaigning to be uncivil.
--
> he's willing to transfer power to the group - but only on his own terms
The terms have to be acceptable to me, yes. And the group has to be acceptable to the community.
> Even Bob got provocative with it - announcing that if no one's willing to run and be elected, then he 'gets to stay King' - and I think he even said he likes being King.
What I said was that if posters didn't want more power, that would be OK with me, I'd just stay "king".
> Janed asked an equally provacative question: Why not just ask the community to vote on whether to have an election?
I've asked, and so far, anyway, the community seems to be voting to keep me king.
> He says he wants elections because he wants Council members to be chosen from the community... as if elections are the *only* way to make that happen.
Not *from* the community, *by* the community.
> if he insists on elections - then the very people the community would want on Counci might be the ones that would not run - so they Won't be getting who they want.
You can't always get what you want, a philosopher once said.
> I asked (but didn't get a response) if he might be resisting an alternative as a way to stay King.
My response was that unwillingness to run might be a way to keep me king.
> I think it's a very complex issue. It is disappointing to me that Bob is currently so inflexible about the method of putting Council in place.
>
> Solstice> he is so inflexible, that when he suggests anything,babblers just resist him right back.
>
> muffledIf we're all being inflexible, then we're at an impasse. IMO that's OK, I agree that this is complex, change means anxiety, and better to take more time to think this through than to move too fast.
For example, another thought I have is that since anger is a concern, maybe it would make sense to consider incivility toward council members more severe, like incivility toward deputies.
Regarding how to put a council in place:
> > Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government
Bob
a brilliant and reticent Web mastermind -- The New York Times
backpedals well -- PartlyCloudy
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:964630
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/973270.html