Motion for Public Voting on Council Matters

Given the lack of participation and the failure to show up for votes in private council of about half of the elected council I make a motion that all further votes on any issue not directly related to Security matters be held in this public council room so that all citizens can see which of their elected body are actively participating and attempting to keep the promises made during the campaigns and attending their jobs as dictated to serve the people of the county.

I second the motion.

I am opposed to this motion for the very same reason that the RK censors use Pseudo names to protect them from personal attacks and harrassment.

The people have every right to see how I vote and are welcome to ask me why or convince me to vote their opinion because I represent them and I have nothing to hide from them and I personally have confidence in any vote I place to back that vote up with a public display of it and to defend it if need be.

That is commendable and personally I feel the same way but we are all individuals and others may have their own ideas.

I think a vote on the idea would be a fair enough way to determine this individual choice.

If no one has any reason to hide their votes and opinions from the public they represent then I see no reason we cannot reach a majority on the issue unless of course half the council does not vote as usual.

LOF is and always has been for transparency so such a vote would pass and is not an issue.

My concern is that this is all just politically motivated and is being used for partisan objectives. If so it continues the discord and problems of the past that some of us have been working to overcome.

It has Nothing to do with partisan politics it has to do with FULFILLMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY to the citizens.

I am here to serve the citizens not play make someone else look bad. I could not care less who this act exposes whether it be a member of my party or someone elses.

I DO care that the people have a team who WORK....who are ACTIVE....who care enough to come to the council room and discuss and debate and suggest and vote whether they are on my side or not...I care that ALL citizens of Somerset are represented with a voice and I believe they need to see and have a RIGHT to see who is providing a voice...who IS working...who is ACTIVE...who DOES show up and care.

The people wanted a team who would work for them....make life better for them...show up for them....

and so far they have half a team at best on a good day

and that is just Wrong


First you want to protect the counselors from Harassment then you turn and say such a measure would pass the majority vote

which is it? I believe each counselor can speak for themselves and stand up for their vote.

Again I make a motion this proposal reach a vote.

I support the motion, but I do share Dutchess Allikath's concerns!

I support the suggestion for public voting but would like to see this take place on the RK forum. We need a place there where the public can read our votes but not vote themselves. Therefore, as a matter of procedure, I think we should vote on the move to RK before we vote on this.

I already made the motion in private council today to bring that issue to a vote although the public can read our votes on EITHER forum.

and apparently they DO read this forum I have learned from the influx of PMs since the matter of non active counselors has been brought forward today so I have faith that those citizens of Somerset who are concerned with the wellbeing of their county do make their way here to read and keep up on current affairs. It was refreshing to find this out.

Art. 3.4.3. : Any council member can make a proposal. This proposal will be put in discussion for two days and must have the word Discussion before it in the topic subject. After two days have passed, if the proposal is considered as a real proposal by the rest of the council, it is then put to vote for two days if the vote is to be cast in the council forum room. For voting in game, the time of the vote will be determined by the IG system.

Well the council has 2 forum rooms now and the law does not distinguish which must be untilized.

For someone who is all about transparency you certainly are reaching to prevent such from occurring.

I shall reopen this topic with the proper entitlement as required by law and re- make this proposal accordingly.

For the people who have a right to know.

I am not trying to prevent anything, I agree with transparency I always have.

Perhaps you could be transparent about your constant jabs at me personally?

I have made none and have conducted myself in a manner that is professional in these forums and have absolutely no posts that have had to be removed for indecorous behaviour either in public or private.


I am simply pointing out an issue that was made a great deal of during the election and that was the promise of transparency and now that is being championed by someone other than your own party it is suddenly not a popular idea. The people were promised it and given numerous reasons why it should be so and I have come to see that it is indeed a concept that would benefit the citizens.

As always you twist everything around to suit your own purposes.

You only push it now for your own agenda not to benefit the citizens.
They can and will see the difference.

It does benefit the citizens to see who comes to council and who works for them. They put the people here and have a right to know who shows up and gives them their "money's" worth so to speak

It benefits them to see who spends the extra time doing the jobs they were charged with and who shows dedication to the county we live in by taking the time to log in and read the matters on the table and offer opinion and discussion.

It benefits them to see the thought process that goes into law making.

It benefits them to know who is not around doing what they promised to do.

It benefits them to see what goes into making a council run efficiently as it educates them to the process

It inspires them to do their part as a citizen to contribute to the overall good of the whole.

It benefits them to have this knowledge so they can make educated choices with their votes or encourages them to step up next time and say they will do it themselves since their choice of a voice was not working for them in the previous council


And it is not about partisan politics, personally I have always been for a system that allows individuals to run for the various positions and not partys as that would ASSURE the People TRULY chose their Leaders and placed them in the positions the PEOPLE had the most faith they could and should carry out.

If I wanted to play childish and dirty politics I could, as I have saved all that has occurred during my tenures as a counselor for reference but that is not my choice. I believe the people will make the right choices based on weighing matters intellectually and not because they have been emotionally triggered by seeing the whole line of dirty laundry hung out and if they do not then so be it.

It is about the People. And in spite of all the bickering and silly name calling and insults that one has to wade through to do this job as I have been for several terms in this county I have not forgotten I do it because I genuinely care about the wellbeing of Somerset and wish to see her prosper and be the great county she has been.

I fail to see the point of your objections, Allikath, I truly do. What is so horrendous about the idea that our actions be more visible to those we are responsible to - the people of Somerset? It seems to me that Ellsbeth's motion to make our voting public, save on matters that concern the County's security, would be a fulfillment of one of your parties stated goals, if you want to see it from a partisan point of view. Of course, to view this entire discussion from that sort of viewpoint, one must think that you are arguing against Lady Ellsbeth's position merely because it was proposed by someone not of your party.

Asserting that voting on these forums isn't transparent enough merely begs the question. As I have pointed out in another thread, the entire body of the Somerset Armed Services have found their way here for their games, their tavern, their entire structure. I think that SAS members can fairly be used as a sampling of RK players. Sure, they're the more active ones. But the inactive players don't read or post on the RK forum either. They die, or they're happy spending 5 minutes a day to eat and do their marketing and other chores. Those who care enough to participate in County affairs will come here to do so, just as those who cared enough to join the SAS and particpate in those activities did.

Further, this discussion is not about returning to the RK boards, it is about opening our votes, our voting procedure, and our discussions to the citizenry. Please, keep your discussions on topic! There is another thread for that discussion.

I go on the record as being FOR open votes, in this public forum. I have nothing to hide, no fear of Somerset citizens, my neighbors, the people who vote for or against me, seeing how I vote, and being informed as to how my votes reflect their concerns. It does appear that others may not wish that transparency, no matter their stated thoughts in election season.

What it comes down is how a great man once summed it up


It is one thing to fight for principle, is another thing to live up to it.

I have made no objections to this issue merely a few comments and I have repeated more then once that I am in favor of it as is LOF members as anyone can see who reads the entire threads.

Perhaps if you took the time to do that and absorb it instead of posting incessant rants against me and "other councilors" you would see that.

If you two spent even half the time you spend attacking, demeaning, and undermining me and bullying "other councilors" who are on a different party and devoted it to cooperation and working together with all the councilors and listening to them without telling them to shut up we might be able to represent the people in a way they deserve and accomplish something this term.

Actually we two have spent our time doing our jobs...

showing up in council on a daily basis

contributing to all current discussions and voting on all current votes.

Offering solutions to problems..

and listening to the people we serve ....

and now we are calling on the rest of the council who has not been doing the same to do the same.

THAT is what we have been doing.

What we have been accused of doing is just a smoke screen to detract from the facts but the facts always speak for themselves and facts do not lie.

Allikath wrote:

I have made no objections to this issue merely a few comments and I have repeated more then once that I am in favor of it as is LOF members as anyone can see who reads the entire threads.

Perhaps if you took the time to do that and absorb it instead of posting incessant rants against me and "other councilors" you would see that.

If you two spent even half the time you spend attacking, demeaning, and undermining me and bullying "other councilors" who are on a different party and devoted it to cooperation and working together with all the councilors and listening to them without telling them to shut up we might be able to represent the people in a way they deserve and accomplish something this term.

Oh, I took the time, Alli. I take lots of my time to spend on county business. I don't rant or bully; that's your job, and Budicca's. A reading of the council archives will show that to any who care to dig through the muck.

Or is it bullying to post the names of those inactive in a private council thread, without mention of party affiliation, but merely to point out those who have not voted on a matter which, by law, we must address each session? Perhaps politley asking a given council member to perform the task assigned them THREE TIMES could be construed as ranting.

I think it more likely that anything you don't want to hear is going to be seen as such, for that's been your pattern throughout my terms in council. I'm tired of your constant obstructionism, and veiled insults to the integrity and character of any who disagree with you. There is, after all, a reason why you're in your third party; shall we explore that history?

Chardonnay wrote:

Oh, I took the time, Alli. I take lots of my time to spend on county business. I don't rant or bully; that's your job, and Budicca's. A reading of the council archives will show that to any who care to dig through the muck.

There is, after all, a reason why you're in your third party; shall we explore that history?

This is absurd! Chardy, I thought you knew better than this. We have always gotten along smashingly. We have been able to work well together in the past, and I know we will continue to do so in the future, but I really can't stand for this. I will, for one, say the whole reason I decided to join politics was because I saw our councilors bullying each other and the People. One of the reasons I joined the party I did was because I saw the "bigger bullies" to be people who are not named Allikath or Budicca. I will not, however, stoop to the level of calling out the names of those people.

As has been discussed countless times in the past, people are allowed to change political affiliations. As the issues change so do priorities. If one party's priorities fit more in line with the issues of the time, I commend anyone who changes parties. That shows they care more about issues than they do of party politics. You have even mentioned the creation of a new party, yourself.

Please stop. That plea is not directed to only you, Chardy, it is directed to everyone on council, in all parties.