FAILED[Dismiss the Curator]

[the Black Prince]

If, in the judgement of the Consilium de Civitates, the Curator has neglected their duties or abused his position, it may dismiss the Curator, arrange new elections.

In my judgement, as a member of the CdeC, the current Curator, Empress Meg, has abused her position by failing to follow the constitution and the precedents concerned in the use of the Curator's Veto.

The Curator is empowered with a veto in the CdeC to ensure the proper and effective management of this body. The Curator is neither elected or empowered to subordinate the legitimate decisions of this body with their own.

1/ The Curator has blocked the decision of this body. I do not doubt that the Curator is empowered to do this, but I hold that the use of her power in this manner is an abuse.

2/ The Curator, having exercised her power in the above manner, has failed to hold a re-vote in the case in question thereby usurping the CdeCs decision making ability and breaching the long established precedent of the CdeC. The Curator is not empowered to unilaterally refuse citizenship to a legitimate applicant.

These actions by the Curator represent a serious abuse of her power. I call for a vote to remove the Curator from office and hold immediate elections for a replacement.

I believe that a majority of non-abstaining votes is required for this to pass.

[Justinian]

This is a very difficult decision for me. I do firmly believe that Meg overstepped her bounds by blocking a majority CdeC decision, which has never been done before by a Curator and is I believe completely contrary to the intent of the Constitution, though not the letter of it. Precedent and convention are the most important checks and balances on the Curator's power in the Curia, and both of those have been broken here. I feel it is necessary for the body of the CdeC to enforce both precedent and convention to protect the power balance, and the removal of the Curator when we feel they have overstepped their bounds is one of the ways we can do that. It is important to send a message to present and future Curators that the CdeC as a body will not tolerate having its decisions blocked by the Curator, and that Curatorial veto should be reserved for those instances in which it has always been used until now.

With all that said, I have two issues with this: one is that the Constitution does not clearly state when the Curator's veto powers may be used and when they may not. We rely entirely on precedent in this case, and it is entirely possible for the Curator to not be aware of that precedent (though this means the Curator should consult the CdeC before exercising a veto power the extent of which they are unaware of). Technically speaking there is not a letter in the Constitution Meg has broken. The way to rectify this situation is, in my opinion, through an amendment to the Constitution clearly outlining the Curator's veto powers. I would be in favor of allowing the Curator to keep an unlimited veto power, with the proviso that a supermajority of the CdeC (let's just call it 8/12 councilors) can overturn that veto, and it clearly outlined that abuse of the veto power is grounds for removal of a Curator.

Secondly, Meg has only two weeks left of her term. I would prefer to allow her to see out her term than to remove her and have to appoint an interim Curator for two weeks. I think it would be unnecessary to blemish an otherwise good Curator with a removal so late in their term, when a replacement is possibly waiting only two weeks away.

[the Black Prince]

I don't deny that the Curator can use their veto. The fact that a power exists does not mean that it cannot be wielding in a way that represents abuse.

One of my arguments here is that the Curator, while having a general power of veto, has abused it by wielding it in direct opposition to the views of the CdeC. I hold that the Curator directly overruling the CdeC in this manner is an abuse of the power of veto.

Second, that no revote has been held. Nothing, nothing, in the constitution gives the Curator the power to make decisions over who becomes a citizen. Even if you disagree with the argument above, the Curator, having vetoed our decision should have held a revote. The Curator has not, instead, the Curator has decided to refuse the application herself. That is the most serious abuse of her power that I charge the Curator with.

The fact that Megs term is nearly over is to my mind irrelevant. If the Curator is abusing their powers, that Curator should be removed immediately so that a new Curator can be elected and the abuses corrected. This is particularly so since an innocent party is affected by the Curator's actions.

[Hesus de bodemloze]

Secondly, Meg has only two weeks left of her term. I would prefer to allow her to see out her term than to remove her and have to appoint an interim Curator for two weeks. I think it would be unnecessary to blemish an otherwise good Curator with a removal so late in their term, when a replacement is possibly waiting only two weeks away.

This.

[the Black Prince]

The fact that her term is about to expire somehow reduces the abuse? A Curator is allowed to do what they like in their last month in office because they will soon be replaced? What an interesting argument that is....

[Legio]

i said it in the other thread but oh

[Hesus de bodemloze]

The fact that her term is about to expire somehow reduces the abuse? A Curator is allowed to do what they like in their last month in office because they will soon be replaced? What an interesting argument that is....

It just doesn't seem to be the trouble at this point, and also as justinian already said

the Constitution does not clearly state when the Curator's veto powers may be used and when they may not.

Until the constitution isn't clear about this i will be voting no on every curator dismissal at the start of there term or at the end of it.

[Augustus Lucifer]

As Justy mentioned this is not an easy discussion to have to make, but Councilors aren't elected to make easy decisions, so the last few days are a test of the mettle we should be expected to exhibit, and how each responds in the face of that will be plain for all to see. This thread is not about the Curator as a member, person, etc, it's about a decision or decisions made in alleged abuse of an authority granted, so one thing that should hopefully be clear is that the same proceedings would likely have been initiated had anyone on the site taken the same action in the same capacity(contingent on having the big brass balls tBP has of course).

I'm going to hold over my vote for a bit until I hear from others, but at current I'm in agreement with the points laid out by Aden in the OP. One cannot abuse a power they do not have, so the issue is not the wording of the Constitution which may seem to allow this to transpire. A Content Staff member can't ban anyone, but a Moderator with ban powers can ban users unjustly and outside the express or implied intent of that granted power to the detriment of the site. In the same way the Curator can employ the Constitution or other granted powers in a way that is obstructive, detrimental, and in contravention of established precedents, something which runs counter to the goal of the position, facilitation.

Whether or not that occurred here folks will differ on, but I hope no decision is made sentimentally or vindictively, and that no presumptions are made to suggest that there's any correlation between a vote here and how one voted on the corresponding case at issue.

With all that said, I have two issues with this: one is that the Constitution does not clearly state when the Curator's veto powers may be used and when they may not. We rely entirely on precedent in this case, and it is entirely possible for the Curator to not be aware of that precedent (though this means the Curator should consult the CdeC before exercising a veto power the extent of which they are unaware of). Technically speaking there is not a letter in the Constitution Meg has broken. The way to rectify this situation is, in my opinion, through an amendment to the Constitution clearly outlining the Curator's veto powers. I would be in favor of allowing the Curator to keep an unlimited veto power, with the proviso that a supermajority of the CdeC (let's just call it 8/12 councilors) can overturn that veto, and it clearly outlined that abuse of the veto power is grounds for removal of a Curator.

If the Curator is not aware of precedent, the remedy is to look or ask. I compiled a list of every time the Curatorial veto has been employed and the circumstances, all it took was searching 'veto'. At least half of the problem here stems from an utter lack of communication on such a controversial decision.

I wouldn't support keeping the veto after this. It's unfortunate we kept it this long as Sim pointed out its oddity years ago when it was first invoked, but no one saw fit to fix things. We can encompass all the intended uses of the veto in separate procedures. Lack of voter attendance is already covered by the provision which now enables the Curator in consultation with Councilors to extend the voting period. The only other case, which is contentious, is whether it should be invoked to stall a disciplinary case which was overturned or undergoing appeal, and that can again be covered entirely separately. There doesn't need to be a supermajority override because the power shouldn't be there in the first place; the Curator is Steward of the Curia, not Monarch.

Secondly, Meg has only two weeks left of her term. I would prefer to allow her to see out her term than to remove her and have to appoint an interim Curator for two weeks. I think it would be unnecessary to blemish an otherwise good Curator with a removal so late in their term, when a replacement is possibly waiting only two weeks away.

I don't find that compelling one way or another. No one remembered that Fab was dismissed save you and me when the procedure was brought up. The result of this vote deals with one incident primarily, and should not be seen as an assessment of how well the Curator did over the course of the term. Whatever the result of this, any perceived blemishes were self-imposed and are up to individual interpretation as to their significance.

It just doesn't seem to be the trouble at this point, and also as justinian already said.

Until the constitution isn't clear about this i will be voting no on every curator dismissal at the start of there term or at the end of it.

Ah, but Hesus, the Constitution isn't clear about much of anything! Case in point, I challenge you to find me the part of the Constitution which says that the Curator is empowered to interpret its wording and be the arbiter of it. I've looked, it isn't there. It is implied simply because someone(s) have to do it, but with all decision making devolved into the entire Citizen body in all other cases you'd think it'd be them. In fact the only reason, aside from yet another broad interpretation, that the Curator "has" this power, is precedent and tradition.

So then doesn't anyone else find it deliciously ridiculous that a power implied by precedent and tradition is invoked to overturn years of precedent and tradition? The Constitution may not be clear, but precedent is very clear about how the power should be employed. The matter is only compounded by the fact that the decision was made in the space of a couple days and did not attempt consultation or reconciliation. Myself and others were (and in some cases still are) more than willing to talk it through and go through an entire re-vote, with added stipulations if necessary, in order to achieve something fair to all parties, but there was no reciprocation of that willingness, which concerns me.

[Legio]

A Shamb smiley, Augustus? I'm on to you.

[Augustus Lucifer]

A Shamb smiley, Augustus? I'm on to you.

Do you know the site those came from? I think they're more expressive than the ones we have and am curious if there are others like them.

(I'm referring to the site Boeing or whoever got them from)

[Astaroth]

Technically speaking there is not a letter in the Constitution Meg has broken. The way to rectify this situation is, in my opinion, through an amendment to the Constitution clearly outlining the Curator's veto powers.

I completely agree with this. Regardless of whether I agree with Meg's decision to veto the application, I do not think that she has abused her power. She did not break the Constitution in any way.

If you think that she shouldn't be able to do things like this then an amendment would indeed be the proper way to deal with this in my opinion.

[Legio]

Do you know the site those came from? I think they're more expressive than the ones we have and am curious if there are others like them.

(I'm referring to the site Boeing or whoever got them from)

There was a thread in The Lobby about them by Elzabar, but it's been moved or deleted. I can't seem to be able to find it, but I distinctly remember him posting a giant template with like 300 smileys on it. As such they are there, but I'm not sure exactly where. Vociferous googling hasn't resolved the matter either, so in my capacity as a CdeC Counselor I will look for them more tomorrow.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Let me put this quite simply: NO.

[Legio]

oh

[abbews]

Let me put this quite simply: NO.

[imb39]

Geeze, talk about an over reaction. You may disagree with what has been done but I think this is wholly the wrong way to go about this. EM clearly feels that one of the responsibilities that the Curator carries leads to the vetoing of Ferrets' proposal. She is at liberty to take that view.

If you disagree with what she's done then change the constitution so that this situation cannot happen again. Attempting to fire someone because of a difference of interpretation is asinine, especially when the Curator's interpretation of the Constitution and the precedents this sets is considered a key part of the job. If you want someone who just acquiesces then vote for someone else next time.

[Legio]

Yet for all the imagery of paradise in the Koran, there is no easy description of God. The mystery would remain.

[Augustus Lucifer]

If you think that she shouldn't be able to do things like this then an amendment would indeed be the proper way to deal with this in my opinion.

Unfortunately I'm not sure how well that will go over. The Constitution does clearly need to be remedied, but that aim may end up obfuscated by a perceived alternative motive, when in truth no one here has a stake in the matter aside from wanting to see things logically concluded.

There was a thread in The Lobby about them by Elzabar, but it's been moved or deleted. I can't seem to be able to find it, but I distinctly remember him posting a giant template with like 300 smileys on it. As such they are there, but I'm not sure exactly where. Vociferous googling hasn't resolved the matter either, so in my capacity as a CdeC Counselor I will look for them more tomorrow.

If you find it let me know broseph.

Let me put this quite simply: NO.

Eloquent aren't we?

Geeze, talk about an over reaction. You may disagree with what has been done but I think this is wholly the wrong way to go about this. EM clearly feels that one of the responsibilities that the Curator carries leads to the vetoing of Ferrets' proposal. She is at liberty to take that view.

This is simply the tabling of a discussion, nothing has been decided. I guess the laws of physics need to be modified, every overreaction begets an equal and opposite overreaction.

On the bright side, no one has pretended that a nightmare scenario looms. It would be easy in a situation such as this to introduce a logically fallacious slippery slope argument, but fortunately such a thing has not been assumed.

If you disagree with what she's done then change the constitution so that this situation cannot happen again. Attempting to fire someone because of a difference of interpretation is asinine, especially when the Curator's interpretation of the Constitution and the precedents this sets is considered a key part of the job. If you want someone who just acquiesces then vote for someone else next time.

I don't think acquiescing is the proper term here. The Curator should be vocal in their position and participate in all discussions with the CdeC, so they obviously cannot be naturally acquiescent. What more concerns me is a lack of being approachable in regards to this matter and the potential for future Curators not to be communicative and open to concession, as I'd have much rather we come to an equitable solution than have to discuss matters such as this.

-

Anyways, I've turned this situation over in my head quite a few times in an attempt to get the best perspective. I don't think it's relevant how long is left in the term, and I don't think it's relevant that a Constitutional wording can in theory be loosely interpreted to accord with such a decision. I do however feel that despite the fact this should never have occurred, and despite the fact the lack of openness deeply troubles me going forward, and further despite the fact that a member was considerably inconvenienced by a solitary opinion overruling a council of peers, that the situation is too much of an outlier and too ambiguous to fairly prosecute for abuse, and that the significance excepting unorthodoxy is relatively minimal. I feel Ferrets being made a Citizen was misjudged in its significance so I won't reciprocate by overestimating this. Therefore I will not be voting to dismiss.

I do completely and sincerely hope that this serves as a learning experience and lesson to future Curators. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done, and in an event that a controversial decision looms it's always best to solicit a discussion with the CdeC or the Curia. I also hope the veto will be removed posthaste and replaced with a more serviceable procedure that doesn't contravene the operation of this body, and that pending amendment is not impeded by irrelevant correlations.

[Søren]

I don't think that Meg's actions in any way warrant removal. To dismiss someone I'd want to see examples of self-interest, negligence or severe incompetence, and although I haven't personally agreed with every decision she's taken, she can't be accused of any of those things. I don't think Ferret's candidacy should have been vetoed, but if I had a vote here I'd definitely cast it against this motion.

[Legio]

Native Americans of the Northwest Coast



"Now just one thing more remained, the box that held the daylight, and Raven cried for that. His eyes turned around and showed different colors, and the people began thinking that he must be something other than an ordinary baby. But it always happens that a grandfather loves his grandchild just as he does his own daughter, so the grandfather said, "Untie the last thing and give it to him." His grandfather felt very sad when he gave this to him. When the child had this in his hands, he uttered the raven cry, "Gâ," and flew out with it through the smoke hole. Then the person from whom he had stolen it said, "That old manuring raven has gotten all of my things."

Tlingit origin myth

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Geography and Climate



-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The geography of the Pacific Northwest directly impacted the lives of the Native Peoples who settled there. It is a region of diverse contrasts, from the mountains of the Cascade range, to the rocky shores of Oregon and British Columbia. The climate of the NW coast is a temperate maritime climate with mild summers and wet winters. Snow is a rarity except for the mountains where many feet of snow may fall every year. The Northwest coast is one of only 3 regions on earth where temperate rainforests may be found. Like their tropical counterparts, temperate rainforests receive exorbitant amounts of precipitation (150 inches (380 cm) per year) and are home to a rich variety of plant and animal life. The temperate rainforests of the Northwest coast are also home to the tallest trees in the world, the giant redwoods which can reach heights of up to 115.55 m (379.1 ft). The plentiful supply of timber allowed the people who settled here to build their famous totems, masks and large boats which they used to fish.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tribal profile: The Tlingit



-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Religion and rituals

Like many tribal societies, the Tlingit held the animistic belief that everything in the world had a spirit, was alive. The Tlingit view of the earth was that of a flat stretch of land with the sky as a dome above it. They believed that spirits could be found anywhere, on the sun and moon, in the stars (whose lights they thought showed distant villages) and in the ocean. In the Tlingit worldview, everything was done by a spirit and it's helpers, from giving birth to lighting a fire, all acts were caused by spirits and their helpers. Even the spirits of ancestors were honored and represented by the beautiful totems and totem poles created by the Tlingit. Totem poles show the spirit's of dead ancestors and are put in front of houses to protect them from bad spirits and to watch over the family. The larger and more ornate the pole, the wealthier the family. The chief usually had the largest totem poles.



The religious leaders of the Tlingit and the other Northwest tribes were shamans. The shamans gained their strength from powerful spirits, who the Shamans would control through their ornately carved masks.



A mask was carved to represent the spirit (or spirits) which the Shaman controlled. In this example, it is a bird spirit mask. Notice the beak and birdlike eyes which give this mask it's power. Some masks were carved to represent two or more spirits by placing different characteristics of the spirit around different areas of the mask or combining two representations together like in this example.



Shamans never combed or cut their hair, and wore distinctive symbols of their authority. These included a whetstone, which the Shaman would use to scratch his head or other body part when in concentration, and a bone necklace. When a Shaman died, his spirit was believed to have entered the body of a male youth in the tribe, usually a nephew. Nephews who wanted the job would gather around their dead uncle's body and go into long hypnotic trances, the one who remained longest in the trance would usually be named the new Shaman. Afterward, the youth would enter into the forest and await a spiritual vision. After seeing his vision and demonstrating that he had the powers of a shaman, his badges of office were finally given to him. Tlingit rituals included "medicine bundles" made from eagle claws, animal's tongues, cedar bark and grass which were lit during ceremonies. The people would inhale and bathe in the smoke to attract spirits, cure disease and cleanse themselves. The medicine bundles would also be used during birth and burial where charms and fetishes would be placed with the dead body.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Society



Unlike many Native Americans in North America, the Tlingit and other NW coast tribes had an aristocracy and practiced land ownership. In most villages, the land was owned by the Kwaan (clan or village) and distributed by the kwaan leaders to the descendants (traced through the mother) of the original owners. The kwaan was further divided into moieties which were represented by an animal. Some moieties were the wolf, bear, sea otter and eagle. The leader of the kwaan was the wealthiest man in the village, made wealthy by the amount of salmon and other food stuffs his family owned. The chief would live in the largest house in the village and was the leader in council and war. Uncommon among aristocracies around the world however, was the potlatch. When the Chief had accumulated enough wealth, he would throw a large elaborate ceremony and party called a potlatch. The whole kwaan would gather to the chiefs house for dancing, stories, religious ceremonies and most importantly the giving away and eating of food. Potlatches would sometimes last for weeks or even months according to the Chief's wealth. Even today, Tlingit and NW tribe's still throw Potlatches, although money is given away rather then food. After the Potlatch, the Chief would begin accumulating wealth again to throw another. Upon the Chief's death, the new Chief would throw a Potlatch in his honor. Potlaches were a great way for the Tlingit and NW tribes to save up food for the winter and assured no one would go hungry. Ironically, the more the Chief gave away at his Potlatch, the more prestigious he became. If a Chief really wanted to gain prestige, he would invite Chiefs from neighboring kwaans to come to his Potlatch. The Tlingit did not have a nuclear family structure, this was difficult because oftentimes each spouse was from a different moiety. Instead, they were divided into households. A household included the eldest male(known as the keeper of the house), his brothers and male cousins from his mother's side, and his female cousin's(through the mother) sons. All were related by ancestry through one woman. Incest was not uncommon and it was seen as prestigious in the upper classes if a son married his father's sister, and vice versa for daughters and uncles. As said before, a persons moiety was determined through the mother.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Daily Life



The reason the Tlingit and other NW tribes were able to settle in one area and create such social rituals was because of the abundance of food in the NW coast, chiefly ,salmon. Salmon was the most important source of food and wealth in Tlingit society. If a household had many boats and could bring in lots of salmon, it was a wealthy and prestigious household. When caught, salmon was either eaten right away or smoked to be saved for later. Smoked salmon could last for many months and was the chief food during the inclement winter months.In fact, when Europeans first reached the NW coast, they took smoked salmon with them and it served them well on their journeys. Besides salmon, the Tlingit also ate shellfish, deer, herring and other small fish. Almost unique among other NW coast tribes, the Tlingit do not practice whale hunting, probably due to the large moiety of the Killer whale. For men, life was hard and laborious. Canoes had to be built from trees which had to be cut down and hollowed out by a slow process of burning and carving. Fishing trips were hazardous and didn't always result in success. In event of a feud or conflict, the men were expected to fight for their kwaan and moiety. Women gathered shellfish along the beaches and took care of the household while the men were gone. Children were looked after by the women until their coming of age at 12. Male children would be taught to hunt and fish by their fathers and uncles (who played a large part in the governing of a household) and female children would be taught to make cloths, cook, and take care of the home. Tlingit art is among the most beautiful Native American art we have. Due to their settled nature, the Tlingit and other NW tribes were able to concentrate on aesthetic pursuits. Most Tlingit art is religious in nature and shows spirits. The spirits of the Raven, killer whale and ancestor's moieties were common themes as well as the spirit of a shaman's mask. Even the outside of houses and canoes would be decorated with depictions of spirits or scenes from Tlingit mythology.