[Amendment] CdeC inactivity clause

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Proposer: Mega Tortas de Bodemloze
CdeC Support:
Additional Support:


Proposal: Automatically replace inactive councilors after a period of two weeks, when they are absent without explanation.

Rationale:

* To Maintain maximum support tendered to the clients.
* The current procedures for initiating a vote for inactive councilors simply takes too long, and unessasarily delays the selection of replacements.

Removal from Office

A Consilium de Civitates member may resign from office, or can be removed from office by a majority vote of the elected councillors, such a vote being triggered by any of the following:

• Incurring a warning level of one
• Incurring two cautions in the space of three months
• Incurring a Consilium de Civitates warning
• Incurring two Consilium de Civitates notes in the space of three months
• Prolonged inactivity, as decided by a simple majority vote in the Consilium de Civitates

Upon conclusion of a vote to remove a councilor the proceedings shall be made public.

Prolonged inactivity: Any councilor who is inactive for a period of two weeks without explanation shall be automatically removed from office. Their replacement shall be seleted following the parameters below...

If a member of the Consilium de Civitates leaves office for any reason before the expiration of their term, the vacant position may be filled by Curator appointment. The Curator may appoint a Citizen that ran in the immediate previous election or a Staff Member who otherwise fits the requirements for the position. The appointment shall expire with the positions that are next up for election when a replacement member will be elected to serve the remainder of the term. If choosing from a pool of election candidates, any vacant positions will be filled in decreasing order of time remaining on the term starting from the next highest vote recipient after those who are elected to full terms.

The Curator should take appropriate and reasonable actions within the guidelines set out above to ensure that the Consilium de Civitates remains at full strength.

[Magicman2051]

The system that is in place allows for removal in whatever time it becomes obvious or pertinent. As long as people are paying attention then it should be immediately obvious that a CdeC member hasn't logged on in a while, the tracking of which is part of the Curatorial duties anyway.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

The system that is in place allows for removal in whatever time it becomes obvious or pertinent. As long as people are paying attention then it should be immediately obvious that a CdeC member hasn't logged on in a while, the tracking of which is part of the Curatorial duties anyway.

This allows for the procedure to be ingaged automatically and removes the nastagic remorse we tend to suffer when having to remove a co-councilor from office.

As stands most cases that are seen by the CdeC only have only 3-4 vocal advocates with the rest offering minimal consent or disapproval. All clients deserve the most complete research and testimony availible.


This amendment is tendered only after long standing observation and was not undertaken lightly. I can asure you that I am fully aware of how things have operated within the CdeC in the recent and long term past...

[Navajo Joe]

Mega,

Who and what will decide as to the inactivity of CDEC councillor?

Why do you think this change is required and what recent situation stimulated this draft?

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Mega,

Who and what will decide as to the inactivity of CDEC councillor?

Why do you think this change is required and what recent situation stimulated this draft?

* The Curator stands as the head of the CdeC and would initiate the action.
* The CdeC chat thread is an informal communications link curently utilized within the CdeC for both formal and informal venues/subjects.

Let's say we have cases on the board and a councilor is slient for a peroid of two weeks, (14 days) without explanation, obvioulsy said councilor is AWOL. If no one within the CdeC has heard from said councilor then it's time to initiate replacement proceedings.

This is not a punitive measure, simply one ensuring that maxiumum representation is maintained at all times.

I'll site myself as example. A few weeks ago I sustsained a foot injury that hampered my mobility and hence removed my acess to the internet. I may have mentioned something about it within chambers...I don't tremember though. In any case I was absent and missed one or more cases.

That's not fair to the clients. They deserve the most complete focuss on their cases possible. Currently cases are reviewed by 12 voting CdeC members, Curator, and any interested parties with user group access.

Any individual reviewing these cases has the ability to vocalize and change the perspective of the group. In some contested/contriversial cases this is sorely needed to secure the best outcome possible. It is within our remit to ensure that each cases coming before the CdeC has maixmum focuss upon them.


As I've said this is not a punitive measure, simply one that will expedite councilor replacements when necessary. In inactivity cases delaying replacement while a 5 day vote is taken causes an unnecsssary delay.

[Aikanár]

An interesting approach, Mega.
Coincidentally you have just been absent without notification from July the 5th till yesterday.
I agree with you, that in case of such a long absence without a notice, action should be taken.

Edit: should've read you last post though

Edit 2: I agree with you, that councillors who are inactive and absent without leave (without notification) should be voted out of the CdeC.
I, however, don't see the need to enact sort of an automatism, but I agree with Decado that this is the Curator's responsibility.
If a Curator fails in this field, it can be noted and it can, f.e, be brought up in case this Curator gets proposed for the curatorial service medal or the such.
Just a thought though ...

Edit 3: I nearly forgot:
OPPOSE!

[Magicman2051]

My original point still stands, the current procedure is more than adequate. Replacing an inactive Councillor has never been a problem before, codifying the specifics of it may be useful but not essential.

I can't see anything more to this proposal other than expanding an already unnecessarily complicated bureaucracy.

[Boustrophedon]

My original point still stands, the current procedure is more than adequate.

I agree. Opposed unless significant changes are made to the proposal.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

My original point still stands, the current procedure is more than adequate. Replacing an inactive Councillor has never been a problem before, codifying the specifics of it may be useful but not essential.

I can't see anything more to this proposal other than expanding an already unnecessarily complicated bureaucracy.

I respect your point of view, however to my thinking detecting absent coucilors is a rather simple task, replacing them just as easy.

At times in the past the CdeC has been rather nastalgic and reluntant to delclare and then replace councilors. This makes things simple. If There absent {silent}, and no one has heard from them, then replace them. Why waste 5 or more days holding a vote to reaffirm the obvious?

As to proving the neccessity of the action a simple question asked in the CdeC chat thread can do that.

Has anyone heard from so and so? If the answers no then action is warrented. I fail to see how this adds complications to the already complex bureaucracy.
********

I agree. Opposed unless significant changes are made to the proposal.

What would you have in mind?

[Boustrophedon]

The "two week" part seems weird and it's a little vague... Two weeks at any given time or just when there's a case in progress? Also what is activity? It's possible that a CdeC member is collecting evidence and organizing his thoughts, but hasn't posted. Does that count as inactive? I'm just not convinced that the current system is inadequate or needs replacing.

[Aikanár]

There is a reason for why Councillors are voted out of the CdeC by their peers only and not by the Curator in the first place.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

The "two week" part seems weird and it's a little vague... Two weeks at any given time or just when there's a case in progress? Also what is activity? It's possible that a CdeC member is collecting evidence and organizing his thoughts, but hasn't posted. Does that count as inactive? I'm just not convinced that the current system is inadequate or needs replacing.

Kay...good points....

How about the 14 days applying when there are open cases to be reviewed? Councilors are currently expected{informaly} to check the CdeC twice a week at a minimum. This notion is generally put forth during the debates.

There is a reason for why Councillors are voted out of the CdeC by their peers only and not by the Curator in the first place.

Obviously the CdeC Members would be included in asertaining the missing councilors status. { Has anyone heard from so & so?} As I've said holding a vote to reaffirm the obvious just wastes time.

If somebody been gone two weeks, holding a vote to reconfirm that takes up another week before securing a replacement.

That's too much time wasted in my opinion.

[Aikanár]

There still is a difference between asertaining, as you call it, the absence of a councillor and transfering the right to remove a councillor for the reason of being absent from his elected peers to the curator.

If there is any flaw in the system as it stands, then it's that the current procedure as outlined in the constitution is not adhered to by the responsible person, who happens to be the curator.

Too much time wasted? Okay, so why don't we just get rid of all election procedures whatsoever and let all elected offices just be asertained by, just say, some citizens?
Oh, wait!
Wait, wait, wait, we already have this, kind of, it's called elections and they are outlined in the constitution.

Do you consider them a waste of time as well? Because it takes three months for them to come up. You have the application and debate phase and after that they take the redicilous amount of time of, wait for it: ONE week uah...

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

kay....

Let me present this another way. Recently we've had two councilors go absent for extended periods of time without explanation. {Myself and another}.

There were dockets on the board that recieved diminished attetion due to these absences. In my view there should be a way to acknoweledge absent councilors and replace them expediantly.

I'm more concerned with the result, than as to how it would be achieved. So if there's a more accomodating way to apply this I'm all ears.

So what's the best way to identify the issue and resolve it... Cuz we do have a current issue with missing councilors... {}

[Aikanár]

It is the duty of the curator to take care of this.
People have been vonced for neglection of duty, just saying.

That said, nothing is stopping the active councillors or the assistants of the curator to notify him about such an event.
Nothing is stoping the curator on the other hand to pm councillors who he has not seen active in a while.

Taking your proposal you need somebody to count the days anyways, whom will you entrust with that task?

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Ite...well before I commit public seppuku* and commit this to the crash and burn hall of fame, I'll let it set for a or so night and see if any other views come to light.




* http://www.thefreedictionary.com/seppuku

[Major Darling]

I will decide tonight on this

[Pontifex Maximus]

A bit too verbose...eliminating a single line and adding three paragraphs doesn't seem to be streamlining the process in my humble opinion.

[Robin de Bodemloze]

The existing system requires CdeC members to be vigilant towards each other's activeness in the forums, and to speak up when someone is felt to be neglecting their duties.

The new proposed system requires CdeC members to be vigilant towards each other's activeness to a day, and to speak up when someone doesn't log in for that many days.

The difference in practice is just not that great really. The other thing is the consequence of potential negligence through absence can vary vastly depending on how busy the CdeC is at that particular time. During quiet periods an absence of two weeks may not be felt, while during busier times a far shorter absence would be of greater consequence - and typically quickly noted. It seems to make little sense to restrict councillors from using their judgement and discretion on something that is typically handled delicately as it is.

[StealthFox]

How about the 14 days applying when there are open cases to be reviewed? Councilors are currently expected{informaly} to check the CdeC twice a week at a minimum. This notion is generally put forth during the debates.

Obviously the CdeC Members would be included in asertaining the missing councilors status. { Has anyone heard from so & so?} As I've said holding a vote to reaffirm the obvious just wastes time.

If somebody been gone two weeks, holding a vote to reconfirm that takes up another week before securing a replacement.

That's too much time wasted in my opinion.

Let's say we have cases on the board and a councilor is slient for a peroid of two weeks, (14 days) without explanation, obvioulsy said councilor is AWOL. If no one within the CdeC has heard from said councilor then it's time to initiate replacement proceedings.

This is not a punitive measure, simply one ensuring that maxiumum representation is maintained at all times.

I'll site myself as example. A few weeks ago I sustsained a foot injury that hampered my mobility and hence removed my acess to the internet. I may have mentioned something about it within chambers...I don't tremember though. In any case I was absent and missed one or more cases.

That's not fair to the clients. They deserve the most complete focuss on their cases possible. Currently cases are reviewed by 12 voting CdeC members, Curator, and any interested parties with user group access.

Any individual reviewing these cases has the ability to vocalize and change the perspective of the group. In some contested/contriversial cases this is sorely needed to secure the best outcome possible. It is within our remit to ensure that each cases coming before the CdeC has maixmum focuss upon them.


As I've said this is not a punitive measure, simply one that will expedite councilor replacements when necessary. In inactivity cases delaying replacement while a 5 day vote is taken causes an unnecsssary delay.

I'm more concerned with the result, than as to how it would be achieved. So if there's a more accomodating way to apply this I'm all ears.

So what's the best way to identify the issue and resolve it... Cuz we do have a current issue with missing councilors... {}

So, two weeks is normally the standard applied to the constitution wording of "prolonged activity"? Why not start the vote for replacement after one week of inactivity (if there are applications/cases to be reviewed), and then have a week of voting. The missing councilor can still return while voting is taking place, so technically has two weeks to return. So, commencing the vote a week earlier helps to expedite the process and still follows the constitution wording.