[Discussion] The Triumvirate and Conflicts of Interest

**M D** · May 19, 2014, 04:33 PM

Another member recently raised with me a slight problem in the new Triumvirate system for discipline. You now have these verdicts given by the Curator and the two magistrates alone, with Hex interaction as always. If this is so far correct, there is a problem. In the Tribunal, Magistrates form part of a similar team but as a totally independent voice from site administration. A member could very well appeal an infraction in the Tribunal at the same time a staff referral is occurring in the Triumvirate's forum. There is so far as I can see no requirement on Magistrates being recused if they sit on both cases, or have information from either case which makes their position prejudicial. This was ok when there was a CdeC of up to 10 others who weren't Magistrates, but when they alone make up the team, it is a grave concern. Both for the independence of the Tribunal, but also for fairness in those referred.

**Sir Adrian** · May 19, 2014, 04:46 PM

This can be easily solved by postponing the referral until the Tribunal has given a verdict.

**Jom** · May 19, 2014, 06:20 PM

Why would information from one case make them prejudiced in another? Any fact related to the case should be taken into account, whether it arises in the referral or in the appeal.

**Augustus Lucifer** · May 19, 2014, 06:41 PM

Just out of curiosity, if a Triumvir were to recuse himself from voting, either due to a conflict of interest or some other variable, how would the voting proceed? There are then only two members, so the vote could split 50-50, and the Curator is already a Triumvir so can't very well cast a vote to break the tie. The Constitution doesn't stipulate anything about Hex casting a vote or appointing a replacement.

**M D** · May 19, 2014, 07:23 PM

This is sort of my point, there are several bumps which I anticipate the Triumvirate running into over the coming months that its operated. It's a great idea, but needs solid rules on what happens in specific situations.

Why would information from one case make them prejudiced in another? Any fact related to the case should be taken into account, whether it arises in the referral or in the appeal

Is there never a situation where one group, perhaps the Tribunal, has access to more information or opinion than the other?

**Squid** · May 19, 2014, 07:38 PM

How is that different from when a magistrate/tribunal/moderator sat on CdeC.

**Diamat** · May 19, 2014, 07:54 PM

I in fact find it insulting when a Triumvir is charged with bias before a decision has been made. If a Triumvir cannot leave out his personal feelings in a case in which he constitutionally has to participate, then he wouldn't be a very good Triumvir. But one cannot determine bias before the case is actually concluded. Bias can be a problem in any case, whether it is presided over by CdeC or by the Triumvirate. It is ultimately up to the electorate to decide whether or not a Triumvir has acted in accordance with justice. If it is found that said Triumvir judged someone unfairly because of his bias, the electorate has every right to elect someone more capable.

**M D** · May 19, 2014, 08:10 PM

If you honestly thought I was going anywhere near insulting them, then you're over-reacting entirely. This is a constitutional discussion around hypotheticals so as to prevent possible hiccups in the future.

**Diamat** · May 19, 2014, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by Major Darling

If you honestly thought I was going anywhere near insulting them, then you're over-reacting entirely. This is a constitutional discussion around hypotheticals so as to prevent possible hiccups in the future.

I didn't mean you. I meant, if someone was directly charging me with bias before I've even made a decision, then I would find that insulting. Sorry for the confusion. I love you MD. It's true. I try to hide it, but I can't.

**~~Pontifex Maximus~~** · May 19, 2014, 08:28 PM

I'm more concerned with the troubling title of 'triumvir' and the term 'triumvirate' to refer to a group acting in a way that praetors would, following the Republican model. The curia did democratically elect individuals to those offices, correct?

**Diamat** · May 19, 2014, 08:37 PM

I know about as much about Roman history as George W. Bush knows about Iraq.

**~~Pontifex Maximus~~** · May 19, 2014, 08:46 PM

Then I accept your offer to join your regime as the official Roman culture expert. I'm not the hero this curia needs, but I am the hero this curia deserves.

**Diamat** · May 19, 2014, 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus

Then I accept your offer to join your regime as the official Roman culture expert. I'm not the hero this curia needs, but I am the hero this curia deserves.

Well, you are our Curial Historian after all.

**M D** · May 19, 2014, 09:07 PM

Oh God that lifetime position, I forgot about that

**Aikanár** · May 20, 2014, 12:59 AM

Originally Posted by Sir Adrian

This can be easily solved by postponing the referral until the Tribunal has given a verdict.

Which is already common practice.

**La♔De♔Da♔Brigadier Graham** · May 20, 2014, 03:42 AM

with Hex interaction as always.

Which is how it should be, and answers your query really, they will not stand by and see someone unfairly treated!

Just a little reminder of the Hexicopter coming to the rescue!

**Sir Adrian** · May 20, 2014, 04:52 AM

Originally Posted by Aikanár

Which is already common practice.

Then there is no problem and nothing to discuss.

**M D** · May 20, 2014, 05:06 AM

What of AL's question?

**Shankbot de Bodemloze** · May 20, 2014, 05:09 AM

The CT is made up of the 3 elected members and Hex, whose participation is optional - in my proposal to changes to Section II I suggested that if one of the elected members is unable to vote for whatever reason (their own referral etc.) then Hex would become that third member in the discussion, with the tie-breaking vote.