(Moved to Vote) Shorten term for Speaker of the House

[Mímirswell]

Supporters:

Change the following in Article 1, Section 1:

Permanent Officers

There shall be 5 Permanent Officers on the Council

• The Site Owner
• Chief Moderator - Serves as Head of the Moderation Branch
• Chief of Content - Serves as Head of the Content Branch
• Chief Technician - Serves as Head of the Technical Branch
• Speaker of the House - Represents the Curia on the Council

The three Branch Chiefs shall lead their branch, and be the principal officer responsible for policy within the three branches. It shall normally be presumed that they shall be selected from within their branch.

The appointment of each branch chief is decided by the Council but must be ratified by the Staff of the branch they are being appointed too.

The Speaker of the House is elected by the Curia, as per the procedure in Section 2 Article 2, from among those members ranked as Patricians, and will serve a term of sixthree months.

[Tom Paine]

I'd support this wholeheartedly and strongly. More accountability is good. I will add that I will resign when my term comes up based on this Bill if that is what is required to make it apply to me.

[sapi]

Support.

[Scorch]

Supported.

[Shaun]

Support.

[Leonidas The Lion]

Support.

[Perikles]

Ich heizer supportenzeiger! :wink:

(I just made that up, hence it is not a foreign language)

[Garbarsardar]

6 months is an eternity on the interweb. I support.

[Belisarius]

I support, we can always re-elect someone.

[Halie Satanus]

Support..

[Tom Paine]

I'm almost of the opinion I should now oppose it simply so we have a debate on its merits

[makanyane]

I'm almost of the opinion I should now oppose it simply so we have a debate on its merits

I'm sure someone else will at some point, it wouldn't be the curia otherwise....

Anyway to disappoint you I support as well, 3 months seems sensible and ties up with the time for other elected officers.

[Halie Satanus]

Can someone please just attack Mim so we can stir this thread into a controversy, all this 'i support' is just wasting arguing time...

[Belisarius]

Can someone please just attack Mim so we can stir this thread into a controversy, all this 'i support' is just wasting arguing time...

So funny.


Still support.

[sapi]

Come on Mim - where'd you come up with that unimaginative term length of three months from? Honestly! I think we can all agree that something along the lines of two months, twenty-three days and six hours is much more suited to the changing public mood in the curia! I implore you to change it immediately!

^^ That about right?

[Halie Satanus]

No, not good enough, you failed to mention Mim is a member of Hex, apparently you must do this whenever a member of Hex posts a proposal so he can be berated, we expect nothing less...

Papa will not be pleased, and the fact you have not applied for a position on Hex has not gone unnoticed, how can Ian be expected to maintain his streak of nepotism-al appointments if you don't apply??....Did no one tell you the plan??...

I support the proposal...oh umm yeh..sorry.

[deRougemont]

Support.

The bigger issue is how the Speaker's office is used, not how long it is used. The Constitution describes a purely apolitical administrative post. What we have now is one which is activist, which necessairly means the Speaker alienates parts of the Curia, reaping mistrust not only for the rank holder, but the rank itself. A rewording of the Constitution would've been more to the purpose here, I think.

-Is the Speaker to remain just another partisan Curialist with the mere addition of administrative duties in the Curia?

-Should the Speaker be held to a higher standard; should he remain above the fray and represent all of the Curia, rather than only himself or portions of it?

-Should a decorum clause be created, that at least attempts to reign in the immoderate extra-curricular political activities of the Speaker while he holds his post in order to maintain respect for the rank which they hold?

The salient issue here is that the Constitutional definition of Speaker which we have now is inadequate. Thus, Ozy is having to make up the rules along the way. Simply limiting his term in office just delays contention over the issue for another day while allowing an unmandated precendent to stand as law.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In other words, this bill is a good idea, but does not solve the Speaker's role problems I've pointed out over the past two days at all...

[imb39]

Then propose an amendment to more tightly define the role of the SotH.

[deRougemont]

Then propose an amendment to more tightly define the role of the SotH.

A guard dog makes a poor politician.

[Fabolous]

Eh, why? If we don't like someone we can kick them out, if they are tired they can resign.