Tribunal Judge Amendment

**Scorch** · June 21, 2007, 07:13 AM

I noticed in the Constitution that with the removal of elected Judges and Hex-chosen candidates, and I thought it may be a good idea to include ratification by the Curia. That is, a month after they're appointed, each judge goes through what is essentially a ratification vote. If they pass, things go on as usual and they serve out their turn. If they don't, Hex will provide another candidate instead, and the same process begins again.

Proposer: Scorch
Patrician Support: Ozymandias, Shaun
Citizen Support: Sapi

Article 3 - JudgesTo serve on the Tribunal, a panel of three Judges is chosen by Hex. The judges can include any member from Hex, save the CoM, as he is is part of the appeals process. The candidates are not limited to Hex members and can include Senatorii. A month after any tribunal judge is appointed, the Curator shall open a ratification vote in the Curia Votes section. If the candidate achieves a simple majority, they shall serve out the rest of their term as dictated by Hex. If they fail to achieve a simply majority, Hex shall provide another candidate who will, in turn, be subject to the same procedure.

Thoughts?

**Tacticalwithdrawal** · June 21, 2007, 07:17 AM

kinda makes sense, my only worry is that it is also good to have judges totally independent of public opinion.

Maybe a better idea would be to formally build in that the Curia could institute a vote of no confidence in a judge who they really didn't like - or can people do that already?

**sapi** · June 21, 2007, 07:17 AM

Support.

I also wonder whether it might not be worthwhile to run all judges through a quarterly ratification process, seeing as the current HEX-appointed terms have no set end date...

**Shaun** · June 21, 2007, 07:20 AM

Support!

**Fabolous** · June 21, 2007, 12:17 PM

Can't we just VoNC if anyone has a problem with one? If someone loses they would very likely resign, and if they don't hex would likely take the hint and fire them, no?

**Garbarsardar** · June 21, 2007, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Tacticalwithdrawal

kinda makes sense, my only worry is that it is also good to have judges totally independent of public opinion.

Maybe a better idea would be to formally build in that the Curia could institute a vote of no confidence in a judge who they really didn't like - or can people do that already?

Originally Posted by Fabolous

Can't we just VoNC if anyone has a problem with one? If someone loses they would very likely resign, and if they don't hex would likely take the hint and fire them, no?

Yes we can. I wrote the amendment and it passed. However it was when Judges were still elected. I have no problem with extending it to appointed judges.

**imb39** · June 21, 2007, 12:35 PM

*sigh* we've just got here. Mechanisms are in place. It's functioning optimally atm, I think most will agree. Anyway, I most certainly do not support. You can VonC. That's enough, surely.

**Garbarsardar** · June 21, 2007, 01:19 PM

Votes of No Confidence
At any time, any Citizens of this site may initiate a vote of "No Confidence" in any Officer of the Council, Judge of the Tribunal or any elected Officer for neglect of duty or abuse of authority by posting their case within the Curia. Frivolous use of this procedure may result in disciplinary proceedings. In all cases, a vote of "No Confidence" is exempt from veto, however the vote is non binding except in the case of staff officers. The debate and vote on a motion of "No Confidence" shall follow the same procedure as that of a bill as per Article 3 below, but shall be conducted in the Curia Main, and not the Prothalamos.

Is that OK, Scorch?

**Erich von Manstein** · June 21, 2007, 01:23 PM

You want elected moderators? Fine. But one of the two groups responsible for enforcing the ToS must remain independent from popular opinion. Both and you run the risk of this entire moderating system becoming a popularity contest.

**sapi** · June 22, 2007, 02:00 AM

Originally Posted by Erich von Manstein

You want elected moderators? Fine. But one of the two groups responsible for enforcing the ToS must remain independent from popular opinion. Both and you run the risk of this entire moderating system becoming a popularity contest.

I would like to think that the Curia would be mature enough not to treat ratification votes as elections, and to judge the Tribunal based on the correctness of their actions, not their popularity.

Considering that I strongly disagree with moderator elections - with good reason - and yet still support this bill, it should be pretty clear that I, at least, and the others who have supported this, can see the difference between curial dictation and curial oversight in the form of ratification.

As someone observed in the mod elections debate, no mod has ever failed their ratification; the Curia is not inclined to interfere in staff policy on the basis of trivialities. I see no reason why we could not show the same respect to the institution of the Tribunal, while still retaining the ability to constitutionally act for the good of all...

**Tom Paine** · June 21, 2007, 01:53 PM

A ratification is very different from an election - a ratification is predicated on ability as shown on the job, as with (say) Manji's ratification, since he was/is not the most popular of members; elections are predicated on potential ability.

**Tacticalwithdrawal** · June 21, 2007, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Ozymandias

A ratification is very different from an election - a ratification is predicated on ability as shown on the job, as with (say) Manji's ratification, since he was/is not the most popular of members; elections are predicated on potential ability.

and VoNC are also based on ability as shown on the job (or rather lack of it). It is something we already have, makes a lot of sense and means that Judges are totally independent of anyone - which to my mind makes it all a lot safer.

Why the continual desire to tinker with things that already work well?

**the Black Prince** · June 21, 2007, 02:39 PM

opinion aside, the bill should say
the Curator shall open a ratification vote as per Section 2 Article 2
instead of
the Curator shall open a ratification vote in the Curia Votes section

i would agree that its better to VoNC a judge that is not performing than to continually hold subject to public opinion both moderators and judges.

**Tom Paine** · June 21, 2007, 02:41 PM

But the Judges are not VoNCable... whereas ratifications? That can be done, and doesn't need Hex say-so.

**Garbarsardar** · June 21, 2007, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Ozymandias

But the Judges are not VoNCable... whereas ratifications? That can be done, and doesn't need Hex say-so.

The Judges are not VonC-able because you and tBP stopped the amendment that would make them VonC-able. For now.

Anyway, I do not support this as I agree with EvM above.

**Tom Paine** · June 21, 2007, 03:06 PM

See those magical "for now" words?

My point was that this could pass instantly. No problems. The other, Hex needs to talk over. I would ask Scorch to delay this Bill until the other has been discussed in Hex, therefore.

**Scorch** · June 21, 2007, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Ozymandias

See those magical "for now" words?

My point was that this could pass instantly. No problems. The other, Hex needs to talk over. I would ask Scorch to delay this Bill until the other has been discussed in Hex, therefore.

Sure. Just out of interest, what is the 'other' bill? You mean the VonC one?

The reason I thought ratifications would work much better than making them VonCable is that VonCs tend to be used as a last resort more than anything, and there is a terrible stigma attached to them. However, ratification votes for judges ensures that the judges are kept in check.

Inversely, however, fears that this will become a popularity contest are entirely valid. I simply thought a mechanism would be a necessity, as currently there is no way for the Curia to challenge the power of a Judge of the tribunal.

*sigh* we've just got here. Mechanisms are in place. It's functioning optimally atm, I think most will agree. Anyway, I most certainly do not support. You can VonC. That's enough, surely

Imb, I agree, there is no reason to tinker with a system that is working well. However, suppose the system is not working well. The Curia has no ability at all to challenge the power of a tribunal Judge, as they are not elected. So no, we can not VonC them ... yet.

Anyway, as Tac said, whichever convaluted way we go about doing this, it needs to be done.

I think perhaps this idea guarantees the Curia a say, and perhaps is the most legally unambiguous way of instituting such a mechanism.

But yes, for now, I'll let this lie to see how the other goes.

**Fabolous** · June 21, 2007, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by Scorch

The reason I thought ratifications would work much better than making them VonCable is that VonCs tend to be used as a last resort more than anything, and there is a terrible stigma attached to them.

Can something that has never happened really have a terrible stigma? I suppose... but ugh.

**Scorch** · June 21, 2007, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by Fabolous

Can something that has never happened really have a terrible stigma? I suppose... but ugh.

Well realistically, the wording in the Syntagma of the VonC section makes it difficult to justify using them for anything short of gross neglect of duty. Realistically, this doesn't need to be present for someone to object to a judge being in power.

If we were given the power to VonC judges, do you think it would, realistically, be used?

So this is why I think my proposal is more suitable. It makes Curial approval of judges a more routine thing, instead of resorting to VonCs.