Amendment: Extension of the Vote of no Confidence to the Judges.

[Garbarsardar]

Amendment:Extension of the Vote of no Confidence to the present Judges.

Reasoning: After the change from elected to appointed Judges the Constitution needs to be amended to permit a VonC towards them.

Proposer: Garbarsardar
Supporters:

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.

[Fabolous]

Support.

[Hotspur]

Support as well.

[Tom Paine]

Preamble to the Constitution states: "Section 1 of this document and the procedure for a vote of No Confidence lie outside the remit of the Curia to modify or amend,"

I will bring the issue up in Hex however.

[the Black Prince]

Section 1 of this document and the procedure for a vote of No Confidence lie outside the remit of the Curia to modify or amend

The Curia, and its members, are not invested with the power to modify the vote of no confidence. It does seem to be a sensible idea, so i suggest you PM the Speaker, or some other Council Officer, but the best person would be the Speaker, and have him launch this bill.

[Garbarsardar]

Preamble to the Constitution states: "Section 1 of this document and the procedure for a vote of No Confidence lie outside the remit of the Curia to modify or amend,"

I will bring the issue up in Hex however.

i realise there may well be a period of transition, but this is a heads up to say that under my term as curator, the rules of the constitution will, from this point onward, be upheld.




The Curia, and its members, are not invested with the power to modify the vote of no confidence. It does seem to be a sensible idea, so i suggest you PM the Speaker, or some other Council Officer, but the best person would be the Speaker, and have him launch this bill.

Really now? You both did not seem to care that much about the Constitution when you both supported the previous amendment in the votes of no confidence...

Or did it somehow slipped your mind back then?

Nice start to your post tBP...

[imb39]

i realise there may well be a period of transition, but this is a heads up to say that under my term as curator, the rules of the constitution will, from this point onward, be upheld.

That is a blessed relief. I shall flog scottishranger, though, for not doing this in the past...

[Tom Paine]

That might well have had something to do with this: http://twcenter.net/forums/showpost....40&postcount=5.

Council Member support? I'd argue that that was, in the end, effectively carte blanche... (And yes, it did slip my mind. The only reason I remembered it here is because I've been rereading the Constitution a lot recently)

[Garbarsardar]

So, if a council member supports it's OK. Good to hear.

[Tom Paine]

No - if a Council member supports it and the Curator accepts that as being okay, its okay. Simple as. Curator has final say.

And yes, by the by - I have brought this up in Hex.

[Garbarsardar]

Strangely all this was never mentioned before by the current Speaker or the current curator. Never mind...

So does the Curator have any problem with this? And since you are a Hex member, Ozy, do you support?

[the Black Prince]

i wasn't Curator back then, it wasn't my job to stop bills that weren't allowed to go ahead. Also, i believe SR had a slighty different interpretation of the clause to me, and as Ozy pointed out, the last bill had Council Officer support, which for him, was good enough to fulfill the constitution. I take a different approach, because i've always thought the line was clearly intended to mean that bills that change the staff powers in section 1, or the curias ability to VoNC staff could only be started by the executive, as a protection against the Curia being able to change staff powers at will without hex consultation.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

Garb, just re-present this as a Curial Decision, that's perfectly legal and imb has said he will bend over backwards to support such decisions.

Anyway, whatever convoluted way we do this, I support

[the Black Prince]

yes

i think the Constitution is crystal clear on this point

A bill that modifies Section 1, or the Votes of No Confidence section can only be created by a member of the Executive. By Executive, i interpret that to mean the Council, since it would be absurd to think the provision could mean for any junior content staff or moderator to do this.

As i said, the previous Curator had a different interpretation, but its not one i think is supported by the wording of the section, or indeed by its intent, and i know full well what its intent was, since i wrote it.

[Tom Paine]

As a Hex member, I have raised the issue in Hex - I might add that I don't agree with the present state of affairs as regards VoNCs but nor do I agree with this proposal, wholly. So, no

[Garbarsardar]

As a Hex member, I have raised the issue in Hex - I might add that I don't agree with the present state of affairs as regards VoNCs but nor do I agree with this proposal, wholly. So, no

What is the nature of your disagreement exactly?

[Tom Paine]

No comment. For christ's sakes Garb, I'll have something for you tomorrow, okay? Just... let it lie for now. I can almost guarantee you it'll be something you like.

[Tom Paine]

I agree with there being a valid reason. There's a valid reason for a lot of amendments. They are still technically illegal. I might add that, should you wish to follow your line of argumentation to its logical conclusion, the Curia now may not alter how all Amendments and Decisions are voted on: Its protected procedure under the TWC Constitution, as part of the procedure of the Vote of No Confidence. To me this seems wholly unreasonable. Which is why I believe that the Preamble applies only to the VoNC subsection of Article 2 of Section 2.

[Garbarsardar]

If Hex has reached a decision about the need for an amendment we can take it from there...

[Tom Paine]

Whilst Garb's proposal has been authorised by the executive, the Council also agreed that the following version could be proposed, and hence proposes it:

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, or any elected OfficerOfficer with the exception of the Moderation Staff 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 elected 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.

This puts the VoNC as a wider tool for range on a wider area of posts, while leaving it at the same status as regards whom it binds.

Garb, which one you want moved to the Proth is up to you.