(Moved to vote) Refocus the Curia to Decisions Amendment

[Mímirswell]

Proposer: Mimirswell
Supporters:

Rationale: The Curia spends far too much energy focus on the Constitution and too little time focusing it's efforts on enhancing the site. To enable the focus to occur, changes to the constitution will be restricted as outlined the bill below.


The Section 2, Article 3 shall be amended as followed:

Article 3 - Legislative Procedure

Any Citizens may table a bill for discussion by posting a thread in the Prothalamos. Bills can take two forms:

• Decisions - A proposal for the creation of an official Decision of the Curia on a topic relevant to the functioning of TWC. The Curia has authority to direct the Officers of TWC in this way on any topic of which the primary say has been delegated from the Officers, who shall take such Curia Decisions under strong advisement. The Speaker of the House shall determine if proposed Decisions fall within the jurisdiction of the Curia.

• Decemvirate Panel - A proposal to alter the text of the Constitution through the formation of a Decemvirate Panel.

Process for Decisions

This individual who tables a decision remains the sole proposer for the thread. In order to move to a vote, a decision draft requires named support from at least three Citizens. The draft of the decision must be debated for at least three days in the Prothalamos before the proposer can request the Decision be moved to vote. When a Decision is moved to vote, the debate thread is left open, and the Curator shall post the final draft and a link to the debate, as a new poll in the Curia Votes forum. All Decisions shall be voted on for one week and shall pass on the basis of a two-thirds majority of non abstaining votes in favour. If a Decision fails a vote, no re-vote on a substantially similar Decision will be permitted within twenty-eight days.

Process for Decemvirate Panel

Unlike Decisions, the formation of a Decemvirate Panel requires the support of at least ten Citizens. Once support of at least ten Citizens has been achieved, the request for a Panel is moved to a vote. The formation of a Panel shall be voted on for one week and shall pass on the basis of a two-thirds majority of non abstaining votes in favour. Regardless whether a Panel votes passes or fails, no other Panel can be convened for ninety days.

Posts within the Curia Vote sub-forum, are limited to notification of having voted. Messages lobbying to vote for or against, including via Signatures and Avatars, are prohibited except in the original debate thread. All citizens are honour bound to not view the results of Curia Votes until they have themselves voted, unless necessary for the execution of any other duty to the site.

Upon passing a vote:

Decisions

The Curator shall post the text of all passed Decisions in a sticked "Decisions" thread in the Tabularium and consecutively in the order they pass. The poll is closed, moved to the Tabularium, and renamed to reflect the whether it passed or failed, and the numbers of votes.

Decemvirate Panel

Upon passing, elections are held for the 10 members of Decemvirate Panel using the procedures in Article 2 of this Section. The Panel shall consist of the Council, the Curator and the elected Decemviri who shall convene for a period of 30 days. At the end of the period, the changes to the Constitution shall be ratified in the Curia Vote with a two-thirds majority of non abstaining votes in favour.

All Decisions are considered to have immediate effect and no retroactive effect unless specifically stated otherwise.

All references to Amendments are to be replaced with Decemvirate Panel where applicable and removed where not.

[sapi]

Regardless whether a Panel votes passes or fails, no Panel can be convened for ninety days.

By this I assume that you mean no other panel can be convened for 90 days?

As it reads, it seems to suggest that regardless of the result of a vote, no action will be taken for three months (later clarified in the constitutional panel section, but still an issue).

Otherwise, I like the general idea.

[Mímirswell]

Yes, let me clarify that.

[sapi]

Better - I support.

Hopefully the mandatory 90-day cooldown on amendments - not to mention the huge support required for them - will stop us focusing on what the seventeenth word on line 26 of the constitution is really supposed to be and get us looking at what the Curia was designed for; that is, coming up with new initiatives to help the site.

[The Walrus]

I support. Hopefully more will get involved now too if we are discussing things affecting the site other than the constitution(which doesn't really seem to effect) Maybe its just me, but i get turned off debating "what the seventeenth word on line 26 of the constitution is really supposed to be"

[makanyane]

I agree with the general principle behind this - do wonder if we need to make some changes to constitution first (sorry) to remove some of the ludicrously prescriptive bits.

I'm not sure if some of the bits in there like the Curial Officers descriptions (especially Modders Liaison, sorry find myself apologising for that one again, seemed like a good idea at the time) or the entire medal description section should be in constitution at all? Though that last part might be simplified if other Bill passes.

Could any of that get re-worked to more general terms so if staff/curia want to appoint an officer / committee to do a specific task that perhaps isn't thought of yet it can happen without resort to Decemvirate Panel but could be put up as a Decision vote instead? If the medal simplification thing passes I haven't got so much issue with that area - but if it doesn't we're embedding a not necessarily logical selection of medals into a document it would be very hard to change. For example the university medals were introduced to suit the new university structure, if some other similar enterprise was introduced you'd have disparity that uni got medals, but new venture probably wouldn't be able to because no-one would want to go through the whole Decemvirate Panel to add them. Meh, to medals anyway .

[Mímirswell]

I agree with the general principle behind this - do wonder if we need to make some changes to constitution first (sorry) to remove some of the ludicrously prescriptive bits.

I imagine a Decemvirate Panel would be proposed after the passage of this bill somewhat quickly for that very reason.

Could any of that get re-worked to more general terms so if staff/curia want to appoint an officer / committee to do a specific task that perhaps isn't thought of yet it can happen without resort to Decemvirate Panel but could be put up as a Decision vote instead?

The council can convene a Curial Committee without a need for a decision/amendment so that's already covered. The officer situation might be a bit trickier but I am fairly certain that a decision to create the position could be enacted by staff without the need to include it in the Constitution immediately.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

I support

I imagine a Decemvirate Panel would be proposed after the passage of this bill somewhat quickly for that very reason.

[Hotspur]

Mim, could you clarify a point:

At the end of the period, the changes to the Constitution shall be ratified if it achieves two-thirds majority of non abstaining votes in favour.

Is that 2/3rds of the panel or is the vote kicked down to the Curia?

[Mímirswell]

Curia.

[Hotspur]

In that case, I support.

And now I will make some predictions:
Perikles will hate it - too much bureaucracy.
tBP will hate it too - limits amendments to 4 times a year.

[Perikles]

Perikles will hate it - too much bureaucracy.

I love it! Support.







And I wasn't joking....

[the Black Prince]

90 days???
one constitutional amendment every 90 days?


you do realise the curia is just as good at influencing the site through amendments as it is through decisions?

two of the last three amendments to pass influenced the wider site
extension of the vote of no confidence
University Medals

If a problem or issue is identified within the constitution, and we have this absurd process, we may have to wait as long as 3 months before it can be addressed, i'm thinking in particular here of the Disciplinary Procedure amendment currently under vote.

plus, you're restricting the number of people who can have any say on an amendment to just 10, and thats simply wrong.

also, look at the time frame here!
this new procedure for an amendment will take almost EIGHT WEEKS
at least 3 days to decide to form a panel, 1 week to vote on having a panel, 1 week to elect 10 panel members, 30 days to debate a change, 1 week to vote on that change.

and then after all that, we're prevented from making any other necessary changes for 3 MONTHS?

thats ridiculous


formative issues

Upon passing, elections are held for the 10 members of Decemvirate Panel using the procedures in Article 2 of this Section. The Panel shall consist of the Council and the elected Decemviri who shall convene for a period of 30 days. At the end of the period, the changes to the Constitution shall be ratified if it achieves two-thirds majority of non abstaining votes in favour.

shall be ratified in the Curia Vote if it achieves...

what you have there could easily be interpreted as meaning ratified by two-third majority of the panel.

also, it should still say that amendments will take immediate effect and no retroactive effect unless otherwise stated.

the curator and speaker should both be ex-officio members of the panel, especially the curator, so that he can have a voice in matters of procedure and formative stuff. given the time frame proposed you'd be in serious trouble if the panel proposed an amendment that screwed something up, because you wouldn't be able to fix it.

and to answer mak's question, no, you could not create a new medal, or new curial officer, without going through this process.

[Mímirswell]

what you have there could easily be interpreted as meaning ratified by two-third majority of the panel.

Fixed.

the curator and speaker should both be ex-officio members of the panel, especially the curator, so that he can have a voice in matters of procedure and formative stuff.

I'd rather they just run for election but I could be convinced on this issue.

given the time frame proposed you'd be in serious trouble if the panel proposed an amendment that screwed something up, because you wouldn't be able to fix it.

Thankfully, we can just utilize common sense and note the words of the preamble:

This document is not absolutely authoritative. It is a compilation of the Curia, written and approved by the Citizens, which may become outdated or contain oversights.

The overly bureaucratic tendencies in lieu of common sense has lead to the necessity of this bill.

No, after that you're prevented from making any other changes for 41 days (as, the way things currently stand, the 90 days is from the end of the initial vote on the formation of a panel).

Not sure if that's how Mim intended it, though.

It was intended as you outlined above.

[sapi]

If a problem or issue is identified within the constitution, and we have this absurd process, we may have to wait as long as 3 months before it can be addressed, i'm thinking in particular here of the Disciplinary Procedure amendment currently under vote.

If we don't frivolously use this procedure there's no issue...

plus, you're restricting the number of people who can have any say on an amendment to just 10, and thats simply wrong.

Ditto with committees...PM a member if you have an idea.

Be honest, tBP - how many people debate bills anyway?

also, look at the time frame here!
this new procedure for an amendment will take almost EIGHT WEEKS
at least 3 days to decide to form a panel, 1 week to vote on having a panel, 1 week to elect 10 panel members, 30 days to debate a change, 1 week to vote on that change.

And maybe, just maybe, that'd be good, as it'd stop us having a meaningless amendment per week?

and then after all that, we're prevented from making any other necessary changes for 3 MONTHS?

No, after that you're prevented from making any other changes for 41 days (as, the way things currently stand, the 90 days is from the end of the initial vote on the formation of a panel).

Not sure if that's how Mim intended it, though.

[Scorch]

90 days sounds a bit too much to me, perhaps if it was something closer to a month I'd support.

[the Black Prince]

i'd disagree that amendments such as the disciplinary proceedure, the vote of no confidence or the superfluous rank and medal removal amendment are in any meaningless, or trivial, or minor or any other belittling term you might wish to come up with.

Mim
Both the Curator and Speaker have been elected to perform certain roles, it makes sense to include them on the council and allow them to do their jobs without taking up seats that can be then left for debating members - the speaker to give hex input, and the curator to advise on procedure and formative issues.

the preamble merely acknowledges that the constitution may become outdated. that doesn't mean it can be changed amended or adjusted simply because its outdated. the only way to do so would be by virtue of this very restrictive amendment

[Mímirswell]

Mim
Both the Curator and Speaker have been elected to perform certain roles, it makes sense to include them on the council and allow them to do their jobs without taking up seats that can be then left for debating members - the speaker to give hex input, and the curator to advise on procedure and formative issues.

I think the Speaker would be automatically included as a member of the Council... but you may make a good point about the Curator, I will think on this.

the preamble merely acknowledges that the constitution may become outdated. that doesn't mean it can be changed amended or adjusted simply because its outdated. the only way to do so would be by virtue of this very restrictive amendment

I was highlighting the fact that if a major disaster regarding any amendment were to pass(with or without this bill), we could simply choose to ignore it until it could be rectified in the proper manner.

Edit: Added Curator, I agree with your rationale.

[Tom Paine]

Just a note here; the Speaker is already, by virtue of his office, a member of the Decimvirate Panel, thanks to this line:

The Panel shall consist of the Council and the elected Decemviri

The Speaker is a member, as any other, of the Council.

[Scorch]

Or perhaps a procedure could be put in place for the 90 days to be disregarded under certain circumstances, perhaps the Speaker bringing the problem to the attention of the Council?