[Amendment] Abolition of the Curator

[Simetrical]

Okay, enough is enough. In the early days we had Boris, and everyone liked him (mostly). Then we had Sulla, and everyone liked him (mostly). Then we had me, and everyone liked me (mostly). Then we had Mimirswell, and everyone liked him (mostly). I know I must have left out bunches of people, don't bother correcting me, this is off the top of my head. The point of the matter is, eventually we had tBP, and he managed to piss off half the Curia most of the time. Then we had an election with two candidates practically nobody liked, and no one else volunteering. The position has been described as tedious and tiresome, and practically nobody wants to take it.

So time to rethink. Yes, let's just abolish the rank. Why do we need Curators? Well, I went through the Constitution and found nowhere that their role couldn't be easily farmed out to, essentially, whoever feels like doing the job. Note that the following copy of the bill is based off the current draft of my Constitution rewrite, for simplicity; it should be easy to adapt either way. For good measure, I removed one spot where the Speaker is supposed to do something, too.

One member of the Council will be The Speaker of the House, who is elected by the Curia from among those members ranked as Citizen, and will serve a term of three months. The Speaker will represent the Curia within the Council and will establish protocols for the management of votes and other Curial procedures.

. . .

The CuratorSpeaker of the House can amend the text of the Constitution and any Curial Decision to correct any spelling and grammatical errors.

. . .

The Consilium de Civitate manages the granting and removal of all Curia Ranks. It has the following members:

• . . .
• The Curator, who may take part in all Consilium de Civitate discussions, and has the deciding vote only in the case of a tie. The Curator has veto powers over any Consilium de Civitate decision.

. . .

Elected members of the Consilium de Civitate and the Curator must actively participate in discussions and votes. Council Officers' participation is optional.

. . .

A Curial Officer is a Citizen who has been elected by the Curia to administer a project or institution at TWC. A Curial Officer holds their office for three months from the day they are elected. If an office is vacant, its duties are assumed by the Curator, or, failing that,one or more temporary office-holders are assigned by the Speaker of the House.

. . .

The following are permanent Curial Officers:

The Curator
Responsible for the day to day administration of the Curia, including but not limited to any tasks outlined in this document and any duties he may be given in the Curia by the Speaker of the House.

. . .

Any member may bring a complaint against a Citizen to the Consilium de Civitate. If a Citizen receives a warning, a Council Officer will bring a complaint on that basis, providing all relevant information. In either case, the accused will then be asked by the Speaker of the House to produce a defence within forty-eight hours.

. . .

Any Citizen can nominate an eligible member for the rank of Divus. If the member accepts, the Consilium de Civitate will discuss the issue for at least a week and then vote upon the candidate. If the member receives three-fourths support of non-abstaining members, The Curator will post a discussion will be posted within the appropriate Curia forum lasting at least three days. The nomination will then move to vote according to normal procedure, but it requires two-thirds support to pass.

Funnily enough, in my rewrite I've already removed most of the specific stuff the Curator is supposed to do, so practically everything is now rewritten in the passive voice. Of course this doesn't address who actually does stuff: the point is, in principle, anyone can.

I've left it to the Speaker to work out the details of who does what. The sample protocol I have in mind for, say, moving a bill to vote would be

1. Proposer verifies that it satisfies all preconditions. Or, proposer requests that it be moved to vote, and some more knowledgeable Citizen verifies that it satisfies all preconditions.
2. Whoever verified the bill opens a thread in the Curia Vote with the appropriate title, with a poll set to expire in seven days. At the top of the thread, he provides specific information noting how it satisfies all prerequisites, in a checklist. (Like "Supporters: X, Y, Z. Final draft posted: [insert date]. Moved to vote: [insert date which is at least three days later].)
3. When the poll closes, the first person to spot it with the right to edit the Constitution renames it to include the resolution, closes it, and edits the Constitution.

Likewise, if a member has an accusation brought against them in the Consilium de Civitate, you might have a rotating chair who volunteers to send the accusation and manage the threads; or the Speaker might opt to do it himself. Of course all this procedure would be decided by the Speaker, but the point is that it doesn't really matter how exactly it's done and it shouldn't be a big deal. The Curator isn't a bad idea in principle, but there's no point in trying to maintain it if we have nobody well-liked who's interested in doing it.

By the way, since the differences are relative to my other proposal, this is not going to be ready to go to vote until that passes. If the other proposal fails, I'll rewrite this to work with the current Constitution.

[Gaius Baltar]

In general, I support the idea. Based on the last election, we have practically nil interest from the potential candidate pool. I dare say one of the applications was originally posted as an attempt at humor.

And since we are combining the jobs of the Speaker and Curator, I suggest we call the new position the "Spurator".

Combine this with one of the rewrites of the Constitution, and you have a receipe for CVRIAL brainsalad.

[Medicus]

And since we are combining the jobs of the Speaker and Curator, I suggest we call the new position the "Spurator".

Imperator would be better.

I'm undecided at the moment, though to me it seems like the positions of Speaker and Curator could easily be rolled into one. It would certainly help battle the red tape that has infested the Curia.

[Perikles]

Imperator would be better.

We ain't havin' none o'them again! *gets pitch fork ready*

I support this, just incorporate it into the speakers role and cut down on the 'gross over bureaucracy'.

[Harry Lime]

I'm against this proposal. Ferrets got it spot on. Streamlining is the way to go.

[Evariste]

Ein volk. Ein reich. Ein Speaker.




The Curator is a thankless job, and I like giving the Speaker a lot of freedom to take care of the things, but does this really fix the problem? I mean, someone's going to have to do these things...

Also, as a reminder, why was the Speaker position invented in the first place?

[iudas]

I don't support this.
We don't need a Curator, but the office has its uses. I don't see any important argument in the OP except that... well, nobody likes our curators.

[Elrond]

Some reform might be necessary but giving all the power the curators jobs and powers to the speaker isnt the way to go about it.

[Medicus]

Some reform might be necessary but giving all the power the curators jobs and powers to the speaker isnt the way to go about it.

I can see why you're biased against this, Elrond. Nevertheless, when I first read the OP, I immediately thought "dictatorship".

[removeduser_487563287433]

Utterly against. Why abolish the curator just because of some melodrama. Gross overreaction.

I think the correct route is streamlining the job, make it more managable and defined. Quite an easy thing to do.

[Elrond]

Utterly against. Why abolish the curator just because of some melodrama. Gross overreaction.

I think the correct route is streamlining the job, make it more manageable and defined. Quite an easy thing to do.

I agree.

Whether the VonC succeeds or not I will support some reform. At the moment to avoid criticism the Curator needs to be a hyper organized control freak who knows exactly how things should be. This limits the number of people who can do the job without criticism to a very small number of people - meaning that in a election every candidate is likely to be VonCed or heavily criticized if they win.

In organization I would like to see the curia become more like the scriptorium - were every Librarian has local moderator powers.

Currently citizens send there application to the any CdeC member who posts it in the QP - once it is finished it is then moved by the Curator to the citizen anti chamber and archived. The Curator then informs the Patron, the member and then the speaker.

What I would like to see happen is for every CdeC member to be given local moderator powers over the QP (were votes are done) - once the vote is over the member who posted the vote (or the Curator depending on who is online first) would then move the move the thread to the citizen votes achieve. Then I would inform the Patron and the member. This wouldn't effect disciplinary votes or the CdeC main.

Whether I survive the VonC or not, the Curators job is very bureaucratic and could be made allot easier by some changes which would benefit members as well.

[Muizer]

I agree with some aspects of the proposal, but not all. I do think it would be right if the workload of the Curator (but the same goes for the Speaker really) were reduced by citizens assisting where possible. I proposed a means to do so in Pannonian's thread about assisting the Curator. Point is, someone has to assume nominal responsibility. Someone who embodies neutrality and can be held to account for doing this. That is, above all, what the Curator is for.

[jimkatalanos]

I agree with Ferrets. I don't support this.

[Scar Face]

Where did the Speakers post go?

I don't support. What we need to do is create 'junior curators'1. What I mean is, we need to allow members to volunteer to help, the curator decides whether to accept them or not, and gives them whatever powers they need. The Curator gives them tasks in order to help them learn, while he still does the majority of the work. However, this has the benefit of training future candidates.

1. Idea more or less taken from Pannonian, only I wish to formalize the rank and give them whatever powers they may require, in whatever tasks the Curator assigns them.

[Erich von Manstein]

I support. While this isn't a statement against our current Curator, drama and controversy follow the position like an incredibly loyal dog. Furthermore, people aren't exactly signing up in droves for the spot. In the most recent election we only had ONE serious candidate. We're in serious trouble if that pattern doesn't deviate from its present course.

Rather than wait and hope, we should take action to prevent that from happening. Honestly, this would be a great way for the citizens to get involved in keeping the Curia running.

In the alternative, it'd probably be best to limit the current powers of the Curator. As far as I can recall, most of the controversies that have arisen regarding the position revolve around "abuse of power." I can't understand the purpose for many of them, particularly the ability of the Curator to veto citizenship votes. Perhaps then we can at least ditch the melodrama by the wayside (albeit while still hoping that we have more candidates in the next election).

[Garbarsardar]

I support. While this isn't a statement against our current Curator, drama and controversy follow the position like an incredibly loyal dog. Furthermore, people aren't exactly signing up in droves for the spot. In the most recent election we only had ONE serious candidate. We're in serious trouble if that pattern doesn't deviate from its present course.

Rather than wait and hope, we should take action to prevent that from happening. Honestly, this would be a great way for the citizens to get involved in keeping the Curia running.

In the alternative, it'd probably be best to limit the current powers of the Curator. As far as I can recall, most of the controversies that have arisen regarding the position revolve around "abuse of power." I can't understand the purpose for many of them, particularly the ability of the Curator to veto citizenship votes. Perhaps then we can at least ditch the melodrama by the wayside (albeit while still hoping that we have more candidates in the next election).

If the argument is how long can one last as a Curator or how much controversy follows the post, considering the sheer power of numbers, the first post that we should abolish is the CoM.

[Erich von Manstein]

If the argument is how long can one last as a Curator or how much controversy follows the post, considering the sheer power of numbers, the first post that we should abolish is the CoM.

Not quite what I was saying, but...

Ouch.

[Fabolous]

Okay, enough is enough. In the early days we had Boris, and everyone liked him (mostly). Then we had Sulla, and everyone liked him (mostly). Then we had me, and everyone liked me (mostly). Then we had Mimirswell, and everyone liked him (mostly). I know I must have left out bunches of people, don't bother correcting me, this is off the top of my head. The point of the matter is, eventually we had tBP, and he managed to piss off half the Curia most of the time. Then we had an election with two candidates practically nobody liked, and no one else volunteering. The position has been described as tedious and tiresome, and practically nobody wants to take it.

A divsive Curator and an election with poor turnout and you want to axe a job? I'm glad you don't handle moderator appointments like this because I know we got a series of rather meh groups, and atleast one after I left was noted for its lack of canidates. The CDC went through a couple week, couple election period were it couldn't scrape the people it needed, but it rebounded (though lets not get carried away, dropping the number of spaces helped). These things happen for time to time. Lets not axe a role on a whim.

In the alternative, it'd probably be best to limit the current powers of the Curator. As far as I can recall, most of the controversies that have arisen regarding the position revolve around "abuse of power." I can't understand the purpose for many of them, particularly the ability of the Curator to veto citizenship votes.

The Curators ability to veto Citizenship votes is very important. Are you aware how many times tBP had to use that power because the CDC had only 5 of us voting?

[Professor420]

[Evariste]