[Amendment] Election to the CdeC

[removeduser_487563287433]

We currently have nine CDeC positions up for election, which I believe is far too many to have at once. It has thoroughly reduced choice and made the election more confusing than it need be. I propose that no more than two cdec positions should be up for election at any given time. Whilst elections are being paced out this does mean that some members will serve longer or shorter terms on the cdec than is constitutional, but I do not believe this is significant. As a cdec member I do see how this can be interpreted as me interfering with my own term but I would point out that my seat is due for election in Febuary, on its own.

This is the current term schedule for the CDeC:

Obi Wan Asterix - Term Expires January 8th
Hader - Term Expires January 8th
Lord Rahl - Term Expires January 8th
Trax - Term Expires January 8th
Sapi - Term Expires January 8th
Shaun - Term Expires January 8th
Annaeus - Term Expires January 8th
Bulgaroctonus - Term Expires January 26th
Ferrets54 - Term Expires 6th February
Pannonian - Term Expires 3rd March
Scorch - Term Expires 3rd March

Now, obviously, unless there are by-elections for resignations we wont actually be having to deal with a big influx of empty seats for another three months, giving us plenty of time to pace out this big clump of simultaneous elections.

I propose this constitutional amendment:

Article 2 - Election Procedure

When the Curia is required to elect an Officer or Rank, or ratify an appoint, the following process shall be applied.

Ratification Votes

When a member has been duly appointed as a Staff Officer, and where required, is ratified by his branch. After two weeks have elapsed from his appointment the Speaker of the House shall post a poll in the Curia Votes forum. The Speaker shall state which position the member has been appointed to, and that they have been ratified by their colleagues if appropriate. The vote shall last for one week, and the member shall be ratified if they receive a simple majority of non abstaining votes.

Election Votes

When a Curial Election is required, the Curator shall open an application thread in the Curia and the Speaker of the House shall post an announcement in any relevant forum. Applicants for the vacant position must post their reasons for wishing to hold the position and any relevant qualifications in the application thread. Any comments, debates or off topic posting shall be deleted. The thread shall remain open for no longer than one week.

The Council may veto applicants, and should more than six members apply for any position, may shortlist six members to stand for the election. Once applications are complete, the Curator shall open a poll in the Curia Votes. The vote shall last for one week, and the member who receives the plurality of votes shall be elected.

Where more than one of the same position is vacant, the procedure is the same, and the members with the highest votes are elected. In the case of ties, a run off vote is held between the tied members lasting 3 days. In the case of elections for the Consilium de Civitate no more than three seats shall be up for election at any given time. The curator shall be responsible for pacing elections to achieve this.

Where the vacant position is that of Curator, the Speaker of the House shall undertake the Curator's duties in relation to the vote.

Votes of No Confidence

At any time, any Citizen of this site may initiate a vote of "No Confidence" in any Officer, with the exception of Moderation or Technical Staff not on the Council, 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 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.

As always, open for discussion.

[sapi]

Limiting the election size to two would mean that, were things to be evenly paced over the 3 months of a councilor's term, there would be an election every two weeks, and thus either an election or nomination thread open at any given moment...

I'd be tempted to go for electing 3 at a time, in an effort to give the curia at least a weeks break from that madness, every now and again

[jimkatalanos]

Make it 3 or 4 and I will support.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Three is okay, I wouldn't want it higher. Changed.

[Elrond]

This a very short sighted amendment.

Although I agree that the elections need to be paced the amendments way of doing it doesnt make sense.

The curator shall be responsible for pacing elections to achieve this.

The only way to achieve this would be for him to cut terms short or have long amounts of time when there are empty seats.

I would personally prefer monthly elections for four seats at a time - a election a month is enough considering the process would be running half the time.

The other problem with the amendment is its timing - just before 3/4s of the CdeC is elected - without throwing new elected people out of the CdeC or cuting terms short there isnt much that can be done for the next three months.

I support changes to phase CdeC elections but the process and the way it is implemented need to be in the constitution - saying its the Curators responsibility to phase in the elections when he doesn't have the power to wont work.

If there is going to be 2 or 3 weeks (or longer) with a empty seat (or seats) then Hex should could get staff to fill in as per the constitution, to make sure that there are 12 members on the CdeC.

I distinctly remember voting in at least one (probably more) 12 seat CdeC elections (when there were 16 seats in the CdeC). So replacing 3/4s of the CdeC at once is hardly new.

[sapi]

Otherwise, I like it; though you might want to attach a decision detailing how the current terms will play out so that scorch doesn't get the blame for ending terms early.

My suggestion would be to have the candidates who received the lowest number of votes in the current election have their terms shortened the most, or something like that

Regardless, I'll support the current version

[removeduser_487563287433]

Um... I did highlight most of these things in the original post, including the fact that this would not come up for another three months and the fact that terms would either need to be extended or cut short. It's not ideal but we cannot have nine people elected at once. We barely have the applications to fill it, and certainly not enough to make it a proper election with an acceptable amount of choice.

[Elrond]

Um... I did highlight most of these things in the original post, including the fact that this would not come up for another three months and the fact that terms would either need to be extended or cut short. It's not ideal but we cannot have nine people elected at once. We barely have the applications to fill it, and certainly not enough to make it a proper election with an acceptable amount of choice.

You need to write (possible as a additional decision added to the amendment) exactly how the process will work, because atm the bill barely changes the status quo.

If you plan to cut terms short you need to specify which ones e.g:

The following seats will be up for election at the start of feburary:

Bulgaroctonus - Term Expires January 26th
Ferrets54 - Term Expires 6th February
Pannonian - Term Expires 3rd March
9th Place in January 8th Election

The following seats will be up for election at the start of March:

8th Place in January 8th Election
7th Place in January 8th Election
6th Place in January 8th Election
5th Place in January 8th Election

The following seats will be up for election at the start of April:

4th Place in January 8th Election
3rd Place in January 8th Election
2nd Place in January 8th Election
1st Place in January 8th Election

Scorch is no longer on the CdeC - he needs to be removed from your list.

You would then need to specify in your amendment that if someone resigns mid term then a new person is only elected until the end of the term the person would have served and if its lets say half way through a term a temporary CdeC member is added to fill in the gap instead of a election.

[jimkatalanos]

I support the current version.

[removeduser_487563287433]

No, that is precisely why I have left to it the discretion of the Curator. The sheer complication of planning this all to the smallest detail out of head and the sheer faith it relies on no unexpected circumstances is simply stupid. Let the curator do it as he wishes.

[pannonian]

No, that is precisely why I have left to it the discretion of the Curator. The sheer complication of planning this all to the smallest detail out of head and the sheer faith it relies on no unexpected circumstances is simply stupid. Let the curator do it as he wishes.

Make it the curator's final decision, but start a thread in the CdeC discussing how the members can arrive at a decision the curator can carry out. It's not fair on the curator to have to organise this as well, so let the CdeC members set the custom for the curator to present to the Curia.

[Elrond]

No, that is precisely why I have left to it the discretion of the Curator. The sheer complication of planning this all to the smallest detail out of head and the sheer faith it relies on no unexpected circumstances is simply stupid. Let the curator do it as he wishes.

Your missing my point - The Curator cant do it unless he decides to leave some seats empty almost 2 months - which is far too long.

If its left to the discretion of the Curator it wont change - a) because there will be a different Curator by the time of the next large CdeC election and b) because the only way to deal with the situation is by leaving 6 seats empty at the next big election - which basically invalidates the CdeC votes at the time.

[sapi]

Hence my suggestion of attaching a decision cutting short the terms of those elected at this election, as well as rescheduling the upcoming elections, so we could avoid this argument

[Elrond]

Hence my suggestion of attaching a decision cutting short the terms of those elected at this election, as well as rescheduling the upcoming elections, so we could avoid this argument

Precisly what I am talking about.

For it to work terms need to be cut short and it needs to be in a decision tagged to the end of the amendment.

There are only two ways of distinguishing between seats - the time the terms are up and the place the person came in the 9 seat election.

I thought my suggestion was quite good - I would also like to point out that I am 9th in the CdeC election atm - If the places stay the same I would lose the most out of the decision.

[Trax]

Completly unnecessary, I oppose.
The big elections are almost the only way to get some new blood into CdeC.
If I have only 2-3 votes available I'm going to vote for the big and famous names only, while on the current elections I could spare some votes for "young" and promising members.

[Banned]

Can we not have a one-time recruitment of all CdeC members avoiding the need to conduct elections again and again?

Yeah, something totally contrary to what's suggested.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

While this affects me, because I'm running for the CdeC, I agree with Trax. 3-4 would be quite an elitist limit; but I would vote for a higher limit of 6-7 during the next elections.

[removeduser_487563287433]

The notion that smaller elections is unfair to less known members I suppose is a good point.

[Scar Face]

What needs to be done is setting up electoral groups, where three or four seats are always tied to it, regardless of resignations. We need to actually state the formation of these groups in any Amendment, and while I'm fine with giving the Curator the temporary authority to organize who is in what group during the transition period, after that it is not required and things should run smoothly on their own. That needs to be specified as well.

[removeduser_487563287433]

What needs to be done is setting up electoral groups, where three or four seats are always tied to it, regardless of resignations. We need to actually state the formation of these groups in any Amendment, and while I'm fine with giving the Curator the temporary authority to organize who is in what group during the transition period, after that it is not required and things should run smoothly on their own. That needs to be specified as well.

This is a good idea. It has the added bonus of streamlining the process too. I do wonder what the process is in the case of resignations.