may i enquire as to what the process for removal of staff from any position of power is, and the reasons for doing so?
and shgould there not be enshrined a method in the Syntagma for civitates and staff to call the abilities of other staff members into quaestion, and thereby call a vote of no confidence in that staff member, and have him demoted to senatorii, or cast out from the uppoer orders entirely as the case may be.
i note that over the months, the staff has, quite obviously fluctuated considerably, but in those cases where staff have not resigned, the methods used have varied.
i myself was subject to a full vote of the curia on my continuing in office. the facts of that issue are now irrelevant. the question is though, considering staff hostility to me at that time, had the civitates voted to keep me in office, would the staff have upheld that, bearing in mind the vote was not an ostrakon, but merely a question of should i remain a trium.
furthermore the question then arises as to what other methods have been used. certain staff members, no doubt through no fault of their own fell inactive. they were quietly retired, i would hope by a vote of the staff, and replaced in new elections, but should they not have had the same chance as i did to state their case (or not) and be fully voted on by the civitates.
more importantly to my mind, the old and original version of the syntagma contained sections relating to the removal of staff. 2while these are still present, they have been reworded to hide the process of staff removal.
the fact is, we have no clear lines for the senior and respected members of the site to call into question the ability or competance of a staff member, and in the cases where a civitate does attempt to do this, there is no obligation upon the staff to investigate, to post the results of that investihgation, or to take any action regardless of the weight or number of accusations laid upon a staff member by the civitates.
futhermore, a minor related issue, i have but recently noticed whilst reading the syntagma, is that, of course, our staff members are drawn from the ranks of civitates.
but does this mean that is an ordinary ostrakon is initiated against the staff member as a civitate, and he is ostrakoned, that he should lose his staff member position as well, being as he no longer qualifies...
case in point, if there are concerns over the election of an MP, and he is asked to step down as MP for that constituency, he cannot continue to hold any ministerial position in the government.
one final issue, and moving away from the topic title.. but
what is the current difference between Quastors and Praetors. the Praetors used to be the global moderators, and quastors had some moderator ability in some forums, or were staff members for other reasons with no moderator ability
however, i now note that there is no real difference in the duties or powers of wilpuri, a praetor, and global moderator, and crandar, a quaestor, but also a global moderator.
these are just some issues that i feel need clarifying
to summarise:
what is the procedure for the removal of staff?
why is there not/should there be a process whereby civitates can for a vote of no confidence in a staff member (and what restrictions should there be on this (i.e should only follow an inquiery))
should there be an open and transparent complaints procedure?
if a staff member is sucessfully ostrakoned, does he lose his staff position as well as his civitate position?
what is the real difference between quastors and praetors?
Reply With Quote
