Curator-CdeC amendment

[Simetrical]

The Curator has had a veto over Consilium de Civitate votes for a long time. I always thought this was a bad idea, but it was never used in a controversial fashion before now, so it was no big deal. The veto was only ever used (to the best of my knowledge) to restart votes for reasonable purposes, such as if too few Councillors voted, or a candidate got an infraction in the middle of votes, or similar things. I don't think it was ever used before now to do anything other than restart a vote.

However, a few days ago, the Curator completely vetoed a Citizenship application, not restarting the vote but just overruling it. I don't think this is what the Curator is elected for. We deliberately have Citizenship decisions made by a body of Citizens instead of just one person. I propose the following to codify the long-standing practice that the Curator may restart CdeC votes if necessary, but not overrule them.

While I'm at it, I also clarified a neighboring sentence that's not entirely clear. Most CdeC votes are not majority-based, so it's not obvious what a "tie" means. Since Citizen applications are decided by a 60% majority, does that mean that if the vote is exactly 6-4-2 the Curator gets a vote? I don't think this is correct; 60% is enough, no more is needed, so it's not a tie. So I changed this too.

Proposer: Simetrical
Supporters: Major Darling, Justinian, Legio

In Section II, Article IV of the Constitution, the following text is changed:

The full membership comprises of:

• Twelve elected Citizens, who may discuss and vote on all matters within the Consilium de Civitates Forum
• Hexagon members, who may discuss all matters within the Consilium de Civitates Forum, but have no vote.
• The Curator, who may take part in all Consilium de Civitates discussions, and has the deciding vote only in the case of a tie in votes decided by a simple majority. The Curator has veto powers over any Consilium de Civitates decision can restart, extend, or temporarily halt Consilium de Civitates votes if necessary.

Elected members of the Consilium de Civitates and the Curator must actively participate in discussions and votes. Hexagon members' participation is optional.

Actually, it would make more sense to extend this to a general provision for all Curia votes, so that (for example) the restart of votes that were interrupted by the recent downtime is explicitly permitted. I don't see a good place to insert this text, but if anyone has proposals, I'd support them.

[M D]

Support, seriously

[Justinian]

Strongly support. Well written proposal and it takes care of all the problems with the Curator veto power.

[Legio]

CdeC Support.

[Augustus Lucifer]

Support.

To play devil's advocate, in theory there's no concrete definition of what constitutes temporary, how long one can extend a voting period reasonably, or how many times a vote may be restarted. Common sense suggests that obvious delay tactics or over-extension of these provided powers would constitute an abuse and result in removal. But let's assume for a minute that CdeC members of the future make the argument that it doesn't specify the above so it can't be abuse, then what? I'm not suggesting we should be completely explicit in the wording, just that we analyze possible interpretations down the line and insure we're completely satisfied with the processes in place.

[Viking Prince]

support

Support.

To play devil's advocate, in theory there's no concrete definition of what constitutes temporary, how long one can extend a voting period reasonably, or how many times a vote may be restarted. Common sense suggests that obvious delay tactics or over-extension of these provided powers would constitute an abuse and result in removal. But let's assume for a minute that CdeC members of the future make the argument that it doesn't specify the above so it can't be abuse, then what? I'm not suggesting we should be completely explicit in the wording, just that we analyze possible interpretations down the line and insure we're completely satisfied with the processes in place.

Well that is why we have procedures in place to remove a Curator. Any attempt to use 'temporary' for a termlong suspension of actions would be quickly opposed.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Support.

[Nanny de Bodemloze]

I'm thinking this through, but have a question before I decide...this is simply a rules question, so excuse my newness on this stuff...

Could one or some members of CdeC have initiated a VONC in the Curator after the controversial case in question if they felt the decision was so outrageous? Or are things not structured like that?

[Augustus Lucifer]

Could one or some members of CdeC have initiated a VONC in the Curator after the controversial case in question if they felt the decision was so outrageous? Or are things not structured like that?

Any Citizen may initiate a VonC in any elected official for abuse or neglect. The CdeC may initiate a vote on whether to dismiss the Curator due to abuse or inactivity. This should however not be the recourse sought in favor of simply bringing this one section of the Constitution in line with the rest. By that I mean the Curator's role is facilitation; all of the powers Sim replaces the veto with facilitate exceptional circumstances getting proper resolution, whereas a veto does not.

[Simetrical]

Support.

To play devil's advocate, in theory there's no concrete definition of what constitutes temporary, how long one can extend a voting period reasonably, or how many times a vote may be restarted. Common sense suggests that obvious delay tactics or over-extension of these provided powers would constitute an abuse and result in removal. But let's assume for a minute that CdeC members of the future make the argument that it doesn't specify the above so it can't be abuse, then what? I'm not suggesting we should be completely explicit in the wording, just that we analyze possible interpretations down the line and insure we're completely satisfied with the processes in place.

Since the Curator handles the actual promotions and demotions per the Constitution, they could always make up some contrived reason to promote or not promote or demote someone if they felt like it. The goal only needs to be to make any such reason so contrived as to clearly constitute an action in bad faith, at which point the Curator can be removed.

Note that the previous wording gave the Curator a veto with no instructions for use. Thus it is plausibly arguable that the veto could legitimately be used at the Curator's sole discretion, except if it were used outrageously often (like vetoing every single CdeC decision the Curator disagreed with, which would defeat the point of having a CdeC). The new wording says "if necessary", and it is very hard to argue that the Curator restarting a vote eleven times in a row solely because they disagree with the outcome is "necessary".

Could one or some members of CdeC have initiated a VONC in the Curator after the controversial case in question if they felt the decision was so outrageous?

Yes. The CdeC can also remove the Curator by simple majority vote. However, people might not want to remove the Curator for an isolated action even if they strongly disagree with that action.

In any case, it should certainly be a goal of the Constitution to be clear enough that the Curator can't take actions and think they're right while enough Citizens or CdeC members think they're wrong to remove them from office. I mean, you could conceivably just get rid of all restrictions on what the Curator does and rely on VoNC to keep them in line, but that's not a good idea.

[Justinian]

I'm thinking this through, but have a question before I decide...this is simply a rules question, so excuse my newness on this stuff...

Could one or some members of CdeC have initiated a VONC in the Curator after the controversial case in question if they felt the decision was so outrageous? Or are things not structured like that?

There are two avenues available to CdeC members if they feel a Curator has abused their post; they can initiate a VonC (as can any Citizen) or they can start a CdeC vote to remove the Curator:

If, in the judgement of the Consilium de Civitates, the Curator has neglected their duties or abused his position, it may dismiss the Curator, arrange new elections.

[irishron]

Abstain at the moment a couple of questions.
If her veto action is so heinous to Hex, why did they not overrule her?
If her veto upset the CdeC so much, why did the not use the VoNC to try to remove her from office?
Why rewrite the rules when those in charge don't use the ones at their disposal?

To me, it's a lot like locking the barn door after the horse has already escaped.

[Justinian]

If her veto action is so heinous to Hex, why did they not overrule her?

Sim is not really posting this on behalf of Hex (as far as I know, I don't want to put words in his mouth), but rather on behalf of the CdeC where he has been privy to private discussions about the Curator veto and various other changes CdeC members wanted to make.

[Viking Prince]

Also please note that controversial decisions under the rules will hopefully not result in a removal from office. The solution is to change the rules. Demanding the elected officials not be controversial is counterproductive to giving them authority.

[Justinian]

Well as has been proven by the recent application failure, what happens if (hypothetically) CdeC members who belong to the same kind of social strata.... voted simply to get the candidate in out of peer pressure?

I like how you throw in "hypothetically" as if it removes all accusation from what you then say. It's almost like saying "I'm not racist, but..." and then saying something incredibly racist. Do you realize how illogical it is to say that someone has been PROVEN by a recent application, then say that the following scenario is hypothetical? If your insinuation is that Ferrets only passed his vote because several CdeC members are also members of another forum he is also a member of, which is as weak and vague an accusation as I can imagine, then I suggest you take any evidence you have and attempt to VonC every CdeC member who voted for Ferrets.

Half the CdeC felt that he should become a Citizen; if half the CdeC are morally bankrupt yes men who vote along the party line of some shadow organization then we have bigger problems. That would mean the entire CdeC and by extension the entire Curial voting process (as all CdeC members were fairly elected by the Curia) is in question.

[Nanny de Bodemloze]

Thank you Justinian and AL for your answers...that helps.

If we were drafting the constitution for the very first time today, can anyone play devil's advocate and imagine a reason to put the Curator veto in? It seems to me that the status quo...the VONC if everyone thinks the Curator has abused authority...is the check on the current system.

Then the remaining question is:
1) is the system best served by a Curator who has the power to veto, and the citizenry who have the power to turf the Curator almost instantly if they feel the Curator has abused power?; or
2) is the system best served by a Curator who doesn't have veto to begin with, but who has the power to hit the reset or delay for (in the currently proposal) unspecified amounts of time?

I personally like the veto option, with the VONC backup, but truly (as per AL's explanation) there really isn't that much difference. Therefore,

OPPOSE.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Well as has been proven by the recent application failure, what happens if (hypothetically) CdeC members who belong to the same kind of social strata....
voted simply to get the candidate in out of peer pressure?

Brigadier... Please forgive me if I misinterpret this but...

The "Old Guard" and the "Ancients" have been here for so long that they are "immune" from any type of exterior pressure.
They act as they see fit, simply put.

[John Wayne]

Brigadier... Please forgive me if I misinterpret this but...

The "Old Guard" and the "Ancients" have been here for so long that they are "immune" from any type of exterior pressure.
They act as they see fit, simply put.

Hopefully, all members of the CdeC are like that.

Support this.

[Augustus Lucifer]

If her veto action is so heinous to Hex, why did they not overrule her?
If her veto upset the CdeC so much, why did the not use the VoNC to try to remove her from office?
Why rewrite the rules when those in charge don't use the ones at their disposal?

To me, it's a lot like locking the barn door after the horse has already escaped.

This isn't about one veto action, it just materialized as a result of it. The current Constitution is vague enough that if precedent is not used as a barometer there's nothing barring what occurred. The changes Sim makes are simply better in every conceivable way, and good change should always be implemented regardless of what brought it about. I can think of no situation where the avenues he provides for aren't sufficient.

The new wording says "if necessary", and it is very hard to argue that the Curator restarting a vote eleven times in a row solely because they disagree with the outcome is "necessary".

That's a good point indeed. Though eleven is fairly generous, in most cases any more than once consecutively would be an overstep.

Well as has been proven by the recent application failure, what happens if (hypothetically) CdeC members who belong to the same kind of social strata.... voted simply to get the candidate in out of peer pressure?
Surely when the curator sees something so obviously amiss then the curator should be able to veto such a candidacy? or why Hex doesn't is beyond me.

If there's systematic corruption in the CdeC then Hex can institute a veto. Unlike the Curatorial veto a Hex veto is provisional until all of Hex can reach consensus. To me it seems obvious that we would want such matters to be discussed by the highest authority on the site as a unit rather than arbitrarily determined by one user. But you'll note that your 'hypothetical scenario' was not the reason for the veto, if it were I do think Hex would have stepped in more readily. Of course, as Justy already said, a VonC can always be pursued with concrete evidence that shady dealings occurred.

Then again if this veto ruling stays.... who is to say it wont be used arbitrarily by any future curator with nefarious intent(not saying it will but the possibility is there)

Exactly. Though nefarious is not where the bar need be set.

1) is the system best served by a Curator who has the power to veto, and the citizenry who have the power to turf the Curator almost instantly if they feel the Curator has abused power?; or

2) is the system best served by a Curator who doesn't have veto to begin with, but who has the power to hit the reset or delay for (in the currently proposal) unspecified amounts of time?

The question is what power does a veto serve? What conceivable circumstance that isn't serious enough for Hex to get involved would not be handled well enough by a temporary halt or re-vote? An exterminator has sprays, they don't need nukes to deal with anthills.

And Hex will get involved via provisional veto if the matter is serious. They have in the past and in recent times. A difference of Constitutional interpretation is not serious.

[Simetrical]

If her veto action is so heinous to Hex, why did they not overrule her?

I'm not posting on behalf of Hex or anyone else. This is a personal proposal, like all my proposals. I made tons of proposals before I was even Hex, you know. At one point I had posted more threads in the Prothalamos than anyone else.

If her veto upset the CdeC so much, why did the not use the VoNC to try to remove her from office?

Because removing someone from office for a single action that was arguably not abusive is excessive. It's better to just change the rules so it won't happen again.

Let me ask you the opposite question: what good reason is there to have a Curator veto of all CdeC decisions?

Sim is not really posting this on behalf of Hex (as far as I know, I don't want to put words in his mouth), but rather on behalf of the CdeC where he has been privy to private discussions about the Curator veto and various other changes CdeC members wanted to make.

I'm not posting on behalf of the CdeC either, although several CdeC members will certainly support.

Well as has been proven by the recent application failure, what happens if (hypothetically) CdeC members who belong to the same kind of social strata.... voted simply to get the candidate in out of peer pressure?

Why do you think it's more likely that the CdeC would do this and the Curator veto it, than that the CdeC would do the right thing and the Curator veto it for the wrong reasons? Do you trust the Curator more than the CdeC, in general? Why?

I personally like the veto option, with the VONC backup

If the CdeC and Curator disagree, why should the Curator (one person) take precedence over the CdeC (many people)? The Curator is not elected to a higher standard than the CdeC. It's simple majority in each case. Do you think the Curator is more trustworthy or qualified than the CdeC?