[Amendment] Section III Article IV The Curator

**Nole4694** · July 22, 2010, 12:42 PM

Proposer: Nole4694
Supporters: Nanny de Bodemloze; magpie; Squid

Hello fellow citizens. I light of recent events I believe that some of Article IV needs to be changed/removed. The main purpose of this proposal is to remove the CdeC's ability to dismiss the Curator all by their lonesome.I will explain later on in my post

Section III, Article IV
The Curator shall be elected by the procedure in Section 2 Article 2, with the addition that the Curator shall post the mandate for the job in the Qualifications thread.

The Curator shall hold his office for a period of three months from the day they are elected. If the Curator is absent (has not logged into the site) for 7 days without giving notice of an absence, or if the Curator is absent for more than 15 days regardless of notice, or if the Curator resigns, the Curator is automatically removed from office along with any appointed staff.

Any decisions of this office shall be held over until a replacement is elected.

Where such a decision is time-limited, time from the moment the Curator is removed shall not count towards the limit and will continue only from when a new Curator is elected. When the Curator has been absent for the time prescribed, the CdeC shall appoint a Pro-Curator. The Pro-Curator shall be the longest serving current CdeC member. Where multiple members were elected on the same day, the Pro-Curator shall be the member with the highest number of votes in the CdeC election. Should the qualifying CdeC member intend to stand for Curator, he may not become Pro-Curator and the next longest serving member is appointed.

The Pro-Curator shall carry out any outstanding tasks of the Curator that should have been done during the time the Curator was absent. During the Curator's absence, the Pro-Curator's duties shall be limited to organizing any election proceedings for vacant Curial posts and organizing any required CdeC polls.. Once a new Curator is elected, the Pro-Curator shall resume his duties in the CdeC.

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

The Curator is responsible for ensuring the Curia's day-to-day tasks get done. Upon entering office the Curator must officially appoint at least one Citizen to fulfill the Curator's role on a planned or unplanned absence, and should the Curator wish, to assist him on day to day tasks.

No matter who carries out the tasks assigned to the Curator, the Curator is the one responsible for seeing that they are done promptly and correctly.

My Reasoning:
We already have something in place that does this duty. The VonC. Why is CdeC allowed to have their own private removal when it is we the Curia who voted the Curator into office? It should be we the Curia who decides whether or not to vote the Curator out. Its as simple as that. Then there are some points that Hex members rose in this most recent dismmissal case. Such as that if the Curator did something the CdeC members did not like, then those same CdeC members have the power to vote her out. That doesn't really make since. If CdeC members truly see a good solid reason that the Curator is not fit for their job then surely they can propose it to the whole of the Curia and initiate a VonC. There is no good reason for CdeC to have this power while a procedure such as the Vote of NO Confidence is still in place.

**Nanny de Bodemloze** · July 22, 2010, 12:53 PM

support!

**magpie** · July 22, 2010, 12:59 PM

I agree with the sentiments behind this proposal, Noel you may want to add the female term in, as in He/she is elected on the chance that a woman applies for the job :

Support!

**Squid** · July 22, 2010, 01:13 PM

Support.

**Justinian** · July 22, 2010, 02:13 PM

I oppose. Until the CdeC is completely 100% transparent on a permanent basis the Curia at large have no way of knowing if a Curator is abusing their powers within the CdeC or not. The CdeC should continue to have oversight over the Curator; it's an extra check and balance on the Curator.

**Augustus Lucifer** · July 22, 2010, 04:21 PM

This line is not necessary, you're correct. The Curator can already be dismissed by the CdeC under Section II Article IV, like any other CdeC member, as the Curator is a member of the CdeC as defined in that same article. That section already covers prolonged inactivity, which is what it has mostly been used for in the past, as well as warning levels or CdeC warnings. That section doesn't directly extend to abuse of authority, which can be handled via the VonC.

There is however one problem with the VonC, and it's that there's nothing in the wording of the Constitution to my knowledge which states private knowledge must be made public to coincide with it. This will be solved if we pass a complete transparency amendment as Justinian mentioned and that would make the procedure more viable. Unless all the proceedings are made available to voters it's difficult to educate a vote on it, so the likelihood of any VonC processing for abuse reasons seems slim.

So I support this proposal, but I think we need full transparency before it's viable. Moreover it would help if the VonC was modified to allow for information to be made public from private areas through Hex, since even in full transparency proposals the Hookers & Blackjack remains private.

**Nanny de Bodemloze** · July 22, 2010, 04:29 PM

support

**Augustus Lucifer** · July 22, 2010, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by Nanny de Bodemloze

support

You already supported.

Originally Posted by Nanny de Bodemloze

support!

**Nanny de Bodemloze** · July 22, 2010, 04:39 PM

Are you making fun of my medical condition?

Do I know you?

I can't even claim double-post...they were separated by 4 hours LOL

**Legio** · July 22, 2010, 04:44 PM

He doesn't even know about your condition until you just told him, mate.

In either case I agree with AL. Until full transparency is achieved...

**Каие** · July 22, 2010, 06:09 PM

If I was Curator, I reckon different tunes would be sung right now.

**Legio** · July 22, 2010, 06:10 PM

Such is politics.

**karamazovmm** · July 22, 2010, 06:29 PM

support

but as al said we need full transparency in effect. So lets work on it shall we?

**Nole4694** · July 22, 2010, 07:39 PM

Bah! Justinian you are right of coarse, didn't really think about that. I still think that a VonC is better meant for this situation but until we have full transparency it is not viable unless the information is already public (such as the ferrets case).

Seeing as its stated somewhere else though, we should probably get rid of this redundent statement. ANd I shall be back once transparency is acheived!

@Magpie, I actually thought of adding that in but decided it wasn't really needed as its just an ambigous term to reference the Curator, and I don't really think it would need a proposal to put in the Constitution. What ever happened to that project in the Forum Magnum updating the TWCC's grammar anyways?

**Каие** · July 22, 2010, 08:31 PM

Is this Article 48?

**M D** · July 22, 2010, 09:35 PM

After understanding what I first thought was something different,

Support

**Viking Prince** · July 23, 2010, 01:16 AM

This might indeed be another one of those cart and horse problems. Lets clear up transparancy first. Then we can tackle the logical changes to the Constitution. I support the idea but not the timing.

**Capt. Fozdike** · July 23, 2010, 03:12 AM

Support.

**karamazovmm** · July 23, 2010, 04:08 AM

the timing is as good as it will ever be, the need is to work on the transparency. Sometimes I think meg is too courteous, and that's why backstabbing happen.