[Amendment] Curator power to disqualify candidates for office

[Viking Prince]

This is an amendment to Section II Article II of the Constitution.

Text to be amended

When a Curial Election is required, the Curator shall open an application thread in the Curia and the Curator shall post an announcement in any relevant forum. The Curator may choose to restrict the number of candidates prior to the announcement. At least six candidates must be allowed to run before closing the candidate list. Applicants for the vacant position must post their reasons for wishing to hold the position and any relevant qualifications in the application thread. The Curator may disqualify any candidate that does not meet the relevant constitutional qualifications for the office. Any comments, debates or off topic posting shall be deleted. The thread shall remain open for no longer than one week.

The Hexagon Council may veto applicants for other reasons beyond technical qualifications. Such a Hexagon Council veto shall be made in consultation with the Curator prior to opening the poll. , 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 and sticky the thread. The vote shall last for one week, and the member who receives the plurality of votes shall be elected.

Reasoning

The power or the Curator should be the first choice to look to for procedural processes within the Curia. This amendment reflects the current activities of the Curator and as such is more of an update to using the Constitution as a guide rather than a change in how we currently do business.

[M D]

Support although does this remove some discretion?

[Viking Prince]

This is not meant to remove discretion, unless you mean a Curator simply vetos a candidate without stating a reason. I do not recall such an instance, but who knows? The Curia should be allowed to vote on candidates that are qualified by the crieria that the Curia sets. The Curator ought to have the powers needed to administer the Curial processes. The Curator should also be open and transparent with the reasons. I think this is current practice.

btw -- I did a minor edit so the support sarts after my edit time stamp.

[M D]

Resupport

[irishron]

That is more up to date. Support.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Oppose.

The Hexagon Council may also veto applicants for other reasons beyond technical qualifications. Such a Hexagon Council veto shall be made in consultation with the Curator

If the Hex came to a consensus regarding a veto, allocating additional resources and time to attempt reach an understanding with any given Curator could easily become quagmired.

That notion seems too much like "chasing the goose around the barnyard.."

{Elementary businees structures operate best, when swift action is availible. Expending additional resources on exterior consulations can cause harmeful delays.}

***********************************************************

Long gone are the days when "curial matters" effected the site.

Perhaps the Curia as a whole should endeaver to change that....

[Belisarius]

Support, realistically the Hex will prefer to defer to the Curia and Curators internal matters of the Curia. They cant affect the site so I dont see why the Curator cant deal with it. Long gone are the days when "curial matters" effected the site.

[Viking Prince]

The Curator is administering the election and should be in on any action affecting members. Consultation does not mean agreement so Hex still has the final say as they would have over any administrative issue involving the site. At the current time, Hex has the power to veto and the Curator does not. This gives the Curator a primary responsibility and encourages the members of Hex to work with the Curator regarding the candidate lists for the Curial elections.

[Viking Prince]

On the fence at the moment.. the way I am reading it.. this would mean only the most experienced candidates would be chosen if there were more than 6..what about... those first time applicants or those who apply, but dont get elected the would never have the chance. Cant see it working. convince me.
Perhaps a different approach VP . not sure what yet though? but it revolves around the 3 month waiting period for all Citizens regardless of if they have been a citizen before. isn't the 3 month period in place to make sure the CdeC chose the candidate wisely?
I always thought it sensible myself.

But that shortlist rule is already in the Constitution. It is seldom enforced. I would have to look, but I can only recall one time and it was for a single candidate slot. Remember, this is may not must.

This amendment is to narrowly give the Curator the power to veto candidates that are technically disqualified and to persuade Hex to work with the Curator on Hex related candidate vetos. No other substansive change is meant to take place. Please point out any other unintended effect this may have. I am all ears.

The three month rule is not here in this article. I am not touching that portion of the Constitution with this amendment.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Oh sorry, but no, oppose. If we've seen anything in the last fortnight it's that individuals can have massively faulty understandings of other individuals. It is up to the Curia body as a whole to decide whether an applicant is suitable to join the CdeC, not any one person.

[Viking Prince]

Oh sorry, but no, oppose. If we've seen anything in the last fortnight it's that individuals can have massively faulty understandings of other individuals. It is up to the Curia body as a whole to decide whether an applicant is suitable to join the CdeC, not any one person.

Well perhaps your opposition will help me gather the necessary support.

However, in the odd case that this fails, I would certainly hope that the Constitution as written would be followed or at least that portion related to where the power to veto a candidate currently and exclusively resides -- with the Hexagon Council.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

I will acquiesce this from my position...

Yes, the Hex should maintain a strong bound and understanding with any currently seated Curator. However this symbiosis should not come about
or be mandated by constitutional writ.

Recently we have all seen how our passions can impede the follow of cooperation between different sections of site Government.

[Augustus Lucifer]

It would be much simpler to do something like this:

Consilium de Civitates members are elected as per Article II, Section II for three months, with the added requirements that candidates have no active Staff warnings and not received any Consilium de Civitates warnings within the last three months at the time of election and hold their rank for three months. Applications not meeting the aforementioned requirements shall be deleted by the Curator and not included on the ballot.

I think it would best be bundled with Rolanbek's change that clarifies the three month periods.

The problem with adding this to the veto is it makes it seem like the Curator is deciding something arbitrarily and doesn't really attach itself to what the 'technical qualifications' are. I also don't think it's a good idea for the Curator to be shortlisting users running for office, since there's no good and agreed upon criteria for doing so. I can already foresee the crapstorm resulting from that, especially if there were valid or invalid political undertones.

While we're at it, we can remove this line from Section III Article IV since it has literally amounted to nothing in upwards of two years:

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.

(I'm referring to the latter half about a qualifications thread)

[magpie]

Interesting proposal Viking, Now the devil is in the detail. Teq qualifications, As far as I know, there is No list drawn up for what are the qualities and qualifications, technical or talents the would be candidate is supposed to have apart from being of good behavior.
The same applies to the person holding the position of Curator or anyone sitting on the CdeC council or HEX for that matter. Now I am not saying this to insult anyone! But we could have a case where the technically impaired are judging the technically impaired without some sort of standard of quality being drawn up.

[removeduser_487563287433]

That already exists, I know better than anybody. But hex is a body of several people, the curator is just a random selected on their suitability for moving certain threads to a certain forum at a certain time, not to make sweeping judgements on people they don't know in the least.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Exactly. Giving one person the power to attack another is irresponsible. Especially during a period of time when the office holder is unable to discern between their duty of care and their personal prejudices.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Ven if the curator kept to the technical qualifications thing, which I have absolutely no faith in, what exactly will that achieve except deter newcomers? How does one get technical
qualifactions to be on the cdec, exactly?

[Harry Lime]

Opposed the OP amendment. It puts too much power in the hands of one individual.

I support AL's suggestion though.

[Legio]

Opposed the OP amendment. It puts too much power in the hands of one individual.

I support AL's suggestion though.

I'm with Harry on this one.

[MasterBigAb]

This is a hard one i have to think about it again....
But i don't like the idea of giving this power to one person too much...