CdeC amendment

[Spiff]

Consilium de Civitate Amendment.

Proposer: Spiff (mostly based on the ideas of Kagemusha Here )

Supporting Patricians: Fabolous, Garbarsardar, silver guard


Changes:

This Bill changes amends the current layout of the CdeC section of the Syntagma. The key changes are:

• The "Site Elder" rank is removed.
• Only Patricians and Senior Staff may participate in the CdeC, no members yet to achieve the basic rank of Patrician may stand for election in the CdeC

These changes are important for two reasons. 1) The removal of the site elder rank will lessen the chances of un-elected staff members filling empty positions (site elders tend to be harder to come by, and may be less willing to participate in future elctions). 2) All members must be Patricians. This reduces the chances of bias creeping into a vote for Patrician status of a current member of the CdeC, especially with public votes.

Consilium de Civitate

Function:
The Consilium de Civitate (CdeC) manages the granting and removal of the ranks of Civitate, Artifex and Patrician through votes as per the Patronization section of the Syntagma. In all CdeC votes associated with these ranks, a 75% majority of voting members is required in order to pass. All votes regarding Patronization will remain open for no longer than 8 days.

The CdeC may also function as an advisory body to the staff of TWC in matters concerning the Curia and its Citizens.

Membership:
The Consilium de Civitate is primarily an elected body of Patricians. The full membership of the CdeC comprises of:

• 16 elected Patricians, who may discuss and vote on all matters within the CdeC forums.
• Senior Staff, who may discuss all matters within the CdeC forums, but have no normal vote.
• The Syntagma Curator, who may take part in all CdeC discussions, and has the deciding vote in cases of a tie, but otherwise has no normal vote. The Curator has veto powers over any CdeC decision and may fire any elected member of the CdeC for non-attendance.

Elected members of the Consilium de Civitate must actively participate in discussions and votes, Senior Staff participation is optional.

Elections:
CdeC members are elected as per the Curial Elections section of the Syntagma - with the added requirement that candidates hold the basic rank of Patrician and have no Staff warnings at the time of election.

Each elected CdeC member has a term of three months starting from their date of election. When their term expires, new elections will be held for membership to the CdeC.

If a member of the CdeC resigns during their term, or if during elections less than 16 eligible Patricians apply in the candidates thread, the 'spare' positions may be filled by staff of any rank (with normal voting rights) until appropriate Patricians can be found to stand for election.

V1.2

-Added line stating maximum length of CdeC votes at one week.
-Added content to election section, detailing term duration and procedure for resignation.


It may seem early to wish changes in the CdeC, but i think now is the best time with elections having just finished. On the off chance of this being debated, voted on and passing, it will be implemented in time for the next set of elections.

[Fabolous]

Not having looked that hard at your wording, very good ideas which I support.

[Garbarsardar]

Please add me to the bill's supporters. Nice one Spiff.

[Spiff]

Thanks, added you both.Feel free to suggest additions or changes though.. i dont plan on adding any brand new systems as such in this bill, but if anyone can think of further loopholes that need closing then i'd appreciate the feedback.

For example, how about one line stating - for example - that a maximum of 4 members of staff may be elected as Patrician?

[Silver Guard]

I support Spiff, though It would also be nice to restrict staff influence, say 4 staff max? As all staff can discuss in the CdeC anyway restricting their voting powers over the members of the Curia is reasonable I think

[Spiff]

Not all staff may discuss, only the senior staff - the tribs like myself currently need to be elected to even see the forum. Maybe 4 is a bit low, i'd prefer max 8, if anything since Staff geneally have a lot of expertise to bring to the CdeC (Asterix, imb39 etc)

EDIT:

Hmm Tac, The Curator currently has that power without a vote "The Curator has veto powers over any CdeC decision and may fire any elected member of the CdeC for non-attendance."

Are you saying you want the Curators power in that regard removed, and handed over to the vote of the cdec?

[Garbarsardar]

Not all staff may discuss, only the senior staff - the tribs like myself currently need to be elected to even see the forum. Maybe 4 is a bit low, i'd prefer max 8, if anything since Staff geneally have a lot of expertise to bring to the CdeC (Asterix, imb39 etc)

EDIT:

Hmm Tac, The Curator currently has that power without a vote "The Curator has veto powers over any CdeC decision and may fire any elected member of the CdeC for non-attendance."

Are you saying you want the Curators power in that regard removed, and handed over to the vote of the cdec?

Indeed. :hmmm:

Spiff, I think of adding one line to the tune of: Any proposal for patricianship should contain a paragraph clearly stating the reasons that the meber is deemed elligible; furthermore it should provide links, documrnting the member's relevant contribuitions.

I think this will make voting easier and will clarify how the proposed member is related to the demands of this post.

[Spiff]

That would need to be stated in the Patronization act.. it could just be made into a convntion though, im not sure if it needs legislation. In fairness though a candidate should already be providing a paragraph if they want to be a Patrician, since its the same process as for citizenship

[Garbarsardar]

That would need to be stated in the Patronization act.. it could just be made into a convntion though, im not sure if it needs legislation. In fairness though a candidate should already be providing a paragraph if they want to be a Patrician, since its the same process as for citizenship

You are right. My main concern is that CdeC and patricians are the major (the only probably) institutionalised balancing factors. I would be unhappy if those do not function properly...

Anyway I'm now hijacking this, I will rather prepare an amendment...

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

Not all staff may discuss, only the senior staff - the tribs like myself currently need to be elected to even see the forum. Maybe 4 is a bit low, i'd prefer max 8, if anything since Staff geneally have a lot of expertise to bring to the CdeC (Asterix, imb39 etc)

EDIT:

Hmm Tac, The Curator currently has that power without a vote "The Curator has veto powers over any CdeC decision and may fire any elected member of the CdeC for non-attendance."

Are you saying you want the Curators power in that regard removed, and handed over to the vote of the cdec?

oops, gotta start reading these things :tooth:

[Kagemusha]

I support this bill.Exellent job Spiff! I think as we are now the "new Curia". We should build this place on trust.So i wouldnt create any restrictions. If we are voting the ones who are to participate on the CdeC. It should be complete up to us as members of Curia to decide who should be in and who out and i think people here are up to that task. So we shouldnt make legistlation to restrict ourselves. If someday the majority of Curia decides to vote only staff members or Senatorii to the CdeC, its the decision of Curia to do so and in that case the Curia will take also the responsibity of doing so.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

Spiff,

the only changes I would like to propose is adding the following line after:

Elected members of the Consilium de Civitate must actively participate in discussions and votes, Senior Staff participation is optional. If an elected member is deemed to not to have actively participated in discussions and votes, they can be removed from the CdeC by a 75% majority vote of all elected members.

That way there is a route to take if people don't participate.

[Silver Guard]

Max 8? Are there even 8 Tribs? Imb and Asterix are higher mods, able to discuss at any time, the Tribs are un-proven as mods yet, I hardly know some of them.

(As a side note: this will cut down on people complaining about staff elitism and control of the Curia brought up by the recent reforms)

[Spiff]

Max 8? Are there even 8 Tribs? Imb and Asterix are higher mods, able to discuss at any time, the Tribs are un-proven as mods yet, I hardly know some of them.

(As a side note: this will cut down on people complaining about staff elitism and control of the Curia brought up by the recent reforms)

Senior Staff cant vote though, and thats more than half of the responsibility of the CdeC. If we allow maximum 8, its gives staff of all ranks a chance to have a vote on the cdec, but not more tan there are regular Patricians.

[Tom Paine]

I count 14 Tribounos, so, yes, there are at least 8 of us...

[imb39]

At the end of the day, I suppose, you either run with limits or you don't - the question is, do you trust the Curia? The original limits were imposed so that balance was forced and to reduce the probablility of high profile candidates totally overrunning this body (for example a Senatorii would probably have an inbuilt advantage over a 'standaard Patrician').

[Publius]

This bill has my full endorsement - very good proposal.

[Spiff]

Also im going to add a bit in which says any active citizen/patrician vote in the CdeC can last no longer than one week.

[Fabolous]

Also im going to add a bit in which says any active citizen/patrician vote in the CdeC can last no longer than one week.

I disagree with that entirely. Two weeks, I would support, as simply a top limit, if you have 3/4 at 2 weeks regardless of number of votes it is over. But with one week, I think problems may arise. I personally am hoping we have two-three days before we even put up a vote, and then a week for voting.

Basically, votes will move quickly with an active CDC, which we will have. The only reason things started to get slow at the end of the last CDC was because these people signed up for two months and were still there when approaching four (when they wanted to resign) because of the limbo caused by the reforms. That will not happen again. So I don't like votes being regulated outside of a high limit that should never be reached.

[Spiff]

lIf legislation has a time limit set on it to one week, then why not cdec votes? One week is really quite a long time, if a reasonable number of numbers cant find time to vote in that time then they should really be asking themself if they have enough time to be a member at all. I just think a definite amount of time is needed to prevent discussions dragging on for too long, or being held up by one member who hasnt had time to vote