Proposed Amendment

**Aemilianus** · September 15, 2006, 06:19 PM

Perhaps someone can help me with the specific section of the Syntagma this belongs in, or whatever.

First, I would like to say that even though what I'm attempting to correct likely costed me a CdC seat, I bear no ill will toward any winner and I think they are all deserving of the positions. This amendment only would apply to future elections.

Saying that, here is what I'd like to see.

All elections in which there is a Staff component and a Citizen component (example being the CdC) must not have Staff and Patrician overlap. Thus, one running for a staff position must be staff, and one running for a non-staff position must not be staff. Thus, in the CdC example, the Patricians elected to the body can be Patricians and nothing else.

**EDIT- It appears Spiff has posted his version of CdC changes. I acknowledge these, but I'm leaving this up because I think my proposal differs enough to be discussed alongside.

**Fabolous** · September 15, 2006, 06:21 PM

Why?

**Aemilianus** · September 15, 2006, 06:23 PM

Encouragement of Patrician involvement in office. This didn't happen here, but theoretically you could have 16 staff members of the CdC this way. Kinda takes away from the "power of the people", right?

**Fabolous** · September 15, 2006, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by Aemilianus

Encouragement of Patrician involvement in office. This didn't happen here, but theoretically you could have 16 staff members of the CdC this way. Kinda takes away from the "power of the people", right?

I think it gives the people power, and your amendment takes it away.

Surely the people should be able to elect who they think is best, regardless of an irrelevant posistion as a moderator of the site?

**Aemilianus** · September 15, 2006, 06:30 PM

As we have seen, moderator positions are most certainly not irrelevant. I am sure you've heard of staff elitism before? I don't believe in it myself, but it did seem to have a big effect on people before the reforms. My amendment only seeks to keep the CdC balanced and allow new Patricians the chance to hold power. Indeed, the Syntagma allows staff to take Patrician slots if there aren't enough candidates, so I say while there are those candidates, give them their chance.

**Fabolous** · September 15, 2006, 06:38 PM

In the current Syntagma, staff are not supposed to run as Patricians, but as site elders. Spiff simply wasn't aware of this, and posted in the wrong thread. So the patrician spots should be fine (and filled by patricians).

**Aemilianus** · September 16, 2006, 01:18 AM

"supposed to"?

You've been on this site longer than me, Fab, and I'm sure you know what a Syntagmal "implied situation" results in. I'm not saying the worst case scenario will happen, indeed it's very hard to surmise that it will. I certainly understand Spiff's situation, and right now it's not a problem at all. However, in the future, you'd be looking at a possible Curial body with all staff representation and no standard Patricians. All I'm saying is, make the implicit intent, explicit, to avoid a problem in the future.

**Fabolous** · September 16, 2006, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by Aemilianus

"supposed to"?

You've been on this site longer than me, Fab, and I'm sure you know what a Syntagmal "implied situation" results in. I'm not saying the worst case scenario will happen, indeed it's very hard to surmise that it will. I certainly understand Spiff's situation, and right now it's not a problem at all. However, in the future, you'd be looking at a possible Curial body with all staff representation and no standard Patricians. All I'm saying is, make the implicit intent, explicit, to avoid a problem in the future.

Ok, so you basically want to say the patricians have to be basic patricians, and the site elders can be senatorii or low staff? Well... yea, I guess thats fine.

(Though personally I favor Spiff's abolishment of the site elder rank entirely...)