Proposal - Five Censors

[Gaius Baltar]

The main idea here is to increase the number of Censors in order to get more diverse and skilled input into the member referrals. Term limits and qualifications would remain the same.

Curator would act as a tie-breaker only in the instance of one of the Censors being unable to vote for whatever reason.

[Veteraan]

The main idea here is to increase the number of Censors in order to get more diverse and skilled input into the member referrals. Term limits and qualifications would remain the same.

Curator would act as a tie-breaker only in the instance of one of the Censors being unable to vote for whatever reason.

A few things came to my mind when reading this, but to keep it as simple as possible, I will start with an obvious question.

Are those three extra Censors only to participate in actual citizen referrals, or are they to take part in staff referrals also?

Despite the recent commotion caused by a few citizen referrals fairly recently, they are still quite rare.

[Gaius Baltar]

Censors would participate in Citizen referrals and this would also come into play automatically if a Citizen is subject to a staff referral (TOS violation).

Incidentally I find nothing in the Constitution determining the number of Censors we should have seated.

[Halie Satanus]

Section III - Censors and Magistrates
Article I. The Triumvirate and Referrals.

Triumvirate - 3.

Curator, and two censors.

[Veteraan]

Censors would participate in Citizen referrals and this would also come into play automatically if a Citizen is subject to a staff referral (TOS violation).

Incidentally I find nothing in the Constitution determining the number of Censors we should have seated.

Thank you.

- I think it will be very difficult to find five candidates willing to act as Censor.

- Having five Censors finding the time to actually discuss a case and come to a conclusion will probably take a lot more time and effort than having two of them do so.

- Five people may have more skilled input than two, but chances are just as high that you add people that may have less skilled input to bring to the table, especially if there are few or even no candidates to choose between.

[Tango12345]

This is not necessary or wise in my view. I agree with Veteraan's points, and would also note that this would lead to constant elections (for a role where cases are hardly that frequent most of the time) and would thus a great deal of time and effort that far outstrips any gain.

[Gaius Baltar]

This is not necessary or wise in my view. I agree with Veteraan's points, and would also note that this would lead to constant elections (for a role where cases are hardly that frequent most of the time) and would thus a great deal of time and effort that far outstrips any gain.

In the past elections were held on pools of candidates, with the top vote accumulators obtaining a position in the "Council". This way a single election was held rather than 5 separate ones. I also think that there are enough interested candidates to fill the spots, just take a look at all the new Curial Assistants!

Another option would have Magistrates fill two of the proposed seats, adding additional responsibilities to their roles.

[Aikanár]

I have ot echoe Tango and Veteraan. Nowadays, we even struggle to fill the Curator's chair, let alone five Censor positions. I think we really don't need to increase the seats we can fill but we need to increase the interest with those five electable positions we already have. I'm of the opinion that, as long as we don't see several consecutive elections for all curial positions being fought about by at least three different citizens in each election, we should not worry too much about creating more positions.

[Gaius Baltar]

I have ot echoe Tango and Veteraan. Nowadays, we even struggle to fill the Curator's chair, let alone five Censor positions. I think we really don't need to increase the seats we can fill but we need to increase the interest with those five electable positions we already have. I'm of the opinion that, as long as we don't see several consecutive elections for all curial positions being fought about by at least three different citizens in each election, we should not worry too much about creating more positions.

Lack of interest due to the lack of opportunity. As has been the case in the past, there is a core group of individuals who fill these positions over and again. Elections are more of a popularity contest rather than one based on demonstrable achievements , interests or skills. Opening up opportunities in the Curia may actually stimulate activity levels.

Perhaps modifying the core responsibilities of the Censors would increase interests as well. For example, they could play a more active role in legislation or in policing other parts of the board, just to name a few ideas.

[Veteraan]

Lack of interest due to the lack of opportunity. As has been the case in the past, there is a core group of individuals who fill these positions over and again. Elections are more of a popularity contest rather than one based on demonstrable achievements , interests or skills. Opening up opportunities in the Curia may actually stimulate activity levels.

I take offence at what you are suggesting here, personally and for all others who kept the Curia going the in the last years.

[Iskar]

I find your attitude and assumptions to be needlessly negative and offensive to those dedicating their time to the community, Van Zandt. Maybe you should rethink some of those preconceived notions, not to say prejudices.

[PikeStance]

I do not know if 5 Censors are needed, but I would argue that three would be ideal.

That being said these types of comments need to stop

I take offence at what you are suggesting here, personally and for all others who kept the Curia going the in the last years.

I find your attitude and assumptions to be needlessly negative and offensive to those dedicating their time to the community, Van Zandt. Maybe you should rethink some of those preconceived notions, not to say prejudices.

These are the sort of comments that derail a discussion and it is good that this was included in the list for "code of conduct."

publicly makes false statements about another member or their intentions.

His intention was obvious, lesser-known members with fewer experiences are hesitant or less likely to apply if better- known and experienced members are running for the position. Having more positions would generate more opportunity and more interest. He is making a valid point that has nothing to do with his feelings about those that currently occupy the position or those that have in the past

[Lifthrasir]

CA position is good to learn how the system works and to get experience. Honestly, no need to create more positions when the current one aren't "optimized".

[Gaius Baltar]

I do not know if 5 Censors are needed, but I would argue that three would be ideal.

Three sensors would be a good compromise, and maybe use the mass polling procedure where all positions are elected at once, rather than in a staggered fashion. Thereby drawing from a pool of candidates.

[Navajo Joe]

If the concern is that the same people effectively win the election each time and that this therefore demotivates others from running, it would be a good idea that an elected official can only do for two terms, then a gap period of one term, then they can re-apply.

[PikeStance]

This is a good approach. two terms are currently 8 months.that is a very long time.

[Halie Satanus]

Is the same people running really the issue. Or is that the position is a. inhibitive, because it's become bloated. or b. inhibitive because the person holding the position has been the target of hostile and unfair criticism. Baring in mind the position lay open for sometime recently with no 'same people' running for it.

[Gaius Baltar]

Some scenarios based on the feedback...

Scenario I - Three Censors and Curator

Scenario II - Three Censors, Magistrates as alternates, Curator

Scenario III - Five Censors

Scenario IV - Combine duties of Censors and Magistrates - A Supreme Court for cases.

Add term limits and eliminate individual elections.

[PikeStance]

Add term limits and eliminate individual elections.

This is a scenario all to itself.

[Aikanár]

I advice against Magistrates handling referrals. We had that, initially and got rid of that due to the conflict of interest on the one hand the possible additional knowledge Magistrates might have access to in contrast to the Curator on the other.

Lack of interest due to the lack of opportunity. As has been the case in the past, there is a core group of individuals who fill these positions over and again. Elections are more of a popularity contest rather than one based on demonstrable achievements , interests or skills. Opening up opportunities in the Curia may actually stimulate activity levels.

Perhaps modifying the core responsibilities of the Censors would increase interests as well. For example, they could play a more active role in legislation or in policing other parts of the board, just to name a few ideas.

You seem to have different perceptions of what's happening in the Curia over the last years. We've a steady decline of people even wanting the job to the point where we were not able to find a single eligible applicant for the position of Curator. I struggle to see the lack of opportunity when virtually nobody is applying, leaving the election open for a considerable punt of time.