(Moved to Vote)CdeC/Tribunal Removal From Office Amendment

[scottishranger]

Supporters: Perikles, rez, Garbarsardar

Removal from Office

A CdeC member may resign from office, or can be removed from office by a majority vote of the elected councillors, such a vote being triggered by any of the following:

• A successful vote of no confidence by the Curia
• Incurring a warningof any level level of at least 1
• Incurring 2 cautions in the space of 3 months
• Being subject to proceedings laid out in Section 4 Article 1
• Prolonged inactivity, as decided by a simple majority vote in the CdeC

Article 3 - Judges

To serve on the Tribunal, a panel of three Judges is elected by the Curia, using the procedure outlined in Section 2 Article 2, from among the Senatorii or Patricians with at least one being a Senatorii. In addition to having the rank of Senatorii or Patrician, a Judge must also have no staff warnings and cannot hold the position of Staff Moderator. Each Judge serves a three month term. The Judges are granted local moderator privileges in the Tribunal. A Judge may resign his post, and will be removed summarily under any one of the following conditions:

* Becoming a member of the Moderating Staff as per Section 1 Article 3;
* Incurring a warningof any level level of at least 1
*Incurring 2 cautions in the space of 3 months
* or being subject to proceedings laid out in Section 4 Article 1

[Perikles]

I support this, being removed for a single caution at the moment is ridiculous.

[rez]

Supported for the same reasons. It causes undue stress with a draconian aftertaste

[Garbarsardar]

I also support this.

[Halie Satanus]

I do not support, the CdeC is supposed to be the bastion of citizenship, if a member cannot keep his tongue in check during his term of office then they should not be trusted with safeguarding our ranks. More times than i can remember i have seen the comment 'the CdeC is their to protect/vet/safeguard/weed out, ect'. That it's members should be held under the utmost scrutiny is nothing less than i would expect.

[Perikles]

I do not support, the CdeC is supposed to be the bastion of citizenship, if a member cannot keep his tongue in check during his term of office then they should not be trusted with safeguarding our ranks. More times than i can remember i have seen the comment 'the CdeC is their to protect/vet/safeguard/weed out, ect'. That it's members should be held under the utmost scrutiny is nothing less than i would expect.

Staff Policy is that a Caution is just a formal PM that can be used to see any trends in a persons behavior. What is the point in having someone stripped of a position or put up for demotion because they received a formal PM? There is none really as shown by the CdeC vote. I don't want to see CdeC members scared of posting because they might receive a caution and be demoted.

This is a perfect solution. 2 cautions in 3 months is bad for a Civitate, let a lone a CdeC member. However one caution is usually just a one off slip up or event, definitely not something that should remove anyone from a rank.

[Halie Satanus]

Staff Policy is that a Caution is just a formal PM that can be used to see any trends in a persons behavior. What is the point in having someone stripped of a position or put up for demotion because they received a formal PM? There is none really as shown by the CdeC vote. I don't want to see CdeC members scared of posting because they might receive a caution and be demoted.

Trends in a persons behaviour?. Are there any new members on the CdeC?, no all members of the CdeC are long serving. They are supposed to be the pinnacle of citizenship trusted to guard our much loved ranks and ensure quality. How can anyone preside over a case when they themselves are behaving in a manner un-befitting their rank. CdeC members should be above reproach, if a member is incapable of behaving, do not stand for office, the consequences of misbehaving should reflect the position. Judges doubly so.

I don't want to see CdeC members scared of posting because they might receive a caution and be demoted.

Scared of posting, no, i don't think there are any shrinking wallflowers in the CdeC. Should they have the maturity or mere common sense to hold themselves in check while in office, absolutely.

[Perikles]

I just don't think a single caution is grounds to be removed from anything, 2 cautions or a warning definitely as that is continual or serious misbehavior, but a single caution is quite absurd in my opinion, even if they are the 'pinnacle' of citizenship. If you don't agree we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Last Roman]

Support. Anything that keeps the CdeC in check is a plus in my book.

[Cymera]

Support, a little space for the members of the CdeC may help things move forward.

[Fabolous]

I strongly support, especially as this doesn't change things that much, but clarifies beautifully.

[imb39]

Good work scottishranger! I support.

[rez]

Haile, would you think that anyone on the CdeC would actually vote for the removal of a councillor if their only infraction was of a cautionary level?

[Halie Satanus]

No i wouldn't, more the pity.

[gigagaia]

More to the point, should judges really be reviewing cases and interpreting the TOS if they, themselves, cannot execsersize discretion or understanding when it comes to the TOS?
A judge who recieves a caution, in my honest opinion, should not be in turn passing judgement on others or other infractions. It's the same principle whereby if a lawyer recieves a criminal record, they are highly liable to be dismissed from the bar and judges in same situations dismissed from the bench. Even unethical and inappropriate conduct mandates a removal, something which a caution denotes.

This should be ammended to "Is temporarily dismissed from office pending appeal in the tribunal", or "becomes subject to internal review". If the infraction is upheld, the judge should lose their position. If it is overturned, then the judge may return.

[Halie Satanus]

Is temporarily dismissed from office pending appeal in the tribunal", or "becomes subject to internal review

Indeed, for Judges and the CdeC.

[the Black Prince]

A judge who recieves a caution, in my honest opinion, should not be in turn passing judgement on others or other infractions. It's the same principle whereby if a lawyer recieves a criminal record, they are highly liable to be dismissed from the bar and judges in same situations dismissed from the bench. Even unethical and inappropriate conduct mandates a removal, something which a caution denotes.

i'll point you in the direction of the crown court judge on the west midlands circuit who has a criminal conviction for assault on his record.

as far as the rules of the solicitors regulatory authority go, neither a criminal conviction, nor a caution automatically derole a member. the only thing that does is professional misconduct, or gross negligence. Any other incident will be taken into consideration and evaluated on the basis of the solicitors character and nature of their work. Can't speak for the bar council, but i believe they have the same rules

[Scorch]

i'll point you in the direction of the crown court judge on the west midlands circuit who has a criminal conviction for assault on his record.

as far as the rules of the solicitors regulatory authority go, neither a criminal conviction, nor a caution automatically derole a member. the only thing that does is professional misconduct, or gross negligence. Any other incident will be taken into consideration and evaluated on the basis of the solicitors character and nature of their work. Can't speak for the bar council, but i believe they have the same rules

Actually I agree.

Though I think the judges do need to be held to a high standard, as they are meant to be representing the wishes of the community (at least that's my interpretation) they should be allowed some slack to remove the pressure on their activities outside their official office.

That being said, they still need to be held to a high standard ...

I think this bill is a good idea ...

[imb39]

I think that this bill clarifies many areas and, importantly, demarcates cautions and warns within the Community's infrastructure.

[scottishranger]

Moved to Vote