(Moved to Vote)Votes of no confidence

[Garbarsardar]

Proposed by: [user]Garbarsardar[/user]
Supported by: [user]Last Roman[/user] [user]Setanta[/user] [user]Fabolous[/user] [user]Erich von Manstein[/user]

I would like to propose the following amendment of the section entitled "Votes of no confidence":

At any time, any Burgensis of this site may initiate a vote of "No Confidence" in any Officer of the Consilium Regis or any elected Officer inactivity or abuse of duty for neglect of duty or abuse of authority by posting their case within the Parliamentum. Frivolous use of this procedure may result in disciplinary proceedings. In all cases, a vote of "No Confidence" is exempt from veto, however the vote is non binding except on the Speaker of the House in the case of staff officers. The debate and vote on a motion of "No Confidence" shall follow the same procedure as that of a bill as per Article 3 below, but shall be conducted in the Parliamentum Main, and not the Camera Proponentum.

The tribunal is a very important facet of our community structure and I see no reason why the members of the Tribunal should be excluded from the previous procedure. They are elected officers exactly as the members of the Consilium Burgensum.

All Amendments and Decisions are considered to have immediate effect and no retroactive effect unless specifically stated otherwise.

I don't think that this is case but if it is, then I state it will have retroactive effect.

[Last Roman]

I strongly support this.

[Sétanta]

I also strongly support this.

[Fabolous]

Hrmm, good point Garb, judges shouldn't have been left out.

[Erich von Manstein]

Add my voice to the chorus.

[deRougemont]

Support.

Ensures consistency.

[The Walrus]

Support

[Belisarius]

Support.

[kshcshbash]

Aye.

[Scorch]

Completely supported.

[rez]

Support in conjunction with Garb's other bill.

[Hotspur]

"abuse of duty" is a rather nebulous phrase...

[Garbarsardar]

"abuse of duty" is a rather nebulous phrase...

Probably, but I did not want to change the original wording of the Constitution. Still, it is vague; that is good, since it gives to the citizens the right to decide if the behaviour constitutes a breach or if the charge is frivolous.

[kshcshbash]

Consider 'abuse of authority or neglect of duty'

[Garbarsardar]

Consider 'abuse of authority or neglect of duty'

You are right,

I re-amended...

[the Black Prince]

i would suggest, rather than say "Officer of the Consilium Regis, Judge or Member of the Consilium Burgensum" instead it is said "Officer of the Consilium Regis and any elected Curial Officer" thereby encompassing not just the CB and the Tribunal, but also the Curator, the Modding Liaison Officer and any future positions the Parliamentum may wish to create, etc etc, all of whom the Parliamentum can expect to hold to account

[Scorch]

i would suggest, rather than say "Officer of the Consilium Regis, Judge or Member of the Consilium Burgensum" instead it is said "Officer of the Consilium Regis and any elected Curial Officer" thereby encompassing not just the CB and the Tribunal, but also the Curator, the Modding Liaison Officer and any future positions the Parliamentum may wish to create, etc etc, all of whom the Parliamentum can expect to hold to account

Or perhaps it should read 'any officer holding a position usually elected by the Curia' or something similar, as - as far as I know - the current Tribunal judges weren't actually elected ... that's a pretty big loop hole.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

i would suggest, rather than say "Officer of the Consilium Regis, Judge or Member of the Consilium Burgensum" instead it is said "Officer of the Consilium Regis and any elected Curial Officer" thereby encompassing not just the CB and the Tribunal, but also the Curator, the Modding Liaison Officer and any future positions the Parliamentum may wish to create, etc etc, all of whom the Parliamentum can expect to hold to account

makes sense to me, I'd support with this in

[the Black Prince]

no, they were properly elected.

the fact that no election vote took place is a time saving convenience.

If you would like to waste a week holding a vote in which all the candidates will get elected even if they get no votes, be my guest and make an amendment, but i for one am quite happy to not waste the curia's time.

precisely what is gained by holding such a vote when the outcome of it cannot possibly be in doubt? if three people apply for three positions, then any election vote will always return those 3 people as the winners, it can do nothing else. In such a case, the vote is pointless, and election occurs by default.

[Scorch]

no, they were properly elected.

the fact that no election vote took place is a time saving convenience.

If you would like to waste a week holding a vote in which all the candidates will get elected even if they get no votes, be my guest and make an amendment, but i for one am quite happy to not waste the curia's time.

precisely what is gained by holding such a vote when the outcome of it cannot possibly be in doubt? if three people apply for three positions, then any election vote will always return those 3 people as the winners, it can do nothing else. In such a case, the vote is pointless, and election occurs by default.

Okay, my understanding of the situation must have been flawed. Sorry about that.