Council Vote - Addendum to Section J

This Council Vote is for the approval of changing Section J. of the Code of Standards (COS). This Section deals with absenteeism of Leaders and will be changed in the following manner, as proposed by Shaitan below:

My suggestion is an addendum to Code of Standards, Section J (Absenteeism). Following is that section with the added items (Points 3 and 4).


code:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section J) Absenteeism
Point 1) An official is considered absent from the chat
turn when they are not present at the chat turn.
Point 2) An official is considered absent from the forum
when they have not responded to a required
inquiry (Cabinet Vote, request in the official’s
department thread) in 36 hours.
A) An official who is absent from the chat turn is
not considered absent from the Forum until the
Forum absenteeism requirement has been met.
Point 3) An official who has not responded to a required
inquiry in 7 days may be removed from their office
at the President's discretion.
Point 4) An official who is not present on the Forum for 14
consecutive days for any reason may be removed from
office at the President's discretion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This poll will remain open until it received 4 YES or 4 NO votes (quorum). In the event there is a tie, the President will cast the tie-breaking vote. ALL Department Leaders should respond with a YES, NO, or ABSTAIN.

The discussion initiating this vote is here.

NSD votes:

YES

YES

Yes

Culture (and all those other arts) Department:

YES

FA
YES

Well, I've just been through the 3 books of the Constitution with a fine toothed comb, and I can't find anything with which this proposal directly clashes except perhaps for

Code of Standards, Section G

Point 4) Terms last 1 calendar month.

Click to expand...

However, since this is only a standard, a conflict with this does not affect the constitutionality of the proposal as is outlined here

The Constitution of Phoenatica

Article B. Governing rules shall consist of the Articles of the Constitution, the Code of Laws and the Code of Standards. No laws shall be passed that conflict with an article and no standards shall be used that conflict with a law or an article.

Click to expand...

As there are no other potential conflicts that I can see, this proposal passes the Public Defender's review.

EDIT: Please treat this review as the ramblings of a fool and look to my post below.

Trade Dept.
Yes

I must apologise for the grave error in my above review. After reading this post by Donsig I have come to the conclusion that I need a new fine toothed comb! I somehow spectacularly failed to see the Article which also specifies that terms last one calendar month (the actual text is there in Donsig's post).

Having finally seen this I have changed my verdict on this proposal. It does not pass the Public Defender's Review since the constitutionality of it is highly questionable.

I would suggest that although it would appear to have gone been approved in this council vote, this standard should immediately be revised and not exercised. I have an idea of a more constitutional approach, but I will post that in the discussion thread.

I would also like to assure you that the Womble that it would appear was pulling the levers in my head last night will be severely disciplined.

I have to disagree with you on this Eklektikos. The standard was obviously written as a limit not a guarunteed minimum. If you tried to take this logic into today's marketplace, I don't think it would hold up well. The above addendum sets a standard by which the citizens can measure the Constitutional responsibilities of the Leaders. These standards are needed to compare the points laid out in the Constitution with the amount and effectiveness of the work provided. This standard also allows for an action to be taken if these standards are not met. If these standards were not needed they would not have been brought up. I wait patiently for your more Constitutional idea.

Originally posted by Cyc
I have to disagree with you on this Eklektikos. The standard was obviously written as a limit not a guarunteed minimum. If you tried to take this logic into today's marketplace, I don't think it would hold up well. The above addendum sets a standard by which the citizens can measure the Constitutional responsibilities of the Leaders. These standards are needed to compare the points laid out in the Constitution with the amount and effectiveness of the work provided. This standard also allows for an action to be taken if these standards are not met. If these standards were not needed they would not have been brought up. I wait patiently for your more Constitutional idea.

Click to expand...

Sorry Cyc, it ain't so obvious to me. I see the specified 1 cal month term duration as being akin to the duration of a contract. That contract being with the citizenry, and not with the president. That being the case, only the citizenry should be able to fire an official mid-term. I agree with you that some addition to the standards is necessary to deal with the problem of absentee officials, but I couldn't give this particular one a clean bill of health because I believe it may be counter to the aforementioned Article.

My suggestion is here

Status

This vote received 6 of 6 YES votes. Pending the completion of Judicial Review the Standard is valid and enforceable.

new Article G discussion thread has been opened to clarify how it should be interpreted.

Originally posted by Shaitan
Status

This vote received 6 of 6 YES votes. Pending the completion of Judicial Review the Standard is valid and enforceable.

Click to expand...

I find it quite ironic that the Judicial Review must wait on an absent official to return.

Quite. However, that is partially because I am trying to honor your requests by defering judgement. I can conclude this Judicial Review immediately if that is your wish.

delete

Originally posted by Shaitan
Quite. However, that is partially because I am trying to honor your requests by defering judgement. I can conclude this Judicial Review immediately if that is your wish.

Click to expand...

My wish is your command?

If you can end it then don't let me stand in your way. Please be careful and don't knock me down in the process, though.

Originally posted by Shaitan
delete

Click to expand...

Darn, I missed something while I was posing!