Absenteeism Laws

[Octavian X]

I propose a new section of the CoL spefically devoted to deputies, and the handling of absent leaders.

A few things...

How long an unnannounced absence by a leader be acceptable? 36, 48, 72+ hours?

Officialization of deputies is a must.

What's the best method for appointing deputies? Leader appoints with citizen confirmation? Election?

How should we will vacant leader spots? Old Presidential Appointment with Council Approval?

Discuss! When we have some opinions, I'll compile them into an official proposal.

 

[GenMarshall]

I would have to disagree on this. If we are going to have an Absenteeism Law, why not we have a 1 Week Minumum Limit. Also we should take into account the seasons to. Both in the Summer time and the Winter (Especaly around the Holiday season) that we should make the Absenteeism Laws a bit longer. Since Not Everyone is going to have a Wireless Laptop to take with them on vacation.

 

[Zarn]

1) I think unannounced should be three days or 72 hours.
2) Ok, but no further comments here.
3) The runner up should be deputy. If none or deputy is absent, then the leader asks the citizen's in a confirmation poll.
4) Could you restate that? You mean when the leader is absent, no? That would atomatically be filled by the deputy after the 72 hours or when the leader left the deputy in charge. If there is no deputy, the prez should put a confirmation pull up to the citizens for the position.

BTW, what about the chat rep? Would they have an official position? Could they take the deputy's place in case of an absent deputy?

 

[Octavian X]

My goal is to keep the game pace running smoothly. If we allow someone to be gone for a whole week, the game may grind to a painful stop.

I propose the following...

1) Should a leader be absent from the forum (ie no posts anywhere in the forums, not just this one) for 72 hours, and that person has not left a reason behind, than that leader may be removed from office at the President's discresion. This would go for deputies and chat reps. also. If the President was MIA, than a moderator could take that action.
If a leader has posted in the official absence thread that they will be gone, but haven't returned 72 hours after they posted they would, than the leader may be removed at the President's discresion, etc.

2) Deputies are the the runners-up in elections. The VP is the President's deputy.
Chat reps. may be appointed by leaders and confirmed by poll of the citizenry. My reasoning against using a third-place runner is that, let's face it, there's rarely a third-runner up. If there is, the fact he's in third place is a pretty clear indication that the people probably don't want that guy serving.

In the judiciary's case, we should bring back pro-tem officials. If a judicial official is to be gone for a few days, that official can appoint a pro-tem official to fill in while they're gone.

3) If the position of deputy is empty for some reason, the chat rep. moves up a notch. If there's no chat rep., that the leader appoints a new deputy, subject to a citizen's vote.

4) Lastly, I want to revive the old custom of a Presidential appointment to fill empty leader positions. If a leader position is left open after elections, or has no succesors (no deputy, chat rep., or judicial offical), than allow el Presidente to appoint a new official, who is approved by council vote. Why? The sooner leadership positions are filled, the better.

 

[GenMarshall]

Originally posted by Zarn
1) I think unannounced should be three days or 72 hours.

Hmm, and what about for adnounced Abssents, should they get like an 2 week thing, or thet will be exempt from this?

 

[disorganizer]

announced absentiism:
announced absentiisms wouldnt be a problem. even if its longer... but in case of an announced absenteism of more than one week the temporary department leader should announce a deputy with a confimation vote.

unannounced absentiism:
i think we should disallow unannounced absenteism of more than 48 hours. after 48hours, following the coc the highest official or a moderator should send a challenge pm which must be answered within 24hours. if not answered, the ofifcial should be removed from office for not fullfilling his duties (not temporary, but permanent!).

 

[DaveShack]

Hmmm...

72 hours until removal from office? Some of us have jobs and families. For me it's definitely a possibility that I could be away from the computer for 3 days, remote though it is. I say stick with the traditional week.

 

[disorganizer]

well, this is only for UNANNOUNCED absence. >3days absence without notice? this can drastically delay the game... especially if important offices like the JA, PD or CJ or maybe even the president himself are affencted...

 

[Bootstoots]

I think we should make a 48 hour limit on unannounced absences, after which they would be considered absent and a deputy (or the CJ or his designee for the Judiciary) could take over. After a week of unannounced absences, that person should be removed from office.

As far as vacant leader spots, the second-place candidate becomes leader. If there is none, article D of the constitution prevents filling it by any way other than a mid-term election. For vacant deputies, the third-place candidate becomes the deputy, or, barring that, the leader asks for deputy applications, after which an election is held in the Polls subforum (assuming that there are at least 2 applicants).

 

[Bootstoots]

Now might be a good time to look at the absenteeism laws I proposed around 3 weeks ago as part of my CoL proposal. They read:

C. Absenteeism 
	1. An official is considered absent if they have had no forum 
activity for 72 hours, if they have not responded to a required inquiry
in 36 hours, or if they have posted absence in the official absence
thread.
	2. The President may expel an official from office if
he/she has not responded to a required inquiry in 7 days, or if he/she
has recorded no forum activity for 14 days for any reason.
	3. An official is absent from a turnchat if they are not present in
the demogame chat room while a turnchat is occurring

We should probably change this a bit, for instance the President expelling official for absence could be changed to that official simply being expelled with no Presidential decision required, and it could also be changed so that forum absence for 7 or more days with no notification in the absence thread will result in expulsion, and perhaps the 14 day rule could be removed. Overall, however, how does this look for an absenteeism law? I also have a law for deputies in that proposal which I will propose here soon.

One other thing:

Originally posted by Octavian X
4) Lastly, I want to revive the old custom of a Presidential appointment to fill empty leader positions. If a leader position is left open after elections, or has no succesors (no deputy, chat rep., or judicial offical), than allow el Presidente to appoint a new official, who is approved by council vote. Why? The sooner leadership positions are filled, the better.

In order to do this, you will have to propose a constitutional amendment. We need to change Article D to be somewhat more flexible, and I would like it if you could get an amendment passed that would make it so that mid-term appointments are allowed. I will call Judicial Review right now on whether deputies can be appointed by leaders and confirmed in a vote of the citizenry.

 

[zorven]

Leaders are elected by the citizens to fulfil a role in government. Each leader has (or should) have a deputy to fill in for the leader when the leader is absent. I believe that once a leader is defined as Absent (by whatever definition is agreed upon) that the citizens decide via poll if the leader should be removed. Whether or not the citizens remove the leader, there is someone (the deputy) fulfilling the duties of the office. I think requiring the citizens to remove a leader they put into office is most in keeping with a democracy.

 

[Peri]

Just for clarification. Does someone have to post an 'im here' even if he has nothing useful to say just to avoid being declared absent?

Also some of Octavian's proposals are contrary to the Constitution. Therefore the Constitution may need to be amended to avoid these proposed laws being contested if they make it to the 'Books'.

 

[GenMarshall]

And what about being absent due to medical Reason, Take Strider for Example in the Beguinning of DG2 Term 1. He was in an accident and had to stay in a hospital.

 

[Bootstoots]

If we knew what had happened, I'm sure someone else could post absence in their place. Otherwise, if they simply disappear, they would be subject to the same laws that anyone else who disappears would be.

 

[GenMarshall]

But what if they return from there hospital stay? I know he/she would not be a very happy camper when they log back in to discover that they have been kicked out of office. Would it be possible just have the kick only be temporary and the persion can reclame his/her office seat when they return.

 

[Octavian X]

I hate to be cruel, but if you're not going to be here in the forums for whatever reason, you likely shouldn't be a leader.

RE: Constitutional Amendment: This is the reason I'm getting fed up with this whole thing. Our current constitution was put into place for the expressed purposed of loosening our collars and dropped some procedure. Than, in the very next damn month, the judiciary steps in and effetively ends that loose feeling by enforcing a strict-construcitonist view of the thing. If everyone here would just lighten up about this game, none of the events of this term would have occured. None! Now we're writing new laws to restrict ourselves with because, obviously, the rest of Fanatica wants a rule so it can complain about it and follow it to the letter!

 

[Octavian X]

A few things...
I believe a 3 day period is high enough. Usually, if a person is gone for 3 days, he'll have missed the TC, something big in itself.

A Presidential expulsion would work best. If it were automatic, then a person would be expelled even if they had notified someone in a private way (ie e-mail or PM). If the President was notified of the absence in private, than the person would have an extension of that absence without being kicked out.

 

[zorven]

Anytime you endevor to create a functioning entity involving multiple people, there must be a scrict, well defined code of [conduct, laws, etc]. If there is not, there will be chaos because each person is going to have a different opinion, desire, perpesctive, agenda, etc. That is what we are seeing here. The desire for a "loose" structure will fall victem to a group's desire for defined structure. I am sure someone can quote from some group behaviour theory to back me up.

 

[Peri]

What has the Judiciary done that you find so objectionable. We did not write the constitution nor throw out the old laws. If we are asked to give our opinion on something then we do so impartially. I would argue that the Judiciary has done a pretty good job of keeping things together this term. If people want to nit pick over the Constitution we have no choice but to carry out a JR.
If people object to the findings then they should sort out the problem and not blame the messenger. We only point out the rules while the people make them.

 

[Bootstoots]

@Peri - It was the strict, to the letter interpretation of Article D last term by us as the Judiciary that is causing problems as far as this goes.

And as far as other procedure, interpreting a relaxed ruleset literally is bound to cause problems, as Oct pointed out. This is why I wish we had just carried over a large, bulky ruleset.