Citizens Proposal for CoL Amendment: Mid-Term Officers

[Methos]

B) Steps to Amend the Code of Laws
I. A Citizen posts an idea about the amendment as a thread.

II. Amendment is debated in the thread.

III. After at least 48hours the proponent posts a proposed poll.

IV. Once 24 hours have passed with no significant comments to the thread poll, the issue goes to the Judiciary for review.

V. If and after Judicial Review passes, the ratification poll is posted by the Judiciary.

According to our Constitution and Code of Laws I, as a citizen in the Citizen’s Assembly, have the right to propose an amendment to our Code of Laws. According to the above I must first post my idea for the amendment.

Basis: My idea is based on an appointed officer who is tasked with taking over a formerly held official position mid-term and our regulations on the limit of terms. According to our laws elected officers can hold any one office for no more than two consecutive turns, but how does this affect an appointed official who accepts the position of office mid-term? Is this partial term considered one of the allowed terms allotted in the two term limit? Or is it not counted in that limit?

Foundation: For those Americans reading this you may recall how are own US Government deals with the above. My own idea is based on this very concept.

My Modified Idea: In my opinion I believe the amount of time of the partial term is what determines whether that partial term is considered as a term under the limits of term limits. I suggest the defined amount of 15 days shall be what considers whether a partial term is considered a term.

If an official takes office with 15 days or less of the term since its inception than the newly appointed official shall count that term as an official term. In this way the officer may only run for one more turn if he/she wishes it and it is accepted by vote from the Citizens Assembly.

If an official takes office with more than 15 days of the term since its inception than the newly appointed office shall not count that term as an official term. In this way the officer may run for two more terms if he/she wishes it and it is accepted by vote from the Citizens Assembly.

In Summary: If the first day of a new term is considered as one for the purposes of the above, than this is how my idea would look:

Elected Officer takes command of Office:
Day 1 thru Day 15: Officially considered as a term and under the restrictions of consecutive term limits.
Day 16 thru the end of Term: Officially not considered as a term and not held to the restrictions of term limits.

 

[DaveShack]

I agree with the concept, as stated in the final summary.

 

[Methos]

Please note I made a small edit to the above summary. Originally I had Day 15 as considered as both, so I switched the second statement in the summary to Day 16.

My apologies, just wanted to make sure the Summary was clear.

 

[ravensfire]

The easiest approach may be to change a single word in the current law - no citizen may be elected two more than two consecutive terms.

Problem solved, including situations where the office is vacant after elections - you can appoint, not elect, the person that was elected the two previous terms.

-- Ravensfire

 

[robboo]

Ravens fire...

I ran uncontested this term and its my second term... I can run again under your proposed change. IS that what you intended ?

( you have a typo TWO=to)

 

[Methos]

The easiest approach may be to change a single word in the current law - no citizen may be elected two more than two consecutive terms.

Problem solved, including situations where the office is vacant after elections - you can appoint, not elect, the person that was elected the two previous terms.

-- Ravensfire

Let's say an office is vacant and an officer is appointed the position a few days after the term starts. By your above statement this individual could be in power for nearly three months. The first month doesn't count since he/she was appointed, even though it consisted of a few days shy of the full month. Plus the two terms he/she was elected to that same office.

The same goes if the individual was appointed one term due to the office being vacant but doesn't decide to run the following term. No one wishes it so he/she is appointed to that office again. See where I'm going?

In my opinion it needs to be clarified more, just in case this ever comes up.

 

[ravensfire]

Ravens fire...

I ran uncontested this term and its my second term... I can run again under your proposed change. IS that what you intended ?

( you have a typo TWO=to)

Yes - that's exactly it.

We can go completely nuts over this process, or we can keep it simple and on point. The idea is to have those citizens that have run time and again for the same office step aside. At the same time, we don't want to hamstring ourselves if there aren't enough citizens interested in holding an office.

That's the idea behind the 2 consecutive elected terms restriction - you can successfully run for office twice, then you should take a break. If, however, that office is vacant for any reason, you're allowed to return to the office.

Methos, your scenario is correct, but is that really a problem? If no citizen ran for that office, where is the problem with appointing someone that's been in the office for two terms back to that office? It's already established that no other citizen was interested in the office because they didn't run for the office!

Two consecutive elected terms for all offices (note the current exception that I abused) - it's fair, it's simple and it's clear.

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

Why not make it even simpler and do away with term limits. It's not like we have too many people running for office.

 

[robboo]

donsig has a point..the citizens can decide if a person has been there long enough. Why stop someone who is doing a good job from keeping that job.

/this doesnt apply to me since I will be standing aside at the end of this term anyway.

 

[DaveShack]

Revision to my prior remarks on this subject:

If we have term limits, the idea of the first post is good.

I'm not hung up on having term limits at all. It's never really been a problem before, and if no one else wants the job then why prevent someone who does want the job from taking it? We don't really want it to go vacant and appoint someone just because they're the only one who will run but have already held the job for 2 terms.

 

[Methos]

Why not make it even simpler and do away with term limits. It's not like we have too many people running for office.

I'm not hung up on having term limits at all. It's never really been a problem before, and if no one else wants the job then why prevent someone who does want the job from taking it? We don't really want it to go vacant and appoint someone just because they're the only one who will run but have already held the job for 2 terms.

They do make a good point. Is there really enough of a reason to have term limits? I haven't been playing this game for more than a week, so don't know what the average amount of active players is. Do we have enough active players to make term limits worth it?

By having term limits I believe my proposal for an amendment change is still valid and I stand by it.

 

[Methos]

Are there any more comments on this subject? The required 48 hours have passed since this discussion was started so I will be working writing up the amendment sometime later tonight (early morning).

Any comments on how best to write it up?

 

[DaveShack]

A good next move might be to have an opinion poll on whether we want to continue to have term limits. Then spruce up the current proposal if the result is yes, and write something which repeals term limits if the answer is no.

 

[Methos]

Good idea. I'll start work on that now.

 

[Swissempire]

The problem with no term limits is that some players are naturally better and more popular than other. They are better known, and will get the positon time and time again. We could have the same government for serveral terms, and that would stunt interest.

 

[Methos]

The poll has been posted here.

 

[BCLG100]

The problem with no term limits is that some players are naturally better and more popular than other. They are better known, and will get the positon time and time again. We could have the same government for serveral terms, and that would stunt interest.

this is however what has already happened through lack of interest so we should just change the laws so someone is playing the game.

 

[dutchfire]

hey, I just saw this thread, what was the end of this thing?

 

[Sigma]

Methos, who initiated the discussion, never got around to writing his amendment. I just posted this thread and the opinion poll that goes along with it in the Judiciary thread a few minutes ago.

 

[dutchfire]

Methos, who initiated the discussion, never got around to writing his amendment. I just posted this thread and the opinion poll that goes along with it in the Judiciary thread a few minutes ago.

I saw that you were only and checked which thread you were looking at, and I saw this thread. Well done!