Council Vote to Amend CoS Section H

[Donovan Zoi]

This is a Council Vote for adoption of changes in the Code of Standards, Section H (Investigations). The applicable lines are noted below in the CODE section with changes indicated in bold italics.

In accordance with our Standards, this Vote will remain open for the following time frame:
Minimum time = Vote tally of an unbeatable majority of YES or NO votes.
Maximum time = 48 hours or when quorum is reached, whichever comes last.

All Department Leaders should respond with a vote of YES, NO or ABSTAIN.

6.	Citizens post their opinions on the charge, whether they think the 
	suspect is guilty of an infraction, if the case should go to trial (poll), 
	[i][b]what punishment(s) would be in order if the defendant is found 
	guilty, etc. [/b][/i]
7.	When discussion has petered out and at least 48 hours have 
	passed the Judge Advocate will post a trial. 
	[i][b]A.	If the defendant pled "guilty" to the charges, the trial 
		poll is skipped and the Judge Advocate will proceed to 
		posting a sentencing poll.[/b][/i]
	B.	If the results of the investigation thread are overwhelmingly 
		in favor of the defendant the Judge Advocate will submit the 
		case for Judicial Review and possible dispensation as a "No 
		Merit" case. 
	C.	The trial poll will have options of Guilty/Innocent/Abstain and 
		will remain up for [i][b]48[/b][/i] hours. 
	D.	In the event the trial poll ends in a tie, the members of the 
		Judiciary shall decided amongst them if the defendant is 
		innocent or guilty. If the triumvirate of the Judiciary cannot 
		come to an agreement, the Chief Justice alone will cast the 
		tie breaking vote. 
8.	If the suspect is found guilty [i][b][delete] through the trial poll, 
	[/delete][/b][/i] a sentencing poll is held. 
	A.	The sentencing poll will remain up for [i][b]48[/b][/i] hours.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Domestic Department

YES


..../me thanks Governor SaaM. problem fixed.

 

[Stuck_as_a_Mac]

/me pops in
Just popping in, but you gave the department leaders bad links in their threads

 

[Immortal]

TRADE DEPARTMENT
YES

Ill accept this, just as a rubber stamp as I really cant see anyone having a problem with it.

 

[FortyJ]

Has this even been discussed? I thought there was a mandatory discussion period prior to posting of a poll of this nature?

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by FortyJ
Has this even been discussed? I thought there was a mandatory discussion period prior to posting of a poll of this nature?

I am not sure. Maybe it was discussed so long ago that we forgot about it. Anyway, in case it is valid, I vote Yes.

 

[GenMarshall]

Hmm, sounds supprising simmiler to my suggestion earlyer .

Military Department vote = Yes

 

[Donovan Zoi]

@FortyJ - This was discussed, then put on the back-burner due to lack of sponsorship. I bumped the thread on Thursday or Friday and gave the weekend and beyond for further discussion.

Here's the discussion:

Change need in PI Procedures

 

[gunning1]

I vote YES.

 

[FortyJ]

Just so long as there is discussion on the issue...

In the future, try to include those links to relevant discussion threads in the first post.

 

[Plexus]

Culture Votes: Yes

 

[Octavian X]

Just a note, FortyJ, and to everybody: Council votes are not required to have beforehand discussion; however, I can't think of a time where discussion did not take place before a vote.

I will also take this chance to announce the vote closed, and the change passed. The standard must now pass through judicial review.

With that in mind, as Public Defender, I find that this change does not in any way conflict existing standard, law, or article.

 

[GenMarshall]

Vote Council Tally
as of this date:
Feb 20, 2003 01:25 AM EST

Domestic: Yes
Military: Yes
Foreign: Yes
Trade: Yes
Science: Yes
Culture: Yes

Vote Count: 6 Yays 0 Nays 0 Abstain 0 undecided

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Ummmmm.....CG? Look again.

Domestic was the first to weigh in on this matter.

6-0-0

 

[GenMarshall]

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
Ummmmm.....CG? Look again.

Sorry about that DZ , It was the middle of the Night at the time I posted (I live on the East Coast ), its fixed now .

 

[naervod]

As Judge Advocate I find that this amendment does not conflict with any existing law, article, or standard, and can save me and future Judge Advocates lots of time. This standard passes my review.

 

[Eklektikos]

I can find no existing laws or articles of the Constitution with which this proposed change to the standards would conflict, therefore it passes review.

 

[Shaitan]

I will update the online rules tomorrow.