DG4 Discussion - Const: Article G

[zorven]

Our current Article G based upon the DG2 Constitution:

G. All offices will be filled via election with terms lasting one calendar month.

 

[Bootstoots]

I think we should keep this one as is.

 

[GenMarshall]

This one is a defenate Keeper

 

[zorven]

I agree that this should apply to all "leader" positions. But should we re-word it so that we can have flexibility to define how positions of deputies and other offices can be filled. Those positions could be defined in the CoL rather than here. We might make all deputies filled by elections, but lets put some flexibility here.

 

[GenMarshall]

Err, I would rather not. I dont think we should separate Deputies and Leaders. I beleve Article G should be kept the way it is.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I think what zorven is getting at is that if Article G remains worded as-is, leaders technically would not have the right to appoint deputies.

However, the more I think about it, the more I agree with the current wording. I don't think that deputies need to be mentioned in the Constitution, and I think we can further define the process in the CoL.

 

[zorven]

DZ - if we leave the current wording, I could interpret it to mean that all positions need to be elected: leaders, deputies, election office, mayors, etc. I think we should expliciity state that leaders (we may have to list them or come up with a definition within the document) fall under this article without mentioning any other positions. Then we can deal with those other positions in the CoL.

 

[Stuck_as_a_Mac]

Keep this as is. As mentioned, put in a list if needed. I dont think ANY of us want to see monthly elections for mayors et all. Leaders should get a definition (of course, pending the pool on goverment size)

 

[DaveShack]

As currently written, "position" could extend all the way to dogcatcher. I agree, the exact positions which are subject to this article need to be spelled out.

 

[FortyJ]

I think that we should still conduct a poll on this issue with some other potential ideas.

• Status Quo
• Removal of Article - remove this in favor of branch-specific term durations (ie. 1 month for Exec, 45 days for Legislature, 2 months for Judiciary).
• Turn based Terms - replace the duration with turn-based durations instead of calendar-based.

We should do this to settle this issue officially, once and for all.

 

[ravensfire]

I'll concur with 40J.

With the "Leaders", I think we could provide further definitions in the CoL. The Constitution should use broad terms, allowing the lower levels of law to fill in the details.

With this in mind, I think the current article should stand, pending any change from the time vs turn poll.

-- Ravensfire

 

[GenMarshall]

I have one thing to say. I am against turn based turns. This is not the MSDG. This is the SPDG. I beleve that all leaders should have a term of One Calender Month

 

[Fier Canadien]

One month has always worked right and it will continue to do so.

 

[Bootstoots]

I am for status quo on the term length. As for this article, we should probably replace it with something like "all leader positions must be filled via election with terms lasting one calendar month."

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Sounds good to me, Boots.

@Forty, turn-based terms was defeated pretty handily in a recent informational poll. I would rather have it removed from the list of options the lessen the likeliness of a re-poll.

Also, I personally would rather have all elections at once, but would consider the possibility of retaining the judicial positions for two terms. This, of course, would change Boots' wording somewhat.

 

[Bootstoots]

I wouldn't be opposed to having judicial positions run for two terms, but I'm not really in favor of it either. I do think that we shouldn't repoll turn-based terms; I'd say we should consider that issue decided and make a decision on whether we should have two-month Judicial terms (or go with Oct's proposal from some time ago or a derivative).

 

[zorven]

Originally posted by Bootstoots
I am for status quo on the term length. As for this article, we should probably replace it with something like "all leader positions must be filled via election with terms lasting one calendar month."

I like this wording better,but I can't help but see a problem. Under one interpretation of this any vacancy would have to be filled by a specific election. That is a deputy would not be able to assume the job. How about wording like:

"All elected positions shall have a term of one calendar month."

Then we can define the elected positions and address vacancies and absent leaders in the CoL.

 

[Octavian X]

For definistion's sake, it's likely we should rewrite that article to include info about appointments/deputies.

 

[DaveShack]

Strictly speaking, a "term of one calendar month" means one month from the date the election closes. What we really want is:

All leaders are elected to a term which starts upon closure of the election poll, and ends on the last day of the month. The effective time of the start of the term for regular elections is 1201AM Forum Time.

 

[zorven]

DaveShack - are you saying it should say terms start at the end of elections? What if we change the election schedule as has been discussed to include time between the end of elections and the beginning of the month? I think if you want to get more specific in this area it should go in the CoL.