MIA Leaders - What to do and how to do it. (Citizen discussion and law proposal)

[disorganizer]

anohter idea:
the missing leader must be pm'ed by the president or vice when missing for 4 days. he then has 3 days to react left. if he doesnt react, he is removed from office. if he reacts and has an excuse and tells a time he comes back, a interim replacament in appointed by him or the president.

 

[Falcon02]

I agree that the Leader should have the right to dismiss a missing or unhelpful deputy. However, such a dismissal would require Citizen approval.

 

[Falcon02]

good Idea Disorganizer

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Cyc
If you recall, Civanator was not heard from for the first week after the elections. Then he popped in and said he was leaving for another week and didn't appoint an acting Governor. So basically for the first two weeks of his tenure as Govenor, he posted a build queue of one improvement and then dumped his Province on the Domestic Department.

Are we talking about Kashmir? If so Civanator opened the thread on July 1. It was last edited on July 6 and contains build queues that are three and four builds deep. Once these queues are entered in the game there really is no need for new queues until the last thing is completed or an emergency comes up. Am I missing something?

 

[Falcon02]

I think Donsig has a point.

Also, if a Governor leaves a long enough Build Queue, it can remain in place w/o the need of a replacement. If an Emergency comes up the queues could be overridden temporarily.

 

[Lovro]

Hello.

I have been away (phisically) for the first week of July, and due to other RL matters (temporarily moved my office) and fora downtime have been unable to post for the last few days.

I am trying to catch up and am hoping to serve the second half of my domestic deputiness in office, working.

 

[Shaitan]

I like disorganizer's idea as well. If a leader is out, unannounced, for 4 days the Pres PM's them. If they do not respond within 3 days they can be removed from office. Filling the office is then done according to established rules.

How about the same with deputies? Or something similar? If a deputy is in a leadership roll then the leader rules apply. That is, if the leader is absent, the deputy assumes control of the department. At that point the deputy would be subject to the 4 day absence, 3 day response rule.

A leader should also be able to fire their deputy. This should be done via poll.

I also think that any leader who is going to be absent for 2 weeks or longer should step down or be removed. Any leader who is going to be absent for 1 week or longer MUST set up a replacement (Judiciary Pro-Tem, Deputy, Acting Governor) or be removed. At an absolute minimum, deputy appointment should be reassigned when a leader is absent.

Yes, governors MAY be able to set a build queue at the beginning of the term and never touch it. A decent build queue CAN last several turns, at least. There ARE ways to get around a missing governor to fix their abandoned mess. So what? This all ignores the fact that governors are elected to a position of trust and are expected to perform their duties. If they won't or can't do this then they do not deserve to have that position.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Shaitan
Yes, governors MAY be able to set a build queue at the beginning of the term and never touch it. A decent build queue CAN last several turns, at least. There ARE ways to get around a missing governor to fix their abandoned mess. So what? This all ignores the fact that governors are elected to a position of trust and are expected to perform their duties. If they won't or can't do this then they do not deserve to have that position.

Any elected official deserves to have his or her position because of the very fact that he or she was elected. If the citizens feel an official has been neglecting his or her duties then the citizens can refuse to re-elect that official.

We took a big step in reducig the size of the constitution in an effort to stream-line the rules. We would be going against this spirit by enacting more rules for removing and replacing officials.

 

[Cyc]

I totally agree with Shaitan here. Absentism Leadership should not be a permitted goal in Phoenatica. Checking your mail before heading for the pool should not be the roll of a Leader, Governor, or Deputy. If people do not want to expend the energy to fulfill their Government rolls, then maybe we should be thinking about reducing the size of the Government.

That said...Lovro, I'm glad to see you. Welcome back. I know what changing offices can be like. I'll send you a PM.

 

[Shaitan]

Unfortunately, we truly have little knowledge of our candidates unless they have been in office before. I can name a dozen people that I will always vote for because they take the time to do their duty. Some offices are filled because one person showed up. Some offices are a contest between unknowns. We don't have the real life history and reporting of candidates here so it's unfair to saddle the game with a loser leader when they've shown evidence that they do not consider the position worthy of their time and think so little of the rest of us that they do not even post a message regarding their absence.

 

[Octavian X]

I think that the standards for determining if a leader is absent should be much more harsh than what has already been proposed. When a candidate is elected, he is taking on the responsiblity of being a leader, and must be as active as possible. Thus, a leader with an unexcused absent should be determined absent sooner, and with a harder punishment.

 

[Lovro]

Originally posted by Cyc
I know what changing offices can be like. I'll send you a PM.

Err... Yeah, I meant my 'domestic deputy office'.

My bad, I shouldn't have mixed RL talk with roleplay.

 

[Shaitan]

Any other comments? I'll post a poll proposal tomorrow, barring new options being presented for discussion.

 

[Shaitan]

The proper place for this rule will be a Standard. As such, no poll is needed. However, as I'm not part of the Executive Branch I cannot initiate a vote on Standards and this proposal will need a new sponsor. Any takers? If none of the Cabinet wishes to sponsor this as a revision of Standards we can go ahead and pursue making it a Law.

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

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.

Note that the wording will protect "light use" leaders such as a governor who sets a build queue that simply isn't changed for several turns as the unannounced absence clause (point 2) only takes effect if the leader has not responded to a required inquiry in over a week.

 

[Chieftess]

What happens if you start the process and they come back? (i.e., right in the middle of selecting a new governor).

 

[donsig]

Well, it may be a little late, but yeah, I have a comment or two.

First of all, let me quote from our new constitution:

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

Here is the constitution.

Since there is nothing in the constitution about replacing officials there is no constitutional basis for the suggested changes. So, this begs the question of judicial review. Was this change formally reviewed by the judiciary? This leads to another question, what good is judicial review when it is the Chief Justice writing the bulk of the laws? I do not mean to suggest that Shaitan is abusing his new office but is there not an obvious conflict of interest here?

To get back to the propsed standard, this is the democarcy game and there can be no democracy without elections. While it is true that we have little to go on when voting for individuals we must still learn to live with the results! When we start giving the president discretionary power to remove government officials we are tampering with the very foundations of democracy!

 

[Almightyjosh]

Yeah, but we then have more elections and choose a new leader. In many ways this is far superior to the 'vote and leave them be' route thaken in countries where people are ignorant and apathetic, like America (sorry). Leaders who are not leading don't deserve to be leaders. Sure we need to take care when using the power to dismiss a missing leader, but it is a power we need to have. Otherwise the poistions are filled in all but name by others, who were NOT elected to the position. An ousted leader can always stand for the postion again!!

 

[Myartar]

Except for the attack on my personal character, I agree with josh here. If a leader isn't here to carry out the duty they were elected for, they shouldn't be in office. In the case of govenors, if we leave them there, the control of that province will fall to the domestic department or the president(not sure which) and then we'll have less self-rule in that province. We should be able to get MIA leaders out and active ones in to be sure we have a more active role being played by citizens.

 

[donsig]

If you want self rule in your province you are free to post discussions and/or polls on specific build queues for your province. This can be done whether the governor is absent, active or otherwise. If absent, then the citizens build queues should be implemented without any problem. If the governor is active and submits build queues contrary to the wishes of the citizens (as expressed in citizen discussions or polls) then there is a constitutional basis for removing the governor.
I have heard alot of talk about self-rule and doing things according to the will of the people but have seen very little action on the part of the people. Even when a governor is active there is little input from the people.

 

[Cyc]

Donsig, I'm listening to the will of the people now, and I hear that they don't want to bend over backwards and jump through hoops to get build queues posted. They want Govenors who care.