New Rules for Absenteeism?

[Bill_in_PDX]

This discussion relates to an issue that has plagued us this term. The problem involve absentee leaders who don't appoint temporary fill-in's, or have deputies in place.

In our current situation, two key leaders have been significantly absent, and the appropriate leaders have chosen two different ways of dealing with it, and I think neither one is ideal for the people of our nation.

In the case of the leader currently being PI'd, even if we hit every deadline exactly on time, there is a 48 hour discussion period, a 72 hour trial poll period, and a 72 hour sentencing period. That's 8 days, if there is no discussion or disagreement, before the President will be empowered to appoint a replacement.

In the case of a judiciary member who has been absent, the leader there (me) has the ability (thanks to laws specifically written allowing it) to step into that role during an absence. Rather than take the eight days to get a PI conviction, I chose the route of appointing a Pro Tem, and even though I am still seeking approval for that appointment, it should come sooner than the PI route. Now, the problem with my approach is that if the JA returns, he can reassume his position since I have not forced an impeachment on him.

In both of these cases, the responsibilities of these departments are going partially attended, and that is bad for the people.

I would like to discuss our options here on a couple of levels.

First - Should we give the President authority to appoint "pro tem" officials as needed when someone exceeds a reasonable absentee period with no back up in place. If so, what is a reasonable period to actually install someone in the position?

Second - Should Absenteeism be covered by it's own law allowing for permanent replacement...say something like a week with no response?

What other ideas do the citizens have?

 

[Plexus]

I say missing two t/cs and not giving a reasonable reason for it is enough time to start a PI, once the PI is started and the leader has not responded, a interim leader will be appointed (if they do respond, they can go about their dutuies unless they refuse to do so). If the leader is booted out of office, the interim leader will become a full leader for the rest of the term, does this sound good?
[edit] just realised this was my 800th post! [/edit]

 

[BCLG100]

well i think missing 2 turn chats and posting else where results ina PI but if it has been 2 turn chats and they havnt posted anywhere i think it should wait another turn chat cos they might have got sick or something

 

[Plexus]

that is a special case (sickness), but they should still be PIed... or atleast put a interim leader in the office.

 

[BCLG100]

well maybe we should hold off for 10 days or so because remember strider was in a car crash and out for that long but he didnt get pied and came back to his job might have been less than 10 days though but still

 

[Chieftess]

What about deputies? My deputy, Great Iguanaman, has been virtually non-existant.

 

[Plexus]

i haven't seen him in the rpg for a while... maybe you could choose another person to replace him... someone with out an office, someone who is experienced, someone who you have known since DG1... who ever could that be?? *hint, hint*

 

[Eklektikos]

It really doesn't matter whether the individual concerned has a good reason for leaving their post unattended. Their absence harms the game, and if they really do have a good reason for being unable to participate then they've probably got more important things on their mind than losing their leadership position.

Absenteeism is infact already covered by a "one week, no response, get booted by pres" law. The problem with NL has been that he's been active in the fora, but not doing the job he's supposed to, which made it impossible for me to use that on him

EDIT: I do like the idea of giving the pres the power to appoint a pro-tem leader if there is no deputy to do the work.

 

[eyrei]

Another option, which will relieve the political problems caused for the president when he/she has to boot someone from office, is to allow the mods to do it, but define very specific rules regarding when it is necessary.

The other way to do this, would be to simply have the entire council vote on whether to remove the leader, though there would still be some hard feelings in some cases, and it would take time.

I don't like the idea of having the president be the sole person responsible for this act, as he/she may have personal feelings on the matter and/or simply not want to get in the middle of it.

Anyway, just some suggestions. I must say I am frustrated the NL was not removed about a week ago...

As far as nominations, the president should choose who to appoint to the vacated post.

 

[Octavian X]

The problem lies in activity. If we set a certain number of days for forum inactivity, that's fine. But in cases like NL, where the leader has been posting, but not fulfulling the job, it's different. I will say that I would be against giving the President power to boot out active in forum, but ineffective leaders. PI's should be the only vehical to get rid of what some see as bad leaders.

Perhaps stricter unannounaced inacitvity periods might be better.

 

[eyrei]

The way I think we should define absent, is by using posts in the turn chat thread. If a leader has not posted for two turn chats, he/she should immediately be removed from office unless prior arrangements were made for someone to step in.

And, I agree, Octavian, a PI must be used to remove a 'poor' leader.

 

[Cyc]

This may be a little difficult to explain, but...the main reason we are pretty much disgusted with absentee Leaders is "lack of job performance". If they were always here and always posting and still doing a crappy job, then the absentee clause wouldn't apply. That would fall under "poor job performance", which would be as much our fault for electing them as it was their fault.

So "lack of job performance" is the key issue here. In dealing with this in a valid, lawful, binding way, I would propose the following: A three strikes/your out Program. By this I mean if any citizen notifies the President that the Leader is not fulfilling their position in terms of actual involvement in the issues, the President can issue a warning (Maybe the President could be authorized to issue warnings without the notification...) to the Leader. If the Leader gets three warnings, then we go to the next step, which could be P.I. or replacement with a pro-tem or removal from office.
Three strikes and yer out...

 

[Octavian X]

Looking at our current standards, perhaps a new law isn't needed.

Do turn chat threads count as official inquiries? If they are, then a leader, according to CoS Section J.2, could be applied. If we applied this, then NL could've been kicked out by now.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Octavian X
Looking at our current standards, perhaps a new law isn't needed.

Do turn chat threads count as official inquiries? If they are, then a leader, according to CoS Section J.2, could be applied. If we applied this, then NL could've been kicked out by now.

This is way to weak:

An official who has not responded to a required
inquiry in 7 days may be removed from their office
at the President's discretion.

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.

This timeline needs to be shortened considerably. If a leader is going to be absent for more than a couple days, the deputy or someone needs to be notified.

 

[Octavian X]

I was refering to:

J.2. An official is considering from the forum when they have not responded to a requried inquiry in 36 hours.

I do remember we had a debate over this last game...

 

[Cyc]

Quoting Octavian X:
I do remember we had a debate over this last game...


__________________

Yes, I was a major component in the effort to boot these deadbeats.

 

[Shaitan]

I'd say change the deadbeat time limits to:
An official who has not responded to a required
inquiry in 4 days may be removed from their office
at the President's discretion.

An official who is not present on the Forum for 7
consecutive days for any reason may be removed from
office at the President's discretion.

I'd also give the President the authority to appoint Deputies if the applicable Leader has not done so. Give the Leader 4 days to appoint a Dep. If they haven't done so by that time the Pres can step in.

Bad leaders are a different problem. I like the idea of a Vote of Confidence. Allow the President to initiate a Vote of Confidence under particular circumstances (Cyc's 3 strikes idea, some other criteria). The Vote is a 48 hour poll. If a supermajority (2/3) votes to remove the Leader, they are gone from office.

 

[Octavian X]

I'm against giving the President more power without council approval.

The council should give the president power to appoint the deputy, with subsequent standard congressional approval poll.

I don't like the vote of no confidence at all. The person in question needs to defend himself in a PI. PI's can could turn a person around. As we saw in the most recent one, NL just retired.

 

[Shaitan]

Yes, the Presidential appointment of a Deputy would work the same way as a Leader appointing one - that is, the appointee would need to be confirmed by the populous as Octavian noted.

The Vote of No Confidence carries a supermajority requirement (2/3) instead of a majority requirement. Remember also that a VoNC would not be possible until the Leader had already messed up bad enough to qualify for one.