#1 Citizenship Council Term Limits

Post by **sedge** » 01 Mar 2015, 15:18

I don't have a view on term limits, but I do know something needs to change with the Citizenship Council. Fratt is the only fully active member, and Wham only somewhat active, and TT barely. It's holding up citizenship apps, despite Fratt's best efforts, and that puts people off getting involved here.

Kogvuron · Post by **Kogvuron** » 01 Mar 2015, 15:35

Is there any mechanism to remove members of the CC?

Post by **Guy** » 01 Mar 2015, 17:41

@Kog: Yes, but it requires one-fifth of the citizens to sign a petition demanding a vote, then a two-thirds vote in favour of removal.

I know the previous idea was discussed beforehand on IRC, for which there seemed to be relative support:

- At the end of their term, Councillors would be due in for a reconfirmation vote (which requires the same 2/3 majority as confirmation)

- If they are confirmed, they continue serving. If not, the position becomes vacant, and to be nominated in the usual way (by Delegate, Officer or Speaker). The same person could be nominated, but the nominee would again require a 2/3 vote for confirmation.

Cormac · Post by **Cormac** » 01 Mar 2015, 18:56

I would be comfortable with just simple term limits or Guy's suggestion, but agreed that this needs to change if we're having trouble keeping two of the three Councilors active.

Post by **Libetarian Republics** » 01 Mar 2015, 19:07

This problem has somewhat existed since I applied for citizenship here. Lots of nagging got me in.

I like the idea of a reconfirmation vote rather than a election altogether. The tenure for the position, however, should remain long term.

Opressed Ones · Post by **Opressed Ones** » 01 Mar 2015, 19:16

I think it will help to show the current constitutional procedures:
Ahem.... From the constitution:

Article 6: The Citizenship Council

A: The Citizenship Council shall be composed of three Councillors who must be citizens of The Rejected Realms.
B: One Councillor shall be appointed by the Delegate and one by the Officer with the longest continuous tenure as citizen. The manner of selection of the third Councillor shall be prescribed by the Assembly. Each appointment shall be subject to a confirmation in the Assembly, which requires a two-thirds majority vote.
C: Any citizen may initiate a petition calling for the removal of a Councillor. Once such a petition is signed by one-fifth of citizens, a vote shall be held in the Assembly to remove the Councillor. Removal requires a two-thirds vote.
D: Once appointed, a Councillor shall serve until their resignation, loss of citizenship or removal from office. A vacancy shall be filled in the same manner as the outgoing Councillor was appointed.
E: The Citizenship Council shall be responsible for the approval of citizenship applications, the retraction of citizenship of individuals who are no longer eligible or pose a security risk, and the maintenance of an active list of citizens.

Opressed Ones · Post by **Opressed Ones** » 01 Mar 2015, 19:19

I have a question for this: Who is the current
-Officer-appointed
-Delegate-appointed
-Assembly-appointed
councilor?
I couldn't find anything.
Also, something that is leading to problems:
The speaker, officers, and the delegate are publicly displayed. The councilors aren't. I think lots of citiziens don't even know the names of them. So... not surprising that nothing happens.

Post by **Guy** » 01 Mar 2015, 19:21

Delegate-appointed: TT
Officer-appointed: Fratt
Speaker-appointed: Wham

Opressed Ones · Post by **Opressed Ones** » 01 Mar 2015, 19:29

We really need to change the removal procedure. 16 citiziens would be required to sign, and i'd say that changing our constitution would probably need less approval.

Post by **Guy** » 01 Mar 2015, 19:40

One-fifth was enacted when we only had ~50 citizens, and 20 of them regularly voted on stuff. So it was the equivalent of a majority on most votes. I agree it should be reduced, maybe just require 10 citizens as an example.

It should be remembered that removal is a fairly extraordinary step. I'd prefer we enacted terms rather than regularly utilised it.

Opressed Ones · Post by **Opressed Ones** » 01 Mar 2015, 20:39

Guy wrote:
01 Mar 2015, 17:40
One-fifth was enacted when we only had ~50 citizens, and 20 of them regularly voted on stuff. So it was the equivalent of a majority on most votes. I agree it should be reduced, maybe just require 10 citizens as an example.

It should be remembered that removal is a fairly extraordinary step. I'd prefer we enacted terms rather than regularly utilised it.

Maybe someone should just step up and fill a petitition in the Assembly.

Edit:I just did it myself after seeing the recent problems with the applications.

How about 6 months?

Post by **frattastan** » 01 Mar 2015, 22:30

Guy wrote:It should be remembered that removal is a fairly extraordinary step. I'd prefer we enacted terms rather than regularly utilised it.

Pretty much. I feel citizens are more likely to start a recall or support it because of misconduct than inactivity, which can less visible, harder to assess, or more tolerated.

I imagine Councillors were originally supposed to serve for an indefinite time/until resignation to guarantee continuity and independence of action, but it can become a problem with activity of players changing after years.
I'm okay with introducing a term (not term limits, which is the max. number of terms someone can serve for) following what Guy posted, provided it's long enough: 18 months? Ideally, I was envisioning it to be long enough that the average Councillor's activity would be dropping and affecting their work (assuming inactivity would be the main reason not to re-confirm someone).

6 months seems more a term length suited for a political/government office than an administrative/security one: most of our Delegates have served longer than that, and could politicise the office too much (affecting the Council's behaviour around "election time", prompting older citizens to run for Officer or Speaker only to have a chance at appointing one of the Councillors, etc.).

EDIT: As for tweaking the petition/recall system, I have no suggestions but it sounds good to me.

Post by **Libetarian Republics** » 01 Mar 2015, 23:12

How about staggered terms? (One councilor up for reconfirmation every 6 months.) I don't like the idea of potentially replacing the members of the CC being replaced in one segment.

Opressed Ones · Post by **Opressed Ones** » 02 Mar 2015, 00:39

Libetarian Republics wrote:
01 Mar 2015, 21:12
How about staggered terms? (One councilor up for reconfirmation every 6 months.) I don't like the idea of potentially replacing the members of the CC being replaced in one segment.

I actually like that idea. What we need in addition is a clearly visible page telling everyone who the councilors actually are. If we want to have yearly elections, we could run elections for every councilor(Delegate-appointed, Officer-appointed and Speaker-appointed) on a fixed date (like, for example,2nd of January for Speaker-appointed, 2nd of May for Officer-appointed, 2nd of September for Delegate-appointed)
That shouldn't cause any confusion.

Cormac · Post by **Cormac** » 02 Mar 2015, 05:07

Here's an alternative option:

Assembly-appointed: Fixed term.
Delegate-appointed: A newly elected Delegate can appoint a new Councilor (with confirmation).
Speaker-appointed: A newly elected Speaker can appoint a new Councilor (with confirmation).
3/4 vote to remove a Councilor, no petition process.

Post by **Guy** » 02 Mar 2015, 07:13

I don't want a new Councilor every 4-8 months, if we introduce new terms.

I don't particularly care whether terms are staggered or not. I think I could support simply having three votes every 1 May (it's coming up soon, not alongside Officer elections, and early January is a bit of an awkward time). I could similarly support a vote every six months, though that can get rather messy as dates then alternate (e.g. if you were 1 May first time around, you'd be 1 November the second time.)

Article 6: The Citizenship Council
A: The Citizenship Council shall be composed of three Councillors who must be citizens of The Rejected Realms.

B: One Councillor shall be appointed by the Delegate and one by the Officer with the longest continuous tenure as citizen. The manner of selection of the third Councillor shall be prescribed by the Assembly. Each appointment shall be subject to a confirmation in the Assembly, which requires a two-thirds majority vote.

C: Any citizen may initiate a petition calling for the removal of a Councillor. Once such a petition is signed by ~~one-fifth of~~ ten citizens, a vote shall be held in the Assembly to remove the Councillor. Removal requires a two-thirds vote.

D: Once appointed, a Councillor shall serve until their resignation, loss of citizenship, removal from office or failure of reconfirmation vote. A vacancy shall be filled in the same manner as the outgoing Councillor was appointed.

E: Every 1 May, all current Councillors shall be subject to reconfirmation votes. Reconfirmation requires two-thirds majority. If a Councillor is not reconfirmed, the position shall became vacant.

F: The Citizenship Council shall be responsible for the approval of citizenship applications, the retraction of citizenship of individuals who are no longer eligible or pose a security risk, and the maintenance of an active list of citizens.

Post by **Guy** » 02 Mar 2015, 13:16

How would a removal vote be initiated, Unibot? At the request of any citizen?

Post by **Guy** » 03 Mar 2015, 04:31

I'm more comfortable with ten citizens and 2/3rds, to be honest. Ten is not a very high bar. But if the citizenry would rather change it to 1 citizen and 3/4ers, I can live with it.

Cormac · Post by **Cormac** » 03 Mar 2015, 06:37

I actually agree with Unibot on this. I think most of our citizens are responsible enough not to frivolously propose this, and it will require a 3/4 majority for removal -- so at most, a frivolous removal vote will just be an unnecessary vote that will fail.

Post by **Guy** » 03 Mar 2015, 09:04

Right, but I think that 1) 10 citizens should be obtainable, considering that if 13 people vote (which is less than what we usually get) a three-quarters vote is 10; and the petition can be open indefinitely;

2) Three-quarters is a massive majority. You could amend the constitution with that.

Regardless, it a fairly minor point.

Opressed Ones · Post by **Opressed Ones** » 03 Mar 2015, 15:46

Guy wrote:
03 Mar 2015, 07:04
Right, but I think that 1) 10 citizens should be obtainable, considering that if 13 people vote (which is less than what we usually get) a three-quarters vote is 10; and the petition can be open indefinitely;

2) Three-quarters is a massive majority. You could amend the constitution with that.

Regardless, it a fairly minor point.

You have to do something wrong or to be inactive if you don't get even one third of the votes.
If a large majority of citiziens doesn't want a councilor, why shouldn't they be able to remove?

Opressed Ones · Post by **Opressed Ones** » 03 Mar 2015, 15:50

Opressed Ones wrote:
03 Mar 2015, 13:46
Guy wrote:
03 Mar 2015, 07:04
Right, but I think that 1) 10 citizens should be obtainable, considering that if 13 people vote (which is less than what we usually get) a three-quarters vote is 10; and the petition can be open indefinitely;

2) Three-quarters is a massive majority. You could amend the constitution with that.

Regardless, it a fairly minor point.
You have to do something wrong or to be inactive if you don't get even one third of the votes.
If a large majority of citiziens doesn't want a councilor, why shouldn't they be able to remove?
We could waive the 10 citiziens requirement for officers and/or the delegate.

Post by **Guy** » 03 Mar 2015, 15:53

I'm ... not sure at all what you're trying to say.

Currently, the two alternative proposals are:

1) Initiating a removal vote requiring 10 citizens signing a petition, and removal itself needing two-thirds of votes; or

2) Any citizen can initiate a removal vote, and removal requiring three-quarters of votes.

I think that (2), which is what Unibot suggested, could lead to either unnecessary removal votes without citizenry support; or alternatively, giving the Speaker far too much discretion.

I also think that two-thirds vote should be enough for removal.

Opressed Ones · Post by **Opressed Ones** » 04 Mar 2015, 18:05

unibot wrote:
04 Mar 2015, 01:01
The suggestion of 3/4's vote is to combat your claims that citizens would start recalling people willy-nilly if there wasn't a petition system. In all reality, your claims that a petition system are necessary are unfounded - we already have a challenge system for every other office in TRR and it is hardly used as is - and discussions of removing officers and delegates who go inactive usually only occur when the problem has gotten so bad, it's obvious from outer space. I don't see any reason to believe we would take the new luxury of no-petitions-required and start recalling people for no reason out of a sudden new craving to recall people.

If you would prefer 2/3s vote + no petitions, I would be fine with that proposal too.

Yes, but even for a challenge, you need at least the support of one citizien.
For delegate, it's two citiziens.

Post by **Guy** » 04 Mar 2015, 18:55

And of course, with removal, you don't have to put your hand up and say "I'll do it!" which is a major disincentive to challenge.