Yeah that’s what it is now, every six months no matter what, unless someone was appointed within a month of re-confirmation in which case they last until the next.
I removed the quorum requirement from the amendment. Magisterium quorum is determined by SOM, Conclave can determine if they want quorum or not.
Based on your argument it seems that not only do you oppose automatic re-confirmation, but you oppose all re-confirmation. Because nothing is added here that wouldn’t already be done. Without this, Conclave is essentially a life term. The idea of having an Arbiter go on forever without re-confirming because the Delegate or Magisterium is too lazy or busy to do it doesn’t sit right with me. Yet the worst part about the current system isn’t that Arbiters stay longer than intended. The worst part is that the Delegate can neglect re-confirmation, and then leave any Arbiter they want in a constant state of limbo and then, if that Arbiter makes a decision the Delegate disagrees with, the Delegate can pull the rug out from under them and IMMEDIATELY replace them with a new nominee. It hasn’t happened, but it definitely could and there’s really no good reason to let that be a thing the Delegate can do since the entire point is to have six month terms that can be renewed.
If I’m perfectly honest, Zuk’s system sounds less bureaucratic than the current system, and is definitely less dangerous.
Vizier Mangegneithe, Arbiters are not left in limbo. They sit and are active and legalised Arbiters until their replacement. Your amendment does not fix political appointments. The Delegate will still be able to nominate others when the term of an Arbiter is exactly up.
Your amendment just adds bureaucracy. It does not streamline the government and make it function smoother or fix an issue. It gives the Magisterium busy work. I oppose any unneeded bureaucracy.
Actually, no, my amendment in its current form only lets the Delegate replace an Arbiter that has resigned or been rejected by the Magisterium. And ftr, I meant limbo as in “Can be replaced at any time”. Which is true. Ik they are still arbiters and act as such.
I don’t see how this adds any more work than exists in its current form tbh. Either there’s a misunderstanding in the wording of my amendment or you are advocating for Arbiter life terms. Which is something I’m not going to do here but you can propose on your own. There’s always re-confirmation bureaucracy. This is the same amount of bureaucracy as the current Concordat requires. It’s just more organized and less subject to the whims of the Delegate.
Imagine if, instead of renominating the arbiters near the beginning of my term, I held off. And, when the Concrisis happened, I replaced Wall with AMOM or smth. I mean, and I’m ashamed to admit it, it’s something I may have actually done. I would have exerted my power as Delegate in order to force the courts to make a ruling I agreed with instead of one the Court found fitting. Instead, I renominated the court as soon as I could and it was necessary. And what happened? We had to wait months until they could be replaced. Months that were spent cooling the passions that had raged during the Concrisis.
I missed this sentence. Ignore me.
I have disagreements but I’ve exhausted myself in chasing this up. I will let others discuss your idea now.
I motion this amendment to a vote of the Magisterium.
I second the motion to vote.