[CONCORDAT AMENDMENT] No Confidance Motion

The Magisterium
, ,
1

Hello Honorable Magisters, I bring you a discreet amendment to our Concordat and the creation of the No confidance Motion.

This is how my changes would look:

Article B: Legislative

Section 9

The Magisterium may suspend the Delegate, a Vizier, or an Arbiter by a 2/3 vote for suspicion of indictable crimes or, abuse of power., inactivity, dereliction of duty or by motion of no confidence. This suspension, with the exception of cases where there is a motion of no confidence approved, shall be considered an Indictment for the named offence or offences as prosecuted by the Provost. Suspension shall be lifted by any non-guilty decision of the Conclave or by majority vote of the Magisterium.

Section 10

The Magisterium may remove an Arbiter by a â…” majority for abuse of power, inactivity, or dereliction of duty.

Section 1110

Should a spelling, grammar, naming, or formatting (in relation to the rest of the legislation’s format) error exist in the Concordat or statutory law, the Provost may make a discretionary direct edit to correct said error, so long as such an edit does not change the legal effect of the legislation. Such edits shall always be announced and recorded in a public area. The Conclave may reverse any edit that violates this clause by a 2/3 majority vote.

Section 1211

Any Magister may motion, with support from another Magister, to remove the Provost for misuse of their ability to make discretionary edits via a 1/2 majority vote - a successful motion shall initiate the vote with the Provost being suspended solely for the vote’s duration.

[…]

Article D: Security

[…]

Article E: Motion of No Confidence

Section 1

A Vote of No Confidence is made when a Voter or Magister loses faith in the governance of the elected Delegate and wishes to express their dissatisfaction or discontent with their performance in office. Therefore, it should not, under any circumstances, be used for purposes of political rivalry.

Section 2

The no confidance motion can be initiated by any Magister, should be supported by another one, and needs to be accepted by 2/3 of the Magisterium if initiated by a Magister. If the motion of no confidence is taken against the Delegate by any Magister, and the Magisterium vote for, a referendum must be conducted for public consultation, requiring the majority acceptance of the registered voters.

Section 3

A no confidence vote may also be initiated by any Registered Voter, but only against the Delegate, must be supported by another one, and must be accepted by an absolute majority of the Voters. In this case, the Delegate is dismissed immediately after approval by the Voters.

Section 4

There will be no explicit limit to how many Motions of No Confidence can be made, however, their excessive use in a way that obstructs, delays or causes unnecessary friction may be reported to the Magisterium’s Moderation, who will take the appropriate measures in accordance with the rules.

Section 5

For motions of no confidence against Viziers and Arbiters, members of the affiliated branch may not be sponsors of the motion.

[…]

Article E F: Citizenship and Residency

[…]

Article F G: Rights and Duties of Citizens

[…]

Article G H: The Administration

[…]

Article H I: Regional Name and Emblem

[…]

Article I J: Enactment and Amendment

[…]

What do you think about it and what can be changed?

2

Is the plebiscite necessary?

1 Like
3

Well, we can discuss that. Do you think it’s unnecessary?

4

This way of removing inactive officials is wasteful and long-winded. A referendum for each removal of an official is completely over the top.

We already have measures for removing inactive Magisters, Viziers, and Arbiters. The only thing we miss is removing an inactive Delegate.

A simpler solution would be making inactivity and dereliction of duty an indictable offence. This would also allow us to cut down on language in the Concordat and other laws as well.

I support this option over a no confidence system.

5

THIS is common-sense legislature and should’ve been done 20 years ago. Unfortunately, our forefathers knew not of the future by any stretch of the imagination

6

Looks good. This is what I’m used to in Thaecia, which is not TEP, but yeah

7

I think the first part of the amendment is good, and I’m a little surprised we did not have such measures in place previously.

I’m not that keen on a plebiscite for every motion, though.

8

I don’t think a plebiscite is necessary. The Magisterium is the one that confirms officials, so it makes sense that the Magisterium can remove that confidence. The only official I argue needs a plebiscite by the voters is the Delegate, since the voters elect the Delegate.

9

I agree with Zuk here, even over vussul’s proposal. Making Delegate inactivity - which I see as slightly different from dereliction of duty - an indictable offense removes the voter from the equation. A plebiscite for removing the Delegate would remedy that. The voters may prefer an inactive Delegate to the alternative.

10

Okay, so I’m going to make the plebscite only necessary when the Delegate is the target of a no-confidence vote, since they is elected by the voters, unlike the other positions mentioned, since they need the approval of the Magisterium.

11

Changes made, check it out!

12

A welcomed change, but what’s to keep a Magister from spamming no confidence motions?

1 Like
13

This is a very interesting thing…
Do you have any idea?

14

Maybe something like this?
“Each member of the Magisterium shall have the right to initiate a single motion of no-confidence per term for each position, whether it be the Delegate, a Vizier, or an Arbiter.”
Or maybe only two motions?

15

Making dereliction of duty and inactivity an indictable offense is a sensible alternative any of this.

I don’t see why we should have the registered voters take a vote to confirm the Delegate’s removal from office if they’re charged with dereliction or inactivity. If they’re inactive or derelict their office, they already lose their right to rule. Let it be decided by trial. A vote to confirm is just bureaucracy.

1 Like
16

Look, actually the plebscite would only be necessary in case of a motion of no confidence made by the Magisterium against the Delegate. If the Delegate is removed for crime, inactivity or dereliction of duty, there is no plebscite.

17

I think it would be alright to have both pathways open.

The court can remove officials who commit crimes anyways, so it does make sense to have inactivity and/or dereliction of duty be an indictable offense (as proposed by Silvae in the current draft).

However, I still think having it so that the voter’s have an opportunity to confirm a Delegate’s removal is a neato thing. Inefficiency is not always an inherently bad thing, and I still think it makes extreme logical sense to have a pathway wherein the individuals who elect an official can recall them.

It also gives us another path to complete the same action, incase one path (in this case, the court) is for some reason not really working out - say the court’s being inactive or making a decision the community disagrees with (we have seen this play out recently for a different matter and in 2016 - wouldn’t be the first time).

1 Like
18

So do you think the current project is well defined?

19

I decided to add this because, not always, a vote of no-confidence is an Indictment, as there is not always a crime in it.

20

i tyhiiiink it looks good but im studying for a test rn so would hvae to look later

1 Like