In addition to the objections and dissent made by Vessul against my proposal, is anyone else against the proposal or has something to add to the discussion?
I can see dereliction being an indictable offense, with perhaps sentencing including being barred from office for a period of time and/or removed from office, but inactivity should not be a crime IMO.
My proposal:
Three Registered Voters may present a motion of no confidence, citing reasons for their motion. This initiates a discussion like any bill proposal. Any of the three Co-Sponsors may motion to vote. A Magister must second the motion. The Magisterium goes through a majority vote. If it passes, a Referendum is held.
Caveats:
- For VoNCs of Viziers and Arbiters, members of the affiliated branch may not be sponsors of the motion. I don’t want it to be like getting rid of coworkers you don’t agree with. I’d say this for the Delegate, too, but the Executive branch is an eldritch mass of staffers and there’s very few gov folks not involved.
- For VoNCs of Arbiters, the affected Arbiter may not preside over the referendum.
You mentioned good things. However, I think it unnecessary, if the motion of no confidence is proposed by a Registered Voter, that it be approved by the Magisterium. After all, the Delegate is not necessarily elected by us, but by the Voters.
Incidentally, the Referendum is only held in cases of VoNC against the Delegate. Otherwise, there is no Referendum, only the will of the Magisterium.
I included it!
yeah but every other referendum goes through the Magisterium first and i think its easier and better to have that as a check on the ppl. otherwise three coupers can go “VoNC” and between whatever story they might fabricate and the general tendency of NSers to glance at something and just vote for, they may cause serious damage
ohhhh okay nvm lol
1 Like
awesome
1 Like
All right, so thanks for your input!
Anyone else want to add something or object?
I intend to support this should it come to a vote.
I wish to move this propose to vote.
Just for the record: I think having motions of no confidence - as proposed here - serves no real need in our system, and it’s an invitation to instability.
Anyway, I’m not a Magister, so I trust our Magisters to give this proposal proper consideration.
I have to disagree. The Magisterium is more politically active and can sometimes notice things that few people do, as Magisters are active in politics on a day-to-day basis.
Because of this, the motion of no confidence was moved: so that the Magisterium can expose the things it saw that may not have transpired to the Electors and Citizens.
It’s not about instability, it’s about having better trained people, committed and willing to really change TEP for the better on the Delegate chair.
Just highlighting so that if anyone reviews this proposal, pay attention to this. Hope some of you can support. Thanks.
There are enough instruments in the Concordat and TEP law as it stands to address this type of situation, without the downside of destabilizing the other branches to this extend.
I second the motion to vote.
1 Like
Comets
Article B, Section 9
none
Article E
Section 1
Therefore, it should not, under any circumstances, be used for purposes of political rivalry.
How do you plan to enforce this, exactly?
Section 2
This doesn’t fit the vibe of the Concordat. The Magisterium does not “accept” anything, we vote on it (intitiated by a 2/3 vote). The Magisterium already has procedures for proposing Magisterial action.
Also, what kind of majority are you talking about for the registered voters? Simple majority? 2/3s?
Section 3
What is an “absolute majority”? The language here is also suspect, while the citizenry does not have formal procedures for proposing and seconding, the usage of the word “supported” is weird.
Section 4
What is the “Magisterium’s Moderation”? What are the “rules” that this “Moderation” will draw the approrpiate measures from? Why is there no explicit limit to the number of Motions of No Confidence?
Section 5
Sure
I… don’t agree with your reasoning here, tbh. I am a big proponent of nuking the Delegate out of existence if they do bad (sorry Altys love ya), but this does go too far. The biggest hole I see is this: who actually will host this? The Praesidium? The Conclave? Us? When a citizen motions for no confidence, who holds the vote to do so?
I can see the merit of giving the citizenry the tools to remove a Delegate if they need to, however this adds too many holes into the accountability of all of the different branches for it to be effective.
This kind of accountability, where the reasoning behind any checks comes from knowledge that only they have, can devolve into a “he said, she said” situation, and that is not the kind of accountability I want. Instead, the kind of accountability we need to strive for is Transparancy, so that everyone is informed on their rights, and what they can do to hold the leaders accountable.
Acknowledged.
Vote here: [CA-2023-33] Proposal for Amendment to the Concordat - Motions of No Confidence