Pursuant to Article C, Section 2, Paragraph 1 of the Concordat, discussion is immediately opened regarding the reconfirmation of all sitting Arbiters of the Conclave.
This discussion shall have the duration of 3 days ending on 2026-07-05T13:15:00Z
All five of the Conclave’s Arbiters are eligible to be re-nominated, as the most recent promotion, that of A Mean Old Man, occurred back in March.
Perhaps the first order would be to ask the sitting Viceroy @Shadow if there are any issues within the Arbiters (such as inactivity which led to the previous removal of an arbiter), that the Viceroy would like to bring up to the magi
I’d like to ask a few questions to better understand the process around the recent Concordat amendment referenda and, hopefully, identify ways we can improve communication between the Conclave and the Magisterium going forward.
Firstly, could I ask what led to the 20-day gap before the Conclave began the referendum on the recent Concordat amendments? I was also wondering why, when one of our Deputies asked for a tentative timeframe, the Magisterium wasn’t given an estimated date for when the referenda were expected to occur.
For what it’s worth, if the answer is simply that everyone was busy and it unintentionally slipped down the priority list, that’s completely understandable. It has certainly happened recently within the Office of the Provost as well. I’m mainly trying to understand whether the lack of communication (at least from my perspective) was simply an oversight or whether there were reasons for not providing an update at the time.
For example, was there an intention to run the referenda alongside the Archon elections to reduce the administrative burden? Or was the timing chosen to avoid extending terms too far before the next set of reconfirmations? If there were considerations like these, could I ask why that information wasn’t communicated back to the Magisterium? Even a brief update would have helped us understand what was happening.
I’d also appreciate any guidance from the Conclave on the most effective way for the Magisterium to request updates or follow up when we feel we’ve not received a response. For example:
Should requests for updates be made in a forum thread rather than by pinging the @Viceroy role on Discord?
Or is it preferable to do both?
Should we be directly pinging individual Arbiters whose input we’re seeking, rather than using the Viceroy or Arbiter roles?
The reason I’m asking is that communication with the Conclave has been raised as a recurring theme during several reconfirmation sessions. I’d like to use this as an opportunity to identify practical improvements, including any changes the Office of the Provost can make to our own processes, so that communication between our offices is as effective as possible.
Finally, I hope this comes across in the spirit it’s intended. My goal here is simply to better understand what happened and to see how we can improve communication in the future, not to assign blame or criticise anyone. If any of these questions seem unfair or based on an incorrect assumption, please let me know. I’d much rather reword or withdraw them than unnecessarily upset anyone.
My best guess is that we kinda just… forgot? And yeah, external priorities definitely got in the way (at least on my end - can’t guarantee the same for the others, as I don’t really know their situations)
However, I’m pretty sure only the Viceroy can open new referenda (if I’m wrong, please correct me), so as much as I wanted to I probably couldn’t.
I’d definitely say at least wait for the other Arbiters to give their opinions, that way you aren’t taking the word of only one of us
Regarding your question of who can open referenda, under the previous SOC, which was in effect at the time, the Viceroy was required to appoint a Viceroy Designee who could undertake the Viceroy’s duties when tasked by the Viceroy, and who would assume those duties if the Viceroy was absent for more than two days. So, while the pool of people can can open new referrenda is limited, it can extend to beyond just the Viceroy.
I’m not sure if that’s the case under the current SOC though.
I think the issue is that the office of the Viceroy is pretty much a one-man show, and from time to time, the Viceroy is just busy.
The designee (me) can only act in case of absence, removal or resignation, in Conclave-related matters. It’s an emergency take-over, not a deputy position. And I tend to have busy weeks too.
This is not to critize our current Viceroy. That office has historically been run, always, as somewhat on it’s own, also because it has duties not related to the Conclave.
Strictly speaking, the Conclave doesn’t run elections or referenda. Only the Viceroy does. So as Arbiters that’s simply not, under the Concordat, within our purview.
But, I can say, if you want to communicate with me, just PM me on Discord.
Due to the passage of [N-2026-41/42/43/44/45] Reconfirmation of Arbiters (July 2026), this topic has been closed per the Standing Orders of the Magisterium. If further discussions are desired on this matter, please contact a member of the Office of the Provost to unlock this topic.