Reframing the Citizenship Office

The Magisterium
1

Ever since Ive been in TEP, Citizenship applications work like this: one unfortunate sod takes up the task then burns out after a year, upon which another unfortunate sod takes up the role and repeat ad nauseum to infinity.

I really dont think it should be this way.

The main thing I think our current system does to facilitate this is that, from a legal standpoint, it shares the burden of citizenship applications among the Prae - a large group of people who have a multitude of other tasks that are integral to our system. Its thus impossible to hold anyone accountable for not doing citizenship apps, because its a relatively backend duty that is only the primary duty of the Magisterium-nominated Citizenship officials, who just get forgotten about when they stop doing anything.

In my mind, the way to fix this is to reframe the Citizenship Office so that a burden of responsibility exists on three appointed members. Nominated by the GV, confirmed by the Magi, and chsxked in by the Magi every 6 months or 1 yr or so like how Arbiters are now. Viziers can maintain ex-officio membership to help out as needed, but it wont be their primsry responsibikity (unless a Vizier wishes to become a Cit Official by going througj the nomination process). GV still leads the office and has a final say on apps if nessecary, but generally takes on a more managerial role and doesnt deal with most apps.

I believe this would help us create a better cit system because it lays the explicit job at the feet of a few select people, thus spreading the responsibikity among 3 main individuals we can hold accountable to preform the actual job, but not putting it all on 1 person.

another citizenship model we could consider is the way TNP does it, where 3 officials check off on citizenship as a regular job duty: provost accepts/denies citizenship in general, an admin/mod checks IP, a vizier (maybe GV) checks for security purposes. This is a bit more complicated in our case since we require tgs, TNP does not, but it’s another way to spread the burden of citapps I think. In this case I could imagine the GV does the security check then can delegate sending the tg to another vizier, and once tg is replied to then citizenship gets accepted

Thoughts on this matter? What proposal works out for y’all?

edit: EPPS is not ex-officio membership per aiv, mb, removed

2

Well to clarify some things, EPPS does not have ex oficio membership in CitiOffice and we do have four appointed Citi Officers outside of Viziers currently. But I don’t dislike this idea. My only issue is with title — I like the idea that we can have regular CitiOfficers to support these three leads, but we should have some sort of way to distinguish them. That means a meaningful title difference (Chief CitiOfficer? Lead CitiOfficer?) and separate listed job duties in law or the SOP. I like this, I just wanted to list considerations we should have going forward on it.

3

Im old and im rusty and im dusty :frowning:

But in this proposal the 4 regular citofficers would be the main ones, IMO. Theyd carry the responsibility while everyone else can help out as needed

Like what jt js nkw:

  • Viziers (ex-officio)
  • 4 cit officers lifetime apptment
  • All share the same theoretical burden in handling citapps

What i propose:

  • viziers (ex officio)
  • 3 (maybe a min. Of 3 but can go more if GV wants) cit officers, reconfirmed every 6 month
  • the 3 cit officers are primarily responsible for citapps, not the ex-officio members. Ex officio members xan hekp as they want, but its not their job, so to speak.
  • the magi reconfirmation = check to see if the cit officers are doing their actual job (sharing the burden)
  • The cit officials maintain responsibility for citapps, even if most of the work is being done by ex-officio members - 'cuz in this model it isn’t the job of the Viziers but primarily of the Cit officials to process applications
4

I’ll also note this is the model generally in use by TSP for a few years, and it seems to be working for them. Which is a added bonus since sometimes TSP & TEP are on the same activity level and general region health, so the model is basically somewhat proven in a sense in grounds (sometimes) similar to TEP

I’ll reference this in the OP but another citizenship model we could consider is the way TNP does it, where 3 officials check off on citizenship as a regular job duty: provost accepts/denies citizenship in general, an admin/mod checks IP, a vizier (maybe GV) checks for security purposes. This is a bit more complicated in our case since we require tgs, TNP does not, but it’s another way to spread the burden of citapps I think

5

I definitely prefer TSP model over TNP model. But since 75% of the time, the one person bearing all the weight is a Vizier, I don’t want to bar them from being one of the leads simply because they’re ex officio.

6

True, I don’t mind a vizier becoming a lead though if they do they should be approved through the formal process (so that way the magi can reconfirm them over time to ensure they’re doing ok + hold them accountable)

8

ask this thread tobe locked as i have made a proposal now: [AMENDMENT] Cit Office Redux