This amendment is pretty simple, tbh. I remember there were a few moments in 2020 where we increased the limit on the number of Deputy Provosts, and I realized recently that it’s ridiculous to even have a limit. Let’s say we take it to the extreme and every Magister is a Deputy Provost – would that be so terrible? All of us being able to start or end a vote? Not really.
The only limitation that there should be on Deputy Provosts is a removal clause similar to the Provost – it makes no sense for Deputy Provosts to be immune from recall when Provosts themselves are not. So I added that in, too. Another minor detail that I changes is making it explicit that Deputy Provosts leave office with the Provost but may be reappointed.
I don’t see this being very controversial, but it’s not exactly grammatical either, so idk. I’m open to thoughts, questions, and suggestions.
SECTION III. PROVOST AND DEPUTY PROVOST
[…]
…3.5. The Provost shall appoint up to four (4) Magisters asat least one Magister to the office of Deputy Provost, who can conduct the Provosts’ duties upon the request of the Provost.
…3.5.1. Deputy Provosts shall serve at the pleasure of the Provostmay be dismissed by the Provost at any time and are immediately dismissed upon the end of a Magisterial term, subject to re-appointment by the Provost.
…3.5.2. Any Magister may motion for the removal of a Deputy Provost by majority vote. If a Magister seconds the motion, the Deputy shall be immediately suspended for the duration of the vote to remove them. While suspended, the Deputy cannot exercise any of the duties of the Provost’s office.
[…]
SECTION VI. RESIGNATION, ABSENCE OR REMOVAL OF PROVOSTS
[…]
…6.2. Any Magister may motion for the removal of the Provost by majority vote. If a Magister seconds the motion: the Provost shall be immediately suspended and can no longer, the Provost shall be immediately suspended for the duration of the vote to remove them. While suspended, the Provost cannot exercise any of their Provosts’ duties.
The removal thing I feel should be put to vote, otherwise we might get cases where someone might just hold a grudge towards a particular Deputy and they’ll be able to dismiss said Deputy easily.
I am not bothered either way, but the Provost should have half a mind to dismiss a Deputy who is not doing their job correctly. If that’s not the case, that gives you a damn good reason to remove the Provost.
I would like to see the following amendment to 3.5.2 to reduce the potential for malicious interpretation, however, if this proposal is successfully motioned to vote it is currently, then it would still have my support.
Sections marked for removal and sections marked for addition are my suggestions.
I do like that wording better – I copied this from the Provost’s section though so I’ll edit in a change to that as well.
This is the same procedure used against Provosts, and I think it’s valid to have recall as a safeguard. If it’s only two Magisters with a grudge, the vote will fail. And if Magisters spam removal procedures, it sounds like an untenable and unhelpful disruption of our legitimate government proceedings to the point of criminal behavior – or at least to the point of removal grounds for that Magister. I’m willing to hear more opinions on it, and if there’s more people against removal, then I’ll cut it out, but for now I don’t personally remain convinced by the argument.
This was my own thinking, and brings me back to wondering whether we need a mechanism for removing Magisters for reasons other than inactivity / the other reasons in Section 8. It seems reasonable to have mechanisms for removal of Provosts / Deputies, but two rogue Magisters could paralyze the legislature for weeks (or longer) by abusing this.
One very minor thing with the update. I had changed “shall be immediately” to “shall immediately be” in the wording provided (I probably should have highlighted that better), so now 3.5.2 and 6.2 read as “the Deputy shall be immediately be suspended” and “the Provost shall be immediately be” respectively.
If one of those "be"s gets removed, that should help with readability.
I feel that this could be resolved by including a clause in the removal section for Magisters.
SECTION VIII. REMOVAL OF MAGISTERS
[…]
…8.2. A Magister may be suspended by the Provost, and removed by a majority vote if:
…8.2.1. The Magister has not logged into the forums for more than two weeks and has not informed the Magisterium of said absence; or
…8.2.2. In the previous calendar month, with at least two votes conducted, The Magister has not voted or confirmed attendance in at least half of all votes; or
…8.2.3. The Magister was accepted under Section 1.2. but currently has their WA nation outside of TEP, unless they are a verified EPSA soldier or following EPSA orders.
… 8.2.4. The Magister is misusing their ability to motion or second a motion for the dismissal of the Provost or of a Deputy Provost through repeated motions to dismiss.
[…]
This way there’s a check on Magisters potentially abusing their ability to motion to dismiss (which has to be confirmed by a majority vote of the Magisterium), and if the Provost or a Deputy misuses the new 8.2.4, then there’s already clauses to trigger a vote to dismiss them.
I think one of the key differences between provost and deputy is that the deputies have a boss to be accountable to, and that boss can yell at them and has unrestricted power to fire them.
So if magisters have a problem with the deputy, the first thing to do would be to find the boss provost to suspend them or talk it out, not initiate a removal vote that auto suspends them without boss provost knowing anything.
That’s why I support do having accountable measures to remove the deputy if they’re really bad, but suspending them should remain with bossman provost
Hm. I like this, but I feel like this isn’t the only situation where a Magister could abuse their power. I’d be interested in a separate discussion/SO about this so we can ensure it’s comprehensive and not distract from the issue here too much.
I think it would remain with the Provost. If magisters want to remove a Deputy, they should at least talk with Big Provost first, and if Provost agrees - that’s already an immediate removal.
If Big Provost disagrees, then the process can kick into motion
The SOM allows the previous Provost, a Deputy Provost, or a representative thereof to hold the election.
3.1.2 specifies that an individual in the running may not organise the election. So, the previous Provost can hold the election assuming that they aren’t running again, or if they are running they can nominate literally anyone from the Magisterium (and I believe anyone at all that the Provost nominates could run the election as long as they have zero involvement beyond throwing the poll up if they’re not in the Magisterium since there are no qualifiers to “a representative thereof”) to hold the election as long as that person isn’t running themselves. This would include the Deputy Provosts from the previous term.
3.5 Support
3.5.1 Against in Principle
3.5.2 Against in Principle
6.2 Support
Reasoning
3.5.1
Deputies are effectively the equivalent of parliamentary clerks, and especially long serving ones should be allowed to retain tenure especially to facilitate the Provost pro tempore clause in 6.1.1. Dismissing all Deputies upon the cessation of a Provost’s term will effectively hamstring this clause.
It is also the Deputies that organise the election should the incumbent Provost seek re-election.
3.5.2
Deputies serve as part of the Magisterium’s leadership team under the supervision of the Provost. Any displeasure with a Deputy should be addressed with the Provost first.
Additionally, adverse action against a Deputy is also an indictment against the Provost’s choices of Deputies. If you vote to remove a deputy and override the Provost’s decision to keep them on, you might as well have given a vote of no confidence in the Provost and remove them too.
Commentary
The check against Magisters continually motioning for the dismissal of a Provost already exists in 6.2.2.
We can extend that to cover Deputies as well.
Luckily, the Magisterium votes on an asynchronous basis, which largely mitigates the issues that would present for a spam/repeated motion assuming 6.2.2 is not extended.
I would like to see a definition of Magisterial Term/Session etc be codified as well. Currently convention is that a Magisterial Session/Term lasts 3 months and ends on a regular election.
Whilst the SOM provides that the previous Provost, the current Deputy provosts or a “representative” can organise an election, functionally this is legally ambiguous (but also on an OOC level, a pain to facilitate due to forum masking permissions on specific categories)
Personally, I think this SOM amendment in its current state is very non-conducive to good governance of the Magisterium, and risks unravelling long held conventions with other potential ramifications
For the record, this is just a codification of accepted general practice – every Provost that I’ve seen take office has “re-appointed” Deputies from previous terms, so it seems like everyone assumes they’re not Deputies anymore anyway.
That would still be possible – until the next Provost takes office the new term has not yet begun.
So are you against the system Lucklife and I discussed as well?
My concern is that if there’s a bad Deputy Provost and Deputy Provosts don’t lose status until a Provost fires them, then a Provost can be recalled and the Deputy would remain on. So if a negligent Provost appoints a malicious Deputy Provost, then it’s between 2-4 weeks until that Deputy can be removed – and it’s not even a given, unless the Magisters make their Provost-elect promise to fire the Deputy AND the Provost-elect keeps that promise. Which is another thing – maybe some Provosts are too chicken to fire people, or maybe they’re working with the malicious Deputy. Even under ideal conditions, that Deputy Provost has the chance to do as much damage as any Provost for however long until people catch them and for at least two more weeks. That, to me, is untenable. The Deputy Provost is an unelected official with the same power as the Provost and nothing in this set of facts convinces me that they should be held less accountable to the Magisterium.