This was more so towards the situation where a Provost has been removed or resigns rather than at a regular election.
3.1.1. has in it before the end of the Provost’s three-month term
This does functionally mean that the Provost cedes their authority after three-months have elapsed.
Can you elaborate/summarize what you have discussed with Lucklife / how you envision the discussed system to work?
Also, how have you determined your 2-4 week time-frame until the removal of a Deputy can occur?
How I see this working out is that a situation gets to a point where the Magi believes to remove an official appointed by the elected Provost, then the Provost should also be subject to removal at that point too.
A. Magister petitions Provost to remove Deputy
B. Provost refuses
C. Vote commences amongst the Magisterium to confirm or override the decision to keep the Deputy
Each vote is a week – the vote to remove the Provost and the vote to elect the new Provost. Depending on how heavy discussion is, each might last a week extra – or even more.
Yes, but “Special Provost Elections follow the same nomination, campaigning, and election procedures as Provost Elections” so I believe it should be the same length. Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken, Mr Provost. It’s been too long since I’ve been involved in the logistics of the Office.
A vote to remove takes, at minimum, 7 days. A Provost Election takes between 7 days and 17 days, depending on how smoothly the process goes.
Each nomination period is 4 days. There are two potential nomination periods, with the incumbent Provost retaining the Office if no one is nominated and seconded in either nomination period (3.2 and 3.3 of the current SOM / 6.3.2 and 6.3.2.1 of the amended SOM being voted on).
Each voting period is 3 days. There are three potential voting periods; initial vote, tie-breaker if no candidate concedes, and a tie-breaker from the entire citizenry if the previous tie-breaker ends in a tie (3.4, 3.5.2, and 3.4.3 of the current SOM / 6.3, 6.4.3, and 6.4.4 of the amended SOM being voted on).
For the sake of argument, lets say the proposal is motioned immediately, seconded, and the vote is created all on the same day.
Removal vote + one nomination period + one voting period = 14 days (2 weeks).
Removal vote + two nomination periods + three voting periods = 24 days (~3.5 weeks).
As the amended SOM being worked on appears to be passing when the vote closes later today, the below may help identify where additional amendments need to be made.
3.5. has not been written into the SOM with the previous ceiling of four being kept.
3.5.1. has not been written into the SOM with the previous verbiage being kept.
3.5.2. has been written in as 6.8 and 6.8.2.
6.2. has been written in as 6.8 and 6.8.2.
On some of the concerns raised in this topic:
Concerns raised regarding potential abuse of a vote to remove a Deputy Provost: The vote to remove a Deputy Provost carries the same restrictions as the vote to remove a Provost (ie: if the vote to remove fails, the Magister who motioned the vote and the Magister who seconded the motion cannot remotion to remove).
Concerns raised about who will hold provost elections if all deputies are dismissed when the Provost term finishes: Under both versions of the SOM, Provost Elections can be held before the end of Provost’s term. My interpretation of that clause is that the vote should already have concluded before the next term begins so that each term can be the full 3 months.
Concerns that removal of a Deputy should first be put before the Provost: I agree that issues with a Deputy should be raised with the Provost for potentially the fastest resolution, however, I also feel that there should be a mechanism to immediately escalate the matter – such as if the Deputy does something completely egregious and there needs to be a censure from the Magisterium as a whole.
As long as the Provost retains the ability to immediately dismiss a Deputy, I don’t see an issue with having a mechanism to temporarily suspend a Deputy and potentially dismiss them from the Office. This is especially true when there are protections that prevent the mechanism being abused. To me, it’s one of those “I hope I don’t have to use it, but it’s nice to know it’s there if I need to” situations.
Thank you for your testimony and for your assistance in adapting the proposal to the newly restructured Standing Orders – the OP has now been edited to accomplish as much.
I’ll put out there that unless for some reason the charge is truly egregious, if said hypothetical Deputy ever did something so atrocious as to require immediate censure, I assure you under my Provostship they’d be fired before the rest of the Magisterium even found out what they did.
You, I trust. Folly (since they also ran for Provost in the latest elections), I trust. I don’t trust the possibilities of the future and believe the mechanism is an important safeguard, and one that’s important enough to be in place before it’s necessary to use rather than trying to sort an issue in a potentially hostile Magisterium.
Is it paranoia? Do I have a stick jammed too far up where the sun don’t shine? Maybe.
