RA Recall Proposal - Reposted

[Felicia Fortune]

While there appears to be procedures for the removal of the Chancellor and members of the Scientific Council, there does not appear to be laws that would allow for the replacement of an elected RA member who fails to perform their duties. If a member resigns, it appears that the seat remains empty until the next term.

I copied and pasted this from this thread as it seems most of the replies have gone off topic.
http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... 0&start=30

PROPOSAL FOR REMOVAL OF ELECTED OFFICIALS BY RECALL ELECTIONS

Any elected official may be removed from office without reason after serving at least 1/3 of the period of time of that official's term. (For instance, if an officia's term is for 180 days, actions to remove them from office by recall may commence after at least 60 daya after being sworn into office. )

To remove an elected official, a petition may be created by any eligible voting citizen of the CDS to hold a recall election for any elected official.

This petition may be created and posted on the CDS forum or in world by some other means such as the same mechanism used for voting provided a record is maintained of the citizens who support the recall election. (Note: This can be determined by the Representative Assemby).

In order to hold a recall election, the petition for recall election must contain a number of signatures at least equal to 25% of the number of people who voted in the last election. (Note: For instance if 81 people voted in the last election, the petition must contain at least 21 signatures of current eligible voters. This may include new citizens who were not present during the last election or citizens who did not vote in the last election provided they meet current CDS voting eligibility. )
The recall petition must recieve the required number of signatures within 14 days of a recall petition being publicly posted by both the forums and in a group notice. If the recall petition does not receive the required number of signatures within the time period, no recall election will occur. (In a RL, these signatures are a matter of public record and are verified by election officials as to ensure that the petition is legitamate.)

If the recall petition recieves the required number of signatures after 14 days of being posted, a recall election will be held at noon on the Saturday between 15 - 21 days after the petition's deadline, with notices going out to the voting population via in world group notice and forum posting within 3 days after the petition recieves the requiried number of siginatures. (For instance, if the recall petition receives the required number of signatures within 5 days of posting, the recall election will occur at noon SLT on the Saturday between 15 - 21 days after the 14 day deadline for signatures of the recall petition, however the notice would be posted no later than 8 days after the petition was posted. This is to ensure that there is ample notice to the voting population of the CDS.

The responsibility of posting notice of a recall election falls to the Dean of the SC. If the Dean fails to perform this function for any reason, any member of the SC may post the notice. The recall election will last 14 days from the date of the recall election.

Once the notice of a recall election is posted, any eligible citizen of the voting population of the CDS may begin campaining to run against the elected official being recalled and may be added to the ballot following current CDS laws.

The candidate who receives the most votes will take the place of the recalled official and be sworn in at the next regular meeting of the RA and serve out the remaining term of the recalled official.

If the recalled official is the head of the RA or the LRA, a new LRA will be appointed by the RA next meeting regular meeting of the RA.

If the recalled official is the Chancellor, then the newly elected chancellor will be sworn in at the next regular meeting of the RA and serve out the remaining term of the recalled Chancellor.

Any recalled official will be deemed to be removed from office effective at the end of the recall election, leaving their position vacant until a new official can be sworn in. This effectively keeps them from casting votes, making decisions, or participating in any capacity as an elected official.

No recall petition may be submitted within 35 days of an elected official's term.

No elected official may be subject to a recall election more than once during their term.

[Coop]

I suspect it is much easier to work around the absentees than to take the time effort and I would also assume considerable angst to remove them.

[Josie Fotherington]

I do think it would be a good idea to make the removal process the same across the board, for RA, SC and Chancellor, rather than different procedures for each one. I also like the term "recall" rather than impeach.

[Rosie Gray]

I do think it would be a good idea to make the removal process the same across the board, for RA, SC and Chancellor, rather than different procedures for each one. I also like the term "recall" rather than impeach.

Ditto.

[Delia Lake]

If a member of the RA resigns or is removed from office that person is to be replaced in office per CDSL 20-02 By-Election Procedures Act. http://portal.slcds.info/index.php/bran ... e-of-laws/

[Delia Lake]

The Constitution gives SC the power to impeach RA members.

Section 8 – Powers of the SC
In regards to the Representative branch:
The Philosophic branch may veto or rewrite and resubmit a bill or constitutional amendment if it is in violation of any of the founding documents.
The SC can seek impeachment of members of the Representative branch for violating the constitution or acting illegally.
Impeachment proceedings
1. Impeachment is an order that a holder of public office cease to hold such public office, or is suspended from such office for any time with or without pay, and/or is disqualified either permanently or for a term certain from holding any or all public office or offices.
2. A person may only be impeached by the Scientific Council, sitting as a court, following a trial in accordance with law.

http://portal.slcds.info/index.php/cds-constitution/

[Felicia Fortune]

Thanks for the clarification of current CDS laws, Delia!
So if I understand this correctly, in regards to the RA, they can resign or be removed from office for "violation of the constitution or acting illegally."
However, what about neglecting their duties as an elected Representative by, for instance missing meetings repeatedly and/or failing to participate, i.e. failing to request a 7-day vote on matters before the Assembly if they could not make a meeting, such as the current situation we have this term?
Or would such failure be considered violation of the Oath of Office to "faithfully discharge my duties to the best of my ability"?
Has this question ever come before the Scientific Council for a decision?
If it has, what was the ruling?
It appears to me that one can be elected to the RA then never have to show up for a single meeting and there's no legal remedy for this particular situation. Or am I wrong?
Since there seems to be a lot of talk about repealing outdated laws and Constitutional articles that seem to be repeatedly violated by government officials, perhaps this is another thing that can be added to the list of things to remedy.
Felicia

[Shep]

Sigh ... Yes there are laws that need a jolly good tweaking .... but suddenly instead of asking why things are'nt running the best they can .. we are talking impeachment .. recall .. etc etc ... do you think we have paid politicians who are salting things away for themselves ... we are too open for that to be possible ... what we have are people who volunteer to give up their time .... maybe even over estimate their free time ... and find themselves with a conundrum .. carry on in good hope or give up and let everyone down ... while NOT hoping to become the latest targets on here .... That is why we became full up ... those people that enjoy the Drama ... those determined to carry it on when it seemed to have stopped ... and I'm not going to name names ...... BUT ... should'nt we be saying oh dear there is obviously a big problem going on somewhere how is the best way to help with it ... because if you're talking re-call and impeachment .... just WHO is going to fill the gaps?

[Widget Whiteberry]

Shep - Seems to me that Felicia is trying to understand how CDS government works. And she's begun by reading the Constitution and laws posted on the Portal and combing through the RA minutes and transcripts. Absences by current RA members raise questions and sometimes elicit answers or point to places where new solutions are needed.

[JerryDon Lane]

Sigh ... Yes there are laws that need a jolly good tweaking .... but suddenly instead of asking why things are'nt running the best they can .. we are talking impeachment .. recall .. etc etc ... do you think we have paid politicians who are salting things away for themselves ... we are too open for that to be possible ... what we have are people who volunteer to give up their time .... maybe even over estimate their free time ... and find themselves with a conundrum .. carry on in good hope or give up and let everyone down ... while NOT hoping to become the latest targets on here .... That is why we became full up ... those people that enjoy the Drama ... those determined to carry it on when it seemed to have stopped ... and I'm not going to name names ...... BUT ... should'nt we be saying oh dear there is obviously a big problem going on somewhere how is the best way to help with it ... because if you're talking re-call and impeachment .... just WHO is going to fill the gaps?

The sad part is that you and yours have tried to run off everyone capable of any competence in CDS that could actually govern.

Yes, the laws need some tweaking, but more important even than that is getting people in office who will at least make some semblance of an attempt to follow the Constitution--the ultimate law of the land.

The Maypole 9 does not even pretend to do that. In a real constitutional government, you don't make excuses like you, Pat and Calli have done for refusing to follow the law....you are immediately impeached and then you usually go to jail!

What a smack in the face of freedom and democracy you handful of people have been that have taken over CDS......Now you have the yellow patches to bow to you. Does that feel good, Shep?

Bots could do better at filling the gaps than you people are.

But yeah...What you need now is a new Sim. Maybe you could use all the yellow spots you have caused to fill it......Oh wait....They represent people you have ran off.....You seem to have already lost two Monasteries in population......Maybe you should seek a seer, sage... soothsayer to point out to you that you are going exactly backward????

Yes, CDS definitely needs to go with the Bots.

[Cadence Theas]

Jerry,

Thank you for your truly incomprehensible posting (one of several).

I think your argument is just leaves blowing in the wind because you have not provided any evidence at all of your allegations. You are doing the same thing Cleo has done in the past...exhaust people with empty arguments with no substantive evidence with the sole reason of enjoying seeing your name in print. Give substantive proof of your allegations, or I will join the long line of people who are truly tired of seeing your entries in the forum because they contribute little to any constructive dialogue concerning CDS. And before you jump on a pedastal and start ranting about the cabal that runs CDS. My posting refers not to censureship but rather to the reduction of stupidity in the forum.

I really have tried to not respond to your postings, but one can only suffer so much empty argument before saying, please, no more. GIVE PROOF, GIVE SUBSTANTIVE ARGUEMENT, then maybe you will have an audience. Otherwise you are just wasting our time.

Cadence

[JerryDon Lane]

Jerry,

Thank you for your truly incomprehensible posting (one of several).

I think your argument is just leaves blowing in the wind because you have not provided any evidence at all of your allegations.

Oh....very welcome.... It's so refreshing to have another member of the Maypole 9 weigh in. But what more evidence do I need of yellow spots on the map than looking at the map and seeing them? Are you having some trouble understanding that they are there and that this administration was handed 100% occupancy when they took over and that they seem to ....um.....be going backward?

You are doing the same thing Cleo has done in the past...exhaust people with empty arguments with no substantive evidence with the sole reason of enjoying seeing your name in print.

Ya know....You people are really going to have to get past Cleo. She is not here and has not been for some time. The problems you see in CDS are not caused by Cleo.....She is not here.......it is YOU Pat, Shep, Bells, Sudane and Calli causing the problems......It was YOU People causing them when she was here.....Yes she was a mess in some areas, but the biggest problems you seem to have had with her is that she called your BS when you brought it out. Now there is no one to do that and look at CDS......It is a mess going undebatably backward. You cannot blame Cleo now for this.....I suggest you look in the mirror....Of course, you will not.

Give substantive proof of your allegations, or I will join the long line of people who are truly tired of seeing your entries in the forum because they contribute little to any constructive dialogue concerning CDS. And before you jump on a pedastal and start ranting about the cabal that runs CDS. My posting refers not to censureship but rather to the reduction of stupidity in the forum.

What allegations......that two monastery's are gone? Look at the World Map.....You can see this....Do the math....LOL

You don't have time to follow constitutional law and hold yourself to those standards as to RA meetings and a Chancellor attending them and that sort of thing; but man you sure can find the time to climb on the forums and complain when someone points that out.....

[Josie Fotherington]

Ya know....You people are really going to have to get past Cleo.

You don't have time to follow constitutional law and hold yourself to those standards as to RA meetings and a Chancellor attending them and that sort of thing; but man you sure can find the time to climb on the forums and complain when someone points that out.

I don't like most of what JD has to say, or the way he says it, but there are grains of truth in what he says. These two quotes above are examples. He is spot on. Unfortunately no one seems to able to step back and look at any of this objectively.

I am in agreement with Widget in that Felicia posted these questions and information because she has read though the Constitution and the laws and is basically saying "wtf"? Just because someone raises a hand and asks why laws are not being followed it does not mean 1. that they are Cleo and 2. that they are just some whiner. That is where 95% of you have lost objectivity. Felicia is actually taking action. She is one of the few people who has. She's researching and trying to understand how CDS has come to this place of laws that are ignored and a Constitution that isn't followed.

This 22nd term is basically over. This proposal she has written is something for going forward. I think that CDS does need a consistent procedure across the board, I like the term recall instead of impeach. If CDS had had something like this in place then it would have been much easier to deal with everything that happened LAST term.

This is what I would consider a second step in getting our law into a shape in which it can actually function. The first step was Coop's sim acquisition and design bill from last term. That streamlined the sim creation process. This will streamline the process of removing officials from office who can not perform their duties.

What needs to happen next is a rewrite of the terms of office for Chancellor and the RA in the Constitution so they can follow the law easily. From what I understand, this is all currently under review and revision so it IS happening.

Once our officials are capable of performing their duties as described in the Constitution then we hopefully won't ever have to use a law like this. But still, we need one.

[Rosie Gray]

I really have tried to not respond to your postings, but one can only suffer so much empty argument before saying, please, no more. GIVE PROOF, GIVE SUBSTANTIVE ARGUEMENT, then maybe you will have an audience. Otherwise you are just wasting our time.

Cadence

I've joined the line of people who have given him the status of 'foe' on the forums, which means I don't see his postings. Try it, you'll like it!

[Rosie Gray]

I am in agreement with Widget in that Felicia posted these questions and information because she has read though the Constitution and the laws and is basically saying "wtf"? Just because someone raises a hand and asks why laws are not being followed it does not mean 1. that they are Cleo and 2. that they are just some whiner. That is where 95% of you have lost objectivity. Felicia is actually taking action. She is one of the few people who has. She's researching and trying to understand how CDS has come to this place of laws that are ignored and a Constitution that isn't followed.

This 22nd term is basically over. This proposal she has written is something for going forward. I think that CDS does need a consistent procedure across the board, I like the term recall instead of impeach. If CDS had had something like this in place then it would have been much easier to deal with everything that happened LAST term.

This is what I would consider a second step in getting our law into a shape in which it can actually function. The first step was Coop's sim acquisition and design bill from last term. That streamlined the sim creation process. This will streamline the process of removing officials from office who can not perform their duties.

What needs to happen next is a rewrite of the terms of office for Chancellor and the RA in the Constitution so they can follow the law easily. From what I understand, this is all currently under review and revision so it IS happening.

Once our officials are capable of performing their duties as described in the Constitution then we hopefully won't ever have to use a law like this. But still, we need one.

Agreed! I wonder what the status of the rewrite of the terms of office for Chancellor and the Constitution are now; can anyone give an update? These would have to be debated and passed by the RA to become law.