Term Limits Redraft

Closed forum for all Representative Assembly members. Everybody is allowed to see government in action, but posting and replying is restricted to RA members only.

Moderator: SC Moderators

Post Reply
Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Term Limits Redraft

Post by Beathan »

Per amendments and debate in the RA:

Limitation of Terms Act

1. No citizen shall serve uninterrupted longer than two consecutive terms in any of the following offices: Member of the RA, Chancellorship, or Marshall of the Peace.

2. Members of the RA, SC, Chancellorship, or Marshalls of the Peace may not stand for another office enumerated in Paragraph 1 while sitting in one such office.

3. All terms referred in this Act, other than terms of the SC, shall run concurrently with the terms of the Representative Assembly.

4. This Act shall enter into force following the current term; however, the current term shall count towards term limits of government officials.

I may have gotten this wrong. It has been a crazy week.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
cleopatraxigalia
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Term Limits Redraft

Post by cleopatraxigalia »

Well, I thought we decided that we didnt really care if an official serves longer than two terms in one office........RA, SC etc.....but that the problem is them moving from one office to another.............so that a person has to take a term off before moving from the RA to the SC or vis versa...........so they cannot "pad their way" so to speak........... maybe i was misunderstanding but this isnt what i was thinking was going to happen....anyone else?
thep

Cleo
Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Re: Term Limits Redraft

Post by Beathan »

TP --

That was the part I could not clearly remember. I don't recall whether we kept or got rid of the the term limits. However, I know that the original proposal had as much to do with encouraging mobility of office as it had to to with preventing a citizen from using one office as a springboard into another office (which strikes some as unfair competition with other citizens).

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
cleopatraxigalia
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Term Limits Redraft

Post by cleopatraxigalia »

I think the essence of this bill was to keep from having a situation again where someone can sit on the SC, for example and make decisions that affect their movement to another office.. like the CSDF clearly did with this latest shenanigan of theirs. Of course it would prohibit someone from doing a similar thing in other directions as well. I dont see how making the limits on any public servant only two terms helps our cause when we dont really have enough willing volunteers it seems. I think anyone who wants to be in public office has that opportunity now.

As for me and MT, NuCARE already has term limits as a faction, so I wont be running again anyway so dont think this is self serving. As always I am interested in CDS first and foremost, and I think this term limit while in the office one resides has a potential to be damaging. We also have to define a term..........can one sit part of the term out and avoid this.............?? I think the best thing for CDS is to have a bill that makes more clear the conflict of interest issues and prohibiting actions by officials that pad their own way. So if Gwyen and justice lets just say for argument sake had voted on whetehr or not CSDF could actually run in a by election when they had given up seats.........which many people thought was a ridculous waste of everyones time............then they themselves of course could not be the ones to run........we need a bill/ law that clearly states that this type of behavior by public officials is illegal.

Lets think of whats best for CDS in the long term.

Cleo
cleopatraxigalia
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Term Limits Redraft

Post by cleopatraxigalia »

oh and btw this bill and its.. essence...as I called it originates from a CITIZEN who is a member of DPU.. so dont blame me! I am just explaining what I think to be true.

Cleo
Leon
Seasoned debater
Seasoned debater
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:55 am
Contact:

Re: Term Limits Redraft

Post by Leon »

FWIW,

Before I express my opinion I just want to make a disclaimer.

I haven't been able to follow developments on this topic. Also, I'm expressing a personal opinion. That is, I am NOT speaking on behalf of the CSDF and haven't discussed this with anyone in the CSDF either. As I'm not currently an elected official of the CSDF or of the CDS this shouldn't matter.

I have a few problems with this proposal.
Restrictions on movements between roles is daft.
It doesn't make sense to limit freedom of movement. I don't have a great example to hand, but the Bosman ruling in football springs to mind for some or other reason. From my perspective restrictions of this kind serve no useful purpose. Especially not in a small community. We really should be encouraging residents to serve in whichever capacity they choose, not be placing artificial restriction on them.
Serving in any role is NOT for life
Unless serving in the CDS is a prison term I see no reason why anyone can not resign at any time for any reason. (As to whether this sort of behaviour would endear them to those who elected them is for the next election to decide?)
Roles are fixed, the people performing them aren't
For example, the RA has 7 seats (or another number as determined at the session start). If 1-7 of those members decided to leave or are pushed out they should be replaced. Preferably via an election.

With this in mind I don't understand what problem this is trying to address, and it just seems like bureaucracy for bureaucracy’s sake.

Regards
Leon

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Re: Term Limits Redraft

Post by Beathan »

Leon --

I agree with you. I am far more comfortable with the term-limit aspect of this bill (especially as it is not an absolute term limit, but only requires a break). The restriction on movement between offices or on standing for one office while in another is, I agree, daft. For that reason, although I was involved in crafting the language of the bill, I will vote against it as is.

There is a concern that people could use one office to unfairly compete for another. That seems like a legitimate concern. However, the better way to address it is to require recusals and other "conflict of interest" procedures. I think that our community is benefited far more than it is harmed when citizens can move directly from the RA into the Chancellorship or SC (and vice versa, in all sundry combinations). Otherwise, we put our most experienced and capable citizens on ice for no good reason.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
Post Reply

Return to “Representative Assembly Discussion”