SC examination of chancellor removal

[Claude Desmoulins]

Cindy has posted her request for an examination in the SC Announcements. Please note there is a thread in General Discussion where non SC members may contribute their thoughts.

[Claude Desmoulins]

Cindy, in her request for examination , cites Article III, section 6

Chairs of the SC
will ratify bills passed by the Representative Assembly by simple
majority vote and may resubmit the bill with modifications for vote.

However , there is also Article II, Section 7

The Chancellor may be removed from office prior to the expiration of the term of office by at least a two thirds vote of the Representative Assembly.

The challenge here is that the text of II.7 places no conditions on why a Chancellor may be removed. While there may be a presumption that such a thing would only happen in the event of negligence , etc. the way the text reads makes it less of an impeachment and more of a vote of no confidence such as one would find in a parliamentary system.

There are also allegations that participants in the RA meetings in question made inaccurate statements which may have influenced the outcome of the removal vote.

If the statements were inaccurate, does their inaccuracy in and of itself create a situation which requires an SC remedy? Does the answer to that question of remedy change if evidence comes to light that the statements were intentionally misleading rather than merely in error?

[Dnate Mars]

Based on all that I have seen, the only requirement that must be met via constitution is Article II, Section 7, which is a 2/3rds majority. That condition was met. It is not the place of the SC to question the removal of chancellor when the RA has made their voice clear.

[Cindy Ecksol]

Based on all that I have seen, the only requirement that must be met via constitution is Article II, Section 7, which is a 2/3rds majority. That condition was met. It is not the place of the SC to question the removal of chancellor when the RA has made their voice clear.

My concern is that although the RA made its voice clear, the basis upon which the decision was made was simply not true. Only after the meeting did Gwyn, Jamie and Sonja discover that Alex had in fact authorized payments to various individuals as required and those payments had been made BEFORE the matter was decided in that RA meeting. I can testify to this directly, as I received payment for my services as "Event Coordinator" just before the start of the meeting. The question of why payments had not actually been made was raised in the RA meeting, but Sudane, the one person who could have answered that question definitively, was never asked to explain. One could certainly argue that the RA was negligent in not pursuing a definitive answer to this question, and that itself may be sufficient grounds for the SC to intervene. Sudane could certainly be called to testify to us and explain what happened and why it was not discovered until after the RA meeting.

Although the SC does not have the power to directly reverse the RA's decision to remove the Chancellor simply because they were misinformed, IF the information provided during the RA meeting was not true (and Sudane can verify that) then with a citizen requesting an SC review I think it would be appropriate for the SC to send the bill back to the RA for a re-vote based on new information. If they want to affirm the removal of Alexicon as Chancellor, they can simply vote as they did at the meeting and the matter will be closed now that all of the information is available. However if this new information will change the way they feel about the removal, they can simply revise their votes and the new decision will stand.

You will also note that I did not mention two RA members in my list of those who discovered after the fact that the basis for this decision was untrue. Sudane should be able to tell us whether either MT or ThePrincess were on the list of those to whom payments were authorized and whether those payments were made before the RA discussion. I believe that nuCARE faction member Bells Semyorka was also on the list of those authorized to be paid and may have informed ThePrincess that she had been paid if such was the case. If in fact Sudane tells us that any or all of these three were on the list and were paid then not only was the basis for the decision incorrect, ThePrincess's presentation to the RA may have had fraudulent intent. In that case I cannot imagine that there would be any doubt that the decision ought to be sent back to the RA for reconsideration.

The RA certainly can make decisions about whether or not to remove the Chancellor or any other matter, but when a citizen or RA member discovers possible fraudulent intent behind the passage of a bill or other decision, it seems to me to be entirely appropriate for the SC to step in.

Cindy

[Justice Soothsayer]

I am concerned that the removal from office was done quite precipitously, without notice to Alexicon who therefore did not have an opportunity to respond to any allegations against him. Yes, the RA seems to have expressed its displeasure with the Chancellor at several recent meetings, even ones where the Chancellor was present. But there does not seem to be any evidence that the Chancellor was told that the recent meeting would conisder removal from office. Notice and the opportunity to be heard are fundamental to due process.

[Cindy Ecksol]

I am concerned that the removal from office was done quite precipitously, without notice to Alexicon who therefore did not have an opportunity to respond to any allegations against him. Yes, the RA seems to have expressed its displeasure with the Chancellor at several recent meetings, even ones where the Chancellor was present. But there does not seem to be any evidence that the Chancellor was told that the recent meeting would conisder removal from office. Notice and the opportunity to be heard are fundamental to due process.

Sudane has now posted her explanation of how, when and why the payments were made at the moment when they were. Clearly there was NO due process in the RA's deliberations: Sudane was in-world during the meeting and could easily have been contacted via IM by any RA member before the vote to remove Alex and asked about the payments. Not only that, the RA demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of a process which has the force of law and was holding Alexicon responsible for something over which he had absolutely no control. An assumption was made that he had not completed the tasks for which he was responsible, and that assumption was not verified in any way.

I would argue that the RA was completely negligent in that they acted to remove the Executive without understanding the process clearly and, thus, without ascertaining the status of the matter which Alex was accused of handling in such an incompetent manner. Now that all the information is available and more clearly understood, I move that the SC refer this decision back to the RA for re-consideration.

Regarding possible fraud allegations, I missed the fact that ThePrincess told the RA before the vote that she had received the $400 due to her. If that's the case, it cannot be said that she fraudulently concealed the information, so there is no need to pursue that line of discussion at this time.

Cindy

[Dnate Mars]

We are not here to question the actions of RA. We are here to decide if what they did was legal. I don't like the way it was handled either, but it is within their right to remove him from office with or without reason with a simple 2/3rds majority. Even his own faction voted to remove him from office. And with 3 weeks, it is clear that the RA wanted him out now, for whatever reasons they wanted. We can disagree with how they handled it, but we should not be overturning the will of the RA on a matter that is completely within the RA's realm of power according to the Constitution.

[Claude Desmoulins]

Dnate,

I'd agree with you except for Justice's due process point. Do fundamental principles of transparency and openness require that everyone, especially the chancellor faced with possible removal, be informed ahead of time and publicly that the item was on the RA agenda?

[Cindy Ecksol]

Dnate,

I'd agree with you except for Justice's due process point. Do fundamental principles of transparency and openness require that everyone, especially the chancellor faced with possible removal, be informed ahead of time and publicly that the item was on the RA agenda?

Actually this is part of the UDHF which is incorporated by reference into the CDS Constitution:

Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Cindy

[Justice Soothsayer]

I agree that it is not our place to second-guess an RA decision to remove the Chancellor, as the RA can remove a Chancellor for a good reason or even no reason at all, and even if they are misinformed or misguided. But in the exercise of their discretion, they should adhere at least the minimum protections of providing notice to the Chancellor of what the charges are and provide the Chancellor an opportunity to respond.

I suggest we return this matter to the RA, which can then provide the Chancellor an opportunity to respond, after which time they very well could come to the same decision and not offend our constitutional protections of a fair and public hearing.

[Dnate Mars]

I would agree, but this was not a trial. This was a removal from office of what is an appointed position. I am not even sure we have the correct power to decide this ruling. This is not a bill that is being called into questions, so Article III section 6 does not apply.

As for Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

There are no criminal charges being brought up here. Even if they were discussed and accused to him in the debate to remove from office, only formal charges brought be for the SC would this apply.

[Cindy Ecksol]

I would agree, but this was not a trial. This was a removal from office of what is an appointed position. I am not even sure we have the correct power to decide this ruling. This is not a bill that is being called into questions, so Article III section 6 does not apply.

As for Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

There are no criminal charges being brought up here. Even if they were discussed and accused to him in the debate to remove from office, only formal charges brought be for the SC would this apply.

You missed part of the quote, Dnate -- allow me to move the emphasis:

Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

I would argue that this was a challenge to Alex's "rights and obligations" so Article 10 should apply.

Cindy

[Justice Soothsayer]

Yep, let us be very clear. There is absolutely no allegation of any criminal wrongdoing, simply that a majority of the RA had lost confidence in the Chancellor.

Interests of transparency of government and due process considerations of fairness may require that the RA should reconsider. I have been reading the dialogue over in the public comments section, as well as re-reading the pertinent transcripts, that the Chancellor may have been on notice that the RA was mightily dissatisfied and might consider removing him at its July 12th meeting. However, the agenda for that meeting certainly did not state that Chancellor removal was a topic for discussion at the meeting. On that ground alone, I think we should send this back to the RA for the RA to reconsider its decision at a properly-noticed meeting, where the Chancellor and interested citizens could learn exactly what has displeased the RA members and give the Chancellor an opportunity to respond.

[Cindy Ecksol]

Interests of transparency of government and due process considerations of fairness may require that the RA should reconsider. I have been reading the dialogue over in the public comments section, as well as re-reading the pertinent transcripts, that the Chancellor may have been on notice that the RA was mightily dissatisfied and might consider removing him at its July 12th meeting. However, the agenda for that meeting certainly did not state that Chancellor removal was a topic for discussion at the meeting. On that ground alone, I think we should send this back to the RA for the RA to reconsider its decision at a properly-noticed meeting, where the Chancellor and interested citizens could learn exactly what has displeased the RA members and give the Chancellor an opportunity to respond.

I agree.

Cindy

[Claude Desmoulins]

I have a concern. In asking the RA to revisit this, we are in essence saying that in certain circumstances, persons have a right to notification of pending items in the legislature which may affect them. In order that we not create a precedent such that every affected parcelholder would demand individual notification of a proposed covenant change, I'd put forward this question, What is the minimum the RA could have done to satisfy Alexicon's due process rights? Would it have been enough to place the item on the publicly posted agenda, or is the bar higher?