SC examination of chancellor removal

[Cindy Ecksol]

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?

I think you've hit the nail on the head here, Claude. In my opinion it would be enough to have posted the item on the agenda. In fact there's something of a precedent for this, albeit informal, in that at least this term the RA has generally introduced an item in one session and discussed it there, but then deferred action until the next meeting. If the RA does this for an ordinary bill, certainly they should be careful to do it for something as important as a motion to remove the Chancellor.

The point is that at the very least, Alex (and everyone else involved) should have had some kind of notice that such action would be discussed and possibly acted upon. As Dnate pointed out earlier in this discussion, removing the Chancellor is one of the most powerful things that the RA can do in CDS and that power should be exercised with care and at least a minimum of due process.

Cindy

[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.

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

There was no trial. The RA does not hold trials, nor does a person have a right to be notified if the RA wants to pass legislation affecting them. The RA was under no obligation to inform the Chancellor of a vote to remove. I think that they should inform people, but it is not required. The RA was dissatisfied with the chancellors actions and let him know of such, including possible termination of duties.

[Dnate Mars]

The way the Chancellor is elected - byt the RA - the RA control his or her fate. We can see the weakness in this state of affairs when we are s[ending a lot fo time "chasing" and having "lawsuits" trying to reverse a RA decision.

I won't put in but a tiny plug saying a directly elected Chancellor would avoid this particular situation. When the Chancellor is elected and serves at the pleasure of the RA, it will be subjecto to both the good and bad decisions regarding who is Chancellor by the RA. (I know there were a lot of good reasons to not do this, but this situation would not be one of them)

I am going to have to very much agree on this statement. For better or worse, the Chancellor serves at the will of the RA.

And going with what Gwyn said:

Now, to the issue. Again, the July 12 meeting is totally incomprehensible without a context. It can be seen on the July 5 meeting that the RA has, in discussion with the Chancellor who was present there, established the following points:

* Budgets were approved for several things: to pay civil servants, to pay for special events, to pay performers, to buy items and devices
* The Chancellor was informed that all these things were left unpaid, in some cases after 6 months
* There are procedures in the Executive to handle payments (people being owned money have to send a notecard to the Chancellor to request payment; the Chancellor will then forward it, after approval, to the Treasurer for payment).
* It was unclear what happened with those notecards. They were never received. This was the excuse given for not providing any payment for the past 6 months.
* The Chancellor had made an effort for people to send them notecards with expenses, repeatedly so
* The RA informed the Chancellor that a failure to comply with the RA's request to pay every pending request would result in removal from office

I see ample warning as well.

[Claude Desmoulins]

Dnate notes that during the 5 July meeting a motion was placed on the floor to threaten the Chancellor with dismissal if he did not comply with certain requests. However, a motion to remove the Chancellor from office was never listed on a public agenda. This, to put it mildly, complicates things. Now any lack of notification to Alexicon of his situation was surely more of form than of fact.

The one good thing that has come out of the current mess is that everyone is much clearer as to what actually happened. It's unfortunate that all of this didn't see the light of day before the RA vote of 12 July. Ideally, the RA would consider whether or not to affirm its decision of the 12th at a public meeting where the item's presence on the agenda had been properly communicated to the citizenry. The SC could ask them to do so. What then would happen in the meantime or if the RA respectfully refused the request. Restoring Alexicon to office for what was in essence a failure to put an item on a public agenda seems very activist and would lend credence to Bromo's vision of the SC as kingmaker. OTOH, failing to restore Alex to office means that whatever position the SC takes has not much in the way of "teeth" .

Why does this feel like a virtual Bush v. Gore ?

[Justice Soothsayer]

I don't think that it is particularly "activist" to remind the RA that it should act with a minimum of notice (with opportunity to respond) to the Chancellor and to the community when it contemplates an action as serious as removing the executive. In fact, if the RA placed removal of the Chancellor on its public agenda for its next meeting and came to exactly the same decision as it did on 12 July, I think it would be constitutionally legitimate.

[Cindy Ecksol]

There was no trial. The RA does not hold trials, nor does a person have a right to be notified if the RA wants to pass legislation affecting them. The RA was under no obligation to inform the Chancellor of a vote to remove. I think that they should inform people, but it is not required. The RA was dissatisfied with the chancellors actions and let him know of such, including possible termination of duties.

There was no trial....but there is often no trial in situations where principles of the UDHR are violated. This is the whole point: there SHOULD be a process that allows all of the facts to come out before a vote is taken in such a situation. There was no such process here, just precipitous action based on a whole lot of shouted incitement on the part of one particular RA member. She just kept railing on the subject, and if you read the transcript closely you'll realize that at the time she made her motion, she didn't even have the floor -- they had been discussing something else and she steered the subject to what she desired to talk about. I would hate for the SC to be party to THAT kind of process, even passively.

And going with what Gwyn said:

Now, to the issue. Again, the July 12 meeting is totally incomprehensible without a context. It can be seen on the July 5 meeting that the RA has, in discussion with the Chancellor who was present there, established the following points:

* Budgets were approved for several things: to pay civil servants, to pay for special events, to pay performers, to buy items and devices
* The Chancellor was informed that all these things were left unpaid, in some cases after 6 months
* There are procedures in the Executive to handle payments (people being owned money have to send a notecard to the Chancellor to request payment; the Chancellor will then forward it, after approval, to the Treasurer for payment).
* It was unclear what happened with those notecards. They were never received. This was the excuse given for not providing any payment for the past 6 months.
* The Chancellor had made an effort for people to send them notecards with expenses, repeatedly so
* The RA informed the Chancellor that a failure to comply with the RA's request to pay every pending request would result in removal from office

I see ample warning as well.

Well....perhaps! But here's the thing: the CHANCELLOR complied with the RA's ultimatum. It was Sudane who delayed the payments, not Alex. Since he had done his job, he had no reason to believe that Sudane would not immediately pay those on the list, and thus no reason to think that the RA would follow through on their promise to remove him if those pending requests were not paid.

I would not advocate the SC completely overturning the RA decision, but in the light of all the uncertainties about whether or not there was notice to Alex regarding his removal, what the procedures were, who paid whom and when I strongly believe that we should return this decision to the RA for reconsideration. If they still feel that Alex deserves removal, they will remove him, and if all of this additional information and discussion has led them to reconsider their votes, they will leave him in place. A "vote of confidence" in the Chancellor is appropriate -- removal in a fashion that does not reflect the principles we claim to uphold is not.

Cindy

P.S. I am leaving in about 3 hours and will be gone for until midday on Monday. I'll try to monitor this discussion, but will not be in-world. You all know what my inclination is, and I think we've done a good job of batting around both sides of the issue here. If you need anything else from me, please e-mail me at the address in my profile. I will have e-mail, just not much else. C.

[Claude Desmoulins]

So does anyone object to the following:

The SC recognizes that the Constitution gives the RA great freedom as to the circumstances under which a chancellor may be dismissed. However, given the lack of public notice and notice to the Chancellor of the pending motion to dismiss him, the SC requests that the RA consider this matter at a meeting where appropriate notice of its consideration has been given.

[Justice Soothsayer]

No objection. I'll vote Aye.

[Cindy Ecksol]

So does anyone object to the following:

The SC recognizes that the Constitution gives the RA great freedom as to the circumstances under which a chancellor may be dismissed. However, given the lack of public notice and notice to the Chancellor of the pending motion to dismiss him, the SC requests that the RA consider this matter at a meeting where appropriate notice of its consideration has been given.

Change the word "consideration" to "pending action" and I will also vote "Aye."

Cindy

[Justice Soothsayer]

At least two members of the RA have indicated they are prepared to reconsider the removal of the Chancellor at the next RA meeting, so under the circumstances I suggest that the SC hold off on any further consideration of this matter for now.

[Dnate Mars]

My option on the matter is that the SC should not overturn the dismissal of the Chancellor. However, we should strongly suggest that the RA reconsider the matter allowing Alexicon to be present and to defend himself when the matter is reconsidered. No were is it required that he be given notification. Perhaps that should be changed.

And another question, why hasn't Alexicon appealed it to us? His post over there seems to be one of more of a personal dispute, but never saying that he was wronged.

[Claude Desmoulins]

Justice and Dnate,

I tend to agree here. What we were agreeing on was to ask the RA to reconsider the action at a meeting where public notice of the discussion had been given. That will most certainly happen.

Justice - as regards one of your earlier comments. I was trying to say that it would be inappropiately activist of the SC to restore Alexicon to office and essentially undo the RA decision