There's been a lot of comment about the RA's action to remove Alexicon Kurka as Chancellor last Saturday. Lots of strong opinions on both sides, and an appeal. My personal opinion is that we acted incorrectly -- we acted completely within the law, but made an unwise decision. I voted for this myself, so that includes me.
Alexi actively has contributed in good faith to CDS. He gave significantly of his own time to help with a bunch of maintenance issues as well as several big projects, including the new web portal and SL5B. As some've argued, he HAS done more for us than most chancellors. Even if that's not as much as we'd like to hope for.
But there still was plenty of cause for the RA to be concerned. Let's be clear here. The law in question permits removal at any time and does not specify a threshold of cause. I ma sorry to say that cause *was* building up. Anyone who's bothered to read the RA's transcripts or summaries or attend our meetings, knows that we've been asking for months for some actions and reports, and threatening removal, weeks ago.
It CAN BE appropriate to remove an officer for failure to perform a duty. Has to be. Removal's practically the only tool the RA has. But CDS does not enforce the duties of its government much ... maybe never has. For example, the CDS SC is required to meet what, once a month? In fact, we're lucky if it meets once or twice every six months. Do they get whacked for it? No. Standards of behavior ought to be applied consistently, in order to be fair. So the RIGHT QUESTION is whether it was *fair* to come down hard, this time.
Here's why it was not: the RA was uninformed or misled. The cornerstone of the RA's concern for months was failure to act on a bunch of payment requests. Continued failure to act *would* completely justify removal. But the thing is ... he DID act. Some of us at the meeting didn't know, though. The RA made a final demand about those payments on the 5th (SLT). I learned, AFTER the last RA meeting, that Alexi acted the next Thursday, 9 July, by instructing our Treasurer to pay. She did so on Saturday the 12th ... during that meeting where we voted to remove him.
This could have been avoided. For one thing, obviously, Alexi could have TOLD us that he'd authorized payment. He SHOULD have, since he'd been threatened with removal. Also, some people in the RA meeting room were *receiving* payments during the meeting, or hearing about it, before we adjourned. This should have been reported and dealt with at the meeting. Read the transcript for yourself.
So: what should we do to make this right? Reverse it. I'm going to make that motion next Saturday. Not sure about it being popular, but it's the right thing to do. That is a legislative action, so I've posted my suggestions and proposed actions to the "Legislative Discussion" boards, where comments also can be posted, here: http://forums.slcds.info//viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1972
Regards Jamie P