| Welcome to The Rejected Realms, NationStates' ejection-free zone! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you can only view some areas of the board and you can only post in the Troubleshooting and Suggestions forum. If you register an account, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customising your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Register now! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Votes of no confidence? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: May 17 2011, 09:05 PM (729 Views) | |
| sedge | May 17 2011, 09:05 PM Post #1 |
|
Admin Slave
|
When we wrote the Constitution, it was decided not to have a mechanism for removing Officers from office, as it was felt that the challenge system was enough - if someone wanted the position, they'd challenge for it. However, there are a couple of problems with this. Firstly, people are more likely to run if there's a vacant position than if it's occupied by someone, no matter how poorly that individual is performing. Secondly, having someone listed as an Officer even if they've been inactive for weeks is just plain misleading, and if someone doesn't do the job, they don't deserve the position, regardless of whether there's a replacement in the wings or not. I'm therefore considering suggesting a mechanism for having a vote of no confidence, to remove Officers from their position. This would not be for the Delegate, as you need a Delegate at all times. The question is how it'd work - it could be a case of a citizen just calling for it, and then it being voted on after x days debate. Questions are: does it need seconding, or does an officer/the delegate need to call for it? How many days debate/voting, and what voting threshold would be needed? And, of course, is this necessary? |
![]() |
|
| Thought Transference | May 18 2011, 12:24 AM Post #2 |
|
professional loafer
|
Starting with "is this necessary", you've made a pretty compelling argument that in a very few cases like the ones you describe, it is. At least, I'm convinced. I would mention one question that comes to me arising from your statement, "Firstly, people are more likely to run if there's a vacant position than if it's occupied by someone...". If people aren't going to be willing to run for a position that's occupied, why would they be any more bold to challenge the occupant for incompetence? Also, my general expectation is that the people keenest to promote themselves in an aggressive way are often the least desirable people to be in charge of things, so I'd expect that that such challenges would throw up folks I'd rather not have in charge of things. Then again, maybe that's just me seeing too many politicians over the years and becoming jaded. But apart from that I can see that you've described a real problem. As for how it would work, I'd be concerned that if the process of challenge is too easy it could be used for frivolous purposes or even as a kind of protest mechanism, and the result might be to make it hard for a diligent incumbent to do his work because he's being harassed by challenges. A very hypothetical example: if it just required a challenge and debate, I could challenge you for being --- what do you do again? --- oh yeah, a bad foreign affairs officer. Debate ensues, followed by the vote which of course you win. But in the meantime you've been distracted from your office. Next, CG challenges you and the cycle repeats. Next Nai challenges you, then someone else and someone else. In theory, if the mechanism is too easy and if there is no mechanism to control or even challenge the challenge, it could be done out of malice or even as a joke taken too far. The result would be that you could be distracted from fulfilling your office, and eventually a challenge would be true though completely unfair. A very far-fetched example I think; I'm jet-lagged now and not thinking as clearly as I'd like. But to a lesser degree the potential for problems would be the same. |
|
Peace, TT Coffee is the cause of all things. (Thales, 2nd ed.) | |
![]() |
|
| sedge | May 18 2011, 01:31 AM Post #3 |
|
Admin Slave
|
Only replying to this, as I'm about to sleep (will address the rest later), but there's plenty of us here who could call for votes of no confidence. It could just as easily be one officer who does it against another officer, allowing a third party to then run. |
![]() |
|
| Biyah | May 18 2011, 02:41 AM Post #4 |
|
High Priest of the Cult
|
We should have the mechanism in place, at least. However, TT's thought about being constantly distracted is a good one. I'll reply more when I'm not pulling the last of the RP world together. ~B |
![]() |
|
| Whamabama | May 18 2011, 12:54 PM Post #5 |
|
Questionably Evil
|
Ya, my initial thought is, if they won't challenge, why go for a vote of no confidence? Seems if people won't do the one, chances are they won't do either one. Not to mention, if one officer is removed, and noone replaces them, we haven't really accomplished anything. But perhaps you are correct that perhaps they will go for a vacant position when they wouldn't challenge for it. Anouther method of doing this would be, to allow the delegate the power to vacate the office. Or allow a vote, and the delegate. Just throwing some thoughts out. |
|
Those who don't create, dictate The structure of our world and preach hate | |
![]() |
|
| Oliver Dion | May 18 2011, 07:02 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Dedicated
|
I like the idea of non-confidence. Sometimes, like right now, I might feel that an officer isn't pulling their weight, but still feel I couldn't fill the role personally. So it allows anybody to challenge the officer's work without having to subsequently step into their role. |
![]() |
|
| Dalimbar | May 19 2011, 05:22 AM Post #7 |
![]()
Contributor
|
After a brief glance at this, my thoughts echo some other thoughts here. Frankly, I view a Challenge as a Vote of Non Confidence. I'm not saying this as an Officer, but as a regular citizen of TRR. If a Citizen believes that an Officer is not living up to their duties, then they have a right to declare themselves a Challenger, make a compelling case as to why they should replace an Officer, and then let the voters decide themselves between the choices at hand. If it fails, then fine. The confidence in the Officer is maintained until another person decides to challenge and wins. So, did this idea come from nowhere, or what? |
|
Dalimbar Delegate (Ret.) of Osiris Delegate (Ret.) of The North Pacific | |
![]() |
|
| Biyah | May 19 2011, 06:27 AM Post #8 |
|
High Priest of the Cult
|
The more I think about this, the more I think it is redundant. Challenges are already in place. If an Officer is not doing their job, I would think it within the Delegate's powers to strip them of all responsibility and mark the position as 'requested for challenge'. If nobody steps forward when a red carpet is laid out, then we're no worse off having an inactive Officer without Portfolio, as we were having an empty spot that can't be filled. I think a vote of no confidence, with no provisions to fill the position, could be used as a political beating stick by one officer with a grudge against another: endlessly tying up both officers and distracting them from their prime duties. ~B Edit: Sorry, forgot to add one thought. The only time I could see a vote of no-confidence would be when an Officer is obviously long gone; Hasn't logged in in a month+, etc. But I still don't like the idea of simply removing them and leaving the position vacant though, it'd be just as easy for someone else to challenge the position. If nobody steps forward to do it, we're still in the same place, short an officer. Edited by Biyah, May 19 2011, 06:30 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Dalimbar | May 19 2011, 06:36 AM Post #9 |
![]()
Contributor
|
I have to agree. We Officers were elected by our peers to entrust in certain functions as allocated by the Delegate. We frankly find our jobs delegated by the Delegate, who is recognized as the ultimate authority of this Region. What we do not need is to find our jobs being snipped at by petty partisanship via other Officers for whatever reason, however just. We are elected to be Officers, but the ultimate authority to appoint to particular portfolios is the Delegate. Now, do we want to basically have a fundamental change in the Constitution that we agreed upon only months ago, to serve only a few interests? Why not test out the Challenge system first, which is the real Non-Confidence measure from the Assembly to members of the Officer class. If people have a problem with how an individual is doing in their role of Officer, they will make damn sure the Officer in question knows, and I encourage them to make a Challenge. Edited by Dalimbar, May 19 2011, 06:37 AM.
|
|
Dalimbar Delegate (Ret.) of Osiris Delegate (Ret.) of The North Pacific | |
![]() |
|
| Naivetry | May 19 2011, 06:37 AM Post #10 |
|
Spammer
|
To comment on the two original points - I think you may be right, Sedge, about running for vacant positions. This is a problem that always comes up in NS when you don't have term limits, because regions are such small social groups. We're talking about individuals who know each other personally and who generally want to get along rather than causing offense or coming across as hostile by issuing a Challenge. That said, I don't think changing it from a Challenge to a vote of no-confidence would help. There are only two sorts of people for whom it would make a difference - people who couldn't Challenge because they already were an Officer, and people who didn't want the job. That brings me to your second point, with which I disagree. Having an inactive Officer isn't a good thing, but I don't think it's any better to have a vacant position. Either way, nothing is being accomplished. But when there's someone in the position, at least you know who's supposed to be responsible. That said, I had a thought for an oddball solution. Leave the Officers to the Delegate to handle. As the Constitution stands, the Delegate can't dismiss inactive Officers, but they can assign the Officers a job - any job. I suggest we should have a Work Log thread of questions for and status updates from the Officers, encouraging people to contact the Delegate if they're concerned about the activity levels of an Officer. We can have the Officers post there, as a sort of list of things accomplished whenever they finish a project - that both keeps them accountable, and allows us to acknowledge all the work they do. If the Delegate agrees that it's a problem after reviewing the work log, they can simply reassign the Officer to a different job - say, Officer of Logging In Once A Week, or Officer of Making Coffee for Crazy Girl, etc. That should make it clear that the position is effectively vacant, and having the implicit support of the Delegate should encourage people to Challenge.And if we can't contact the Delegate... well, then the Delegate should be Challenged. And I say that in full awareness that I've been more or less out of it for the past several weeks. EDIT: Deleting a stray "/about" Edited by Naivetry, May 19 2011, 07:03 AM.
|
|
[nation]Kandarin[/nation] the Younger/[nation]Lirantha[/nation] ~ | |
![]() |
|
| Biyah | May 19 2011, 06:41 AM Post #11 |
|
High Priest of the Cult
|
I love it when we're basically in agreement. Stripping them down to an 'Officer without Portfolio' or retasking them to 'Brewer of Coffee', either way, we're laying down the red carpet. If nobody steps up to claim it, we're no worse off than if we remove them entirely and have a hole. |
![]() |
|
| Dalimbar | May 19 2011, 06:59 AM Post #12 |
![]()
Contributor
|
Indeed. A good ridicule by the Delegate will ship them out. It is still the Assembly's decision to oust them via challenge, if need be. |
|
Dalimbar Delegate (Ret.) of Osiris Delegate (Ret.) of The North Pacific | |
![]() |
|
| CrazyGirl | May 20 2011, 05:42 PM Post #13 |
|
RRA Commander
|
I do think a vacant position is easier to fill up than having to challenge an inactive officer. Not to mention an inactive officer, even without portfolio, would look bad. Perhaps a similar system as the one we use to elect officers? |
![]() |
|
| Naivetry | May 21 2011, 04:05 AM Post #14 |
|
Spammer
|
Could you explain a bit more? I'm not sure what you mean - having a vote to declare them inactive, or...? |
|
[nation]Kandarin[/nation] the Younger/[nation]Lirantha[/nation] ~ | |
![]() |
|
| Biyah | May 21 2011, 02:30 PM Post #15 |
|
High Priest of the Cult
|
I don't see how leaving an inactive member on the roster is any worse then having an empty hole we've proven we can't fill. ~B |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Assembly Archives · Next Topic » |


Debate ensues, followed by the vote which of course you win. But in the meantime you've been distracted from your office. Next, CG challenges you and the cycle repeats. Next Nai challenges you, then someone else and someone else. In theory, if the mechanism is too easy and if there is no mechanism to control or even challenge the challenge, it could be done out of malice or even as a joke taken too far. The result would be that you could be distracted from fulfilling your office, and eventually a challenge would be true though completely unfair.


I suggest we should have a Work Log thread of questions for and status updates from the Officers, encouraging people to contact the Delegate if they're concerned about the activity levels of an Officer. We can have the Officers post there, as a sort of list of things accomplished whenever they finish a project - that both keeps them accountable, and allows us to acknowledge all the work they do. If the Delegate agrees that it's a problem after reviewing the work log, they can simply reassign the Officer to a different job - say, Officer of Logging In Once A Week, or Officer of Making Coffee for Crazy Girl, etc. That should make it clear that the position is effectively vacant, and having the implicit support of the Delegate should encourage people to Challenge.
12:32 AM Jul 11