Rule Change to Match Change in Election Law

[Pallaith]

This is a basic and obvious change. The law on appointing commissioners was changed relatively recently, allowing reappointed commissioners to begin a new six-month term immediately at the expiration of their last one, rather than starting a new one from their oath date. This is not currently reflected in our election commission rules. Observe:

Section Three: Appointments
1. The delegate may reappoint an Election Commissioner who is already on the commission, following the same procedures as all other appointments to the Election Commission. A new six month term will begin from the date a reappointed and reconfirmed Election Commissioner takes their oath of office.
2. When temporary Election Commissioners are needed, the non-absent commissioners will come to a consensus regarding who to appoint. If no consensus can be reached, the Chief Election Commissioner will create a list of all suggested appointees, and hold a vote in which each Election Commissioner may vote for as many or as few as they wish. Those with the most votes will be appointed.

I would propose fixing this discrepancy in the following way:

Section Three: Temporary Appointments
1. When temporary Election Commissioners are needed, the non-absent commissioners will come to a consensus regarding who to appoint. If no consensus can be reached, the Chief Election Commissioner will create a list of all suggested appointees, and hold a vote in which each Election Commissioner may vote for as many or as few as they wish. Those with the most votes will be appointed.

Arguably we do not even need this line in the rules at all, but the term date obviously is covered in the same procedure as other appointments, so I think we can just leave it at this.

I have adopted Sil's suggestion below in full, and propose striking the first line and emphasizing this section is about temporary appointments.

 

[Sil Dorsett]

basic and obvious change

Yep. I agree with that.

You could honestly take it a step further if you wanted. The Legal Code defines how delegate-driven appointments are done, so you could honestly remove that entire line from the EC Rules, and perhaps reclassify that section as "Section Three: Temporary Appointments", since the CEC drives those.

 

[Pallaith]

Yep. I agree with that.

You could honestly take it a step further if you wanted. The Legal Code defines how delegate-driven appointments are done, so you could honestly remove that entire line from the EC Rules, and perhaps reclassify that section as "Section Three: Temporary Appointments", since the CEC drives those.

Great idea. Let’s do that, I’ll throw something together.

 

[Pallaith]

Just confirming I have in fact adopted Sil's suggestion.