Inactive Cabinet Members

mr_sniffles

mr_sniffles

TNPer
The original idea was spawned by Poltsamaa but I wrote the legal text:

Art 3, Section 4: Rules and Requirements for the Cabinet of the Regional Government.

6) If a member of Cabinet has not signed into their account for longer than a period of two weeks without a pre-arranged warning, then the Prime Minister will be granted the authority to call a vote within Cabinet to declare them invalid due to inactivity.
a) In replacing the inactive Cabinet member after a majority vote from Cabinet, standard rules for filling vacant ministries will apply.
b) All nominations and replacements can be subject to review if a RA member petitions the Court to do so. A vote will then be held following standard election procedures.
c) In the event of the inactive member returning pass the two week date, the member can assume their duly elected duties only if the Prime Minister has not already called a Cabinet vote.
Click to expand...

Let's face it, we all may say and accept that RL comes first but when shit hits the fan the last thing on our minds in warning our beloved players that we'll be gone for awhile. And the response from those still playing the game is always less than enthusiastic. This amendment allows Cabinet to proactively act by themsevles, obviously custom and convention and just plain nice-ness calls us to ask them if they're ok first but such OOC acts would cause a serious intrusion in the game.
 
Needs some work, language wise, but I think it would be easier to adjust in the long run if one clause authorized "suspension or removal due to inactivity." and then place the process in the Legal Code instead.

I'm leaning towards a constitutional amendment to move most of that section into the Legal Code. How about that for an alternative?
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Needs somw work, language wise, but I think it would be easier to adjust in the long eun if one clause authorized "suspension or removal due to inacticity." and then place the process in the Legal Code instead.

I'm leaning towards a constitutional amendment to move most of that section into the Legal Code.How about that for an alternative?
Click to expand...
Hate to slow it down because I am equally excited about this measure but I'm afraid of conflicts with Unter's legal simplifications. If he gives the ok, maybe we can move most of Cabinet duties to the Legal Code and I hate to go off-topic but the restriction of the Del's powers and some Cabinet requirements, I feel, is way too important to leave to the whims of an easily changeable Legal Code.
 
There's no way we're going to be able to make changes of substance in Unter's process of "editing"; I've already pointed out several areas where his ideas involve substanive change that in fairnss to the RA should be handled separately.

If we're going to move a number of substantive proposals into the process, then we need to have that editing process set aside until the other is approved or rejected.

The section entitled "Rules and Regulation for Cabinet, and the Section on Deputy Ministers could well be transferred into the Legal Code, since there are quite a few things that may have to be done. What I'm trying to avoid is having both of these processes going at the same time, most people will be confused, and won't realize the impact of some of the changes, which will then require followup legislation to clean it up.

I've gone through this with the revision of election procedures, and the revision of court procedure in criminal cases.....and we had to clean up after Hoar Chall's Embassies legislation. So I am speaking from the experience of participation. Let's look at a proposal to move that Section out of the Constitition now, and making this change as part of that.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
There's no way we're going to be able to make changes of subnstance in Unter's process of "editing"; I've already pointed out several areas where hios dieas involve substantice change that in fairnss to the RA should be handled separately.

If we're going to move a number of substantive proposals into the process, then we need to have that editing process set aside until the other is approved or rejected.

The section entitled "Rules and Regulation for Cabinet, and the Sectiuon on Deputy Ministers could well be transferred into the Legal Code, since there are quite a few things that may have to be done. What I'm trying to avoid is having both of processes going at the same time, most people will be confused, and won't realize the impact of some of the changes, which will then require followuip legislation to clean it up.

I've went through this with the revision of election procedures, and the revision of court procedure in criminal cases.....and we had to clean up after Hoar Chall's Embassies legislation.  So I am speaking from the experience of participation. Let's look at a proposal to move that Section out of the Constitition now, and making this change as part of that.
Click to expand...
Open the topic and I'll remember to keep this pinned (in my head of course.)

Edit - I'll make you a deal, if it gets enough support and passes Prelim discussion, we'll start hammering out the Cabinet Activity clauses. Yes, no, maybe so?
 
Sniffles, here you're adding an additional requirement of Cabinet members, that won't have any effect on what I'm trying to do with the document. (I'm fairly sure that you meant you were concerned that I'd be shifting the content of the particular section around, not suggesting we add it on to mine in an omnibus overhaul of the Constitution. That I agree with Schuauzer wouldn't be appropriate. Also Schnauzer, if you wanted to send me some rough notes on what you have planned, I could compile mine to and see what needs to be adjusted.)

Glancing back over my notes for Article III, almost all of my changes would be eliminating redundant language either within sections or with Article I with no structural changes.

For the amendment itself, I think it's a good idea. Do you think we could simply state that all Cabinet members be required X level of activity, then leave it up to the legal code to determine the process of removal? Defining the level of activity could either be in the Constitution or the Legal Code. Loosely, the head of part 6) could be added as a Constitutional amendment, and 6a,b,c) would be part of the Legal Code.
 
@ Sniffles: I'll get to it in a day or two.

@ Unter: I have had ideas but they're not wirtten out. I'll get to that in a day or two as well.
 
Seems OK. I'd be tempted to cut it down to a week, but I'd happily go for 2 if its got more support in the RA.
 
As discused above Ive sent some ideas to Unter looking as a general reviving and transfer of provisions to the Legal Code of much of the content on the two sections of Article III on Deputy Ministers and Rules and Regulations for the Cabinet.

Once I hav some feedback on those notes, then Ill pull togeher a proposal to address that idea as well as including the mechanism for inactivity provisions for Xabinet Ministers. I also recognize that we also need to address the ability of deputies or the Prime Minister to act where a Minister has not maintained activity under an inactivity provision.
 
Not a criticism, just a suggestion: try not to pad the Const to legal Code move with too much other alterations or else it might the stymie the results as an latogether reviled omnibus bill.
 
My intention is to only address those two sections that currently appear in the Constitution, as has been discussed. If someone raises any other pertinent provisions related to the Cabinet, we'll address those when they are raised.
 
This is a good idea.

I leave it to the more experienced people here to decide the Constitution or Legal Code issue, but I do urge this to be done quickly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top