[Discussion] Proposal to allow proxy votes

This is a first draft. I'm sure it can be improved upon. This is NOT aimed at ANY body, but is a proposal that would allow us to do our jobs better.

Quote :

Proposed Addendum to Book I, Article 2 of the Somerset Legal Corpus

Art. 1.2.9.: Councilors who will not be available for a period of time not to exceed one week may, at their discretion, post in the Private Council Rooms a letter granting proxy to such other Council member as they feel will adequately reflect their views on the diverse issues this council may discuss.

i. Any Council member may be granted such proxy by any other Council member.

Quote :

This prevents any requirement that proxies be granted only to Councilors of ones own party - however such shall work out in practice, the law itself should be neutral as to party membership.

ii. No Council member shall be required to accept the responsibility of casting proxy votes for another.

Quote :

In practice, make sure that your designee is willing to take your proxy!

iii. Council members who are active ingame may not grant proxies.

Quote :

This isn't a way to avoid responsibility, but to ensure that your voice is heard when one will, say, be out of town on business or on a weekend trip.

iv. Proxy votes must be clearly marked as such, and must be cast in a separate posting from the designee's own vote.
v. Notices of proxy given must include the start and end dates of the proxy.
vi. No proxy shall be granted for a period of more than one week.

Ok, let the discussion begin! I really think that this idea, freely adapted from Loxley's suggestion in the RK forums, is a good one. I have inserted my own comments using quotes, to separate those from the proposal itself.

I am fully in support of this measure as long as it being utilized ONLY by council members whose in game characters are in RETREAT only.

If they have time to log in to feed them and work then they have time to come to council for 5 minutes and do their elected jobs here.

and to avoid the situation where a Counsellor is consistently absent and does fly by's in between absences I would like to see it revised to state that a Counsellor is allowed to enact a proxy only 3 times during the course of any given Council tern before he or she must render their seat to the next member in line on their party list.

This will ensure people give thought ahead of time to the duration of the council term they are running for any RL conflicts they have on their agendas upcoming and that the people will have the benefit of seeing only readily available players vying for the seats in council instead of filler names just to get 12 people on a list to run and then consistent no shows when the business of council convenes.

What does inactive in game mean? Sorry I have been away a while .

I think Ellsbeth's amendments strengthen this proposal.

I do too, Greg I was hoping for just such constructive suggestions. Once a few more people have weighed in, I'll do a rewrite, post that, and see how the discussion goes from there before posting it for a vote.

I think this is superfluous.

With all the talk about councilors not being involved and not showing up to vote an addenum like this seems to enable that inactivity.

As Ellsbeth said if they can find the time to log on to feed their character they can take a minute to check the council room.
The proposal is limited to a week and since discussions take two days or longer and the votes can last two days if someone is absent less then a week they should still have enough time to participate.

I disagree. If someone is away for a week say which is not out of the question. Then a discussion could start the day they leave and 2 days later a vote and 2 days after that a decision all in 4 or 5 days a full two days before that person has a chance to take part.

Someone gone for a few days this is not as important for as they should be able to at least take part in a vote. But those that are away for 4 to 7 days this could be very important to. If they will be away for more than a week then perhaps they should consider stepping aside so that someone from their list can do the job fully.

I like the spirit of the law. I think proxies can help garner a more "full" participation.

I agree that it should only be used if a player's ig character is on retreat.

Judge Ellsbeth, can I ask you to clarify your 3 proxy limit? Does this mean you are only allowed to have a proxy for 3 votes or you can choose a proxy three times? To clarify that statment, take the hypothetical situation that there is one busy week where the council is to vote on four different things, would this be permitted under your recommendation? I would support language that permits a person to choose a proxy three different times, but not language that only allows for three proxy votes (does this even make sense? I am feeling terribly inarticulate at this moment ).

I also agree that proxies should be able to last more than a week if the circumstance finds it necessary. As Her Grace has said, seeing as discussion and voting often takes almost a week (four days minimum) this law would only apply if someone was gone for five to seven days. I understand the desire to set a length restriction, if someone is gone for a very long time then perhaps a proxy is not what is needed, but I believe a looser restriction would be better.

One other ridiculously minor recommendation: I would remove the exclamation point.

LOL Rebo! anything within that original proposal that's inside a second quote was a comment i made as i wrote that draft out there are NO exclamation points inside the draft law itself.

I agree that proxies should only be allowed when one's IG character is in retreat. I support Ellsbeth's addition that a councilor should only be allowed three proxies in a given session.

Your Grace, this isn't superfluous, but could lead to greater participation by the council members in carrying out their duties.

Rebo, a 2 week period wouldn't be outrageous to me, but then I'd want a limit of two proxies in a session. I feel that if someone would be absent for more than 2 weeks (due to pre-planned events, like family vacations or long-scheduled business trips) of a term, than they should defer their list membership, or resign in favor of someone who can fulfill the duties of a councilor. After all, the term is only 8 weeks - being absent for more than 1/4 of that time is rather an imposition on the voters, wouldn't you agree?

Chardonnay wrote:

LOL Rebo! anything within that original proposal that's inside a second quote was a comment i made as i wrote that draft out there are NO exclamation points inside the draft law itself.

Chardonnay wrote:

Rebo, a 2 week period wouldn't be outrageous to me, but then I'd want a limit of two proxies in a session. I feel that if someone would be absent for more than 2 weeks (due to pre-planned events, like family vacations or long-scheduled business trips) of a term, than they should defer their list membership, or resign in favor of someone who can fulfill the duties of a councilor. After all, the term is only 8 weeks - being absent for more than 1/4 of that time is rather an imposition on the voters, wouldn't you agree?

2 week limit makes far more sense to me than 1 due to the rules on how long discussion and votes last. So, Yes, I would agree.

If there is a 2 week limit and a maximum of 2 proxies allowed then that gives each counselor up to 4 weeks they can be absent with no consequence which I feel is still absurd as that us 1/2 of their term If a Counselor cannot be present for half the time they are elected then they do not need to be elected ...period. THAT is the entire point.

Allowing 3 weeks of absence is being more than accommodating. Missing 1/2 of your elected term of discussion and voting is simply not acceptable.

If Counselor Rebo's hypothetical situation of 4 or so votes did occur in one week and one was allowed up to 4 week of slack then that could ostensibly be up to 16 votes one would miss without having to be accountable ( a very unlikely occurance to be certain but possible none the less)

If you are going to take on an elected office and cannot check in at least once every 4 days given 2 for discussion and 2 for voting then why volunteer your time? Checking in once every 4 days already means you miss either the 2 day discussion or the 2 day vote

If you are going to serve the people how are you serving them by lack of either discussion or lack of vote? if you only make it for votes how are you really contributing anything at all to the people? If you male it to discussion but then cannot make a vote then you are not even there to support your own vision and understanding of the peoples needs.

I just do not see this as being our right to determine how much we can get away with not serving the people, defining how little we have to be here to still be able to justify taking their votes with a clear conscious.

I believe it is our obligation when choosing to run for office to take personal account of our schedules for the 8 week period we are committing to and if we know from the outset we cannot be here on a regular basis and cannot give 100% then we need to be honest with ourselves and the people we are allegedly running to serve as we cannot serve them if we cannot be here to do it.

Judge Ellsbeth, I agree that councilors should be present far more than half the time they are elected. I still, however, think that limiting the time you can have a proxy to one week will not accomplish our intended goal, since discussion and voting often take up to a week anyway (the whole "this only applies if you are gone for 5-7 days" thing). So maybe instead of limiting the number of instances you can choose a proxy (i.e. 3 one week sessions or 2 two week sessions), we should make it so that there is a max time you can have a proxy for. We could make it three weeks, per your original recommendation. So, in the course of a term you can have a proxy for three of those weeks, it could be 1 three week session or 1 two week session and 1 one week session, etcetera etcetera.

I think that this amendment would allow for a more flexible proxy schedule (more accurately reflecting rl issues), while still achieving our shared concern for accountability.

For Somerset!

I can accept one week absences Counsellor spaced out over the tern but if you are suggesting we give a counselor an excused 3 week absence when he or she is not expected to show up than I vehemently disagree with that.

If someone needs to be absent for a 3 week holiday or a 3 week camp or what have you then they should not run for council or should give their seat over.

3 weeks of consecutive absence just does not cut it

how flexible should the people be in having representation?

in a council of 12 people one vote can make or break a majority and if the peoples representative in a matter is not there to be that vote they can lose their ability to change or create a law they have to live with. Not a very fair proposal from a citizen point of view.

I see far too much counsel scrambling to provide cover their behind excuses to hang onto their seats and not enough holding themselves strictly accountable to the people they are here to serve

Ellsbeth wrote:

I see far too much counsel scrambling to provide cover their behind excuses to hang onto their seats and not enough holding themselves strictly accountable to the people they are here to serve

This CERTAINLY is not my intention, and I wish you wouldn't try to paint it as such.

My main hesitation about the way this law is written is that it only permits a one week max absence, which, as the Duchess and I have stated, makes it somewhat superfluous in that it only permits for such a small window. I see that three weeks of consecutive absence may be too much, but one week is too little. Perhaps we could make it 10 days or two weeks.

Now, I can continue to offer amendments, or you could offer ideas for improvement ALONG with your criticism. Criticism without constructive ideas for improvement is an action of a cynic. I know you are usually VERY good at offering constructive criticism, which is why I am surprised you are not doing it now. I know it is out of character for you to do so. (Please do not seize this opportunity to post about times others were acting the role of a cynic, the only reason why I am saying this is because i KNOW you are usually very good at offering constructive ideas along with your criticism.)


For Somerset!
Rebo

Sir it is EXACTLY what was suggested by allowing counselors to have weeks run consecutively.

3 weeks absence if allowed to run consecutively would give a counselor 21 days of absence in a row during an 8 week /60 day term.

That is just not acceptable.

and I HAVE offered constructive criticism

I am simply drawing the line in the sand where I believe there is no longer a compromise that is beneficial to the PEOPLE.

I am for the proposal as long as the proxies granted are NOT allowed to run consecutively.

by allowing them to run consecutively we create a HUGE chunk of time one can slack off during their term and still legally hold their seat.


When there are members of the various parties who ARE able to be present and ARE able to take a seat and use it actively then 3 weeks of absence is not acceptable.

I would accept a total of 3 weeks maximum, with no more than 10 days of consecutive absence. I agree that being away for more 1/3 of a council term for any reason short of personal injury is abusive, and that the preferred way to handle any such PLANNED absence would be resignation in favor of the next person on that list.

This is NOT speaking to Budicca's current semi-absence; I continue to pray for her and her family and shall have no complaint no matter the length of time she must spend on more important things.

I can accept a 10 consecutive day maximum with the understanding that the final 3 days of that 10 days is subtracted from their 2nd weeks proxy leaving them with a 4 day proxy and one 7 day proxy.

I feel this is being overly gracious to be honest as I personally find it irresponsible to run if you are knowledgeable your RL schedule will impose upon your attendance in Council for 3 weeks of time during an 8 week course of duty.

However in the interest of compromise to achieve an end result I will agree to the stipulations above for this motion.

Ellsbeth wrote:

I can accept a 10 consecutive day maximum with the understanding that the final 3 days of that 10 days is subtracted from their 2nd weeks proxy leaving them with a 4 day proxy and one 7 day proxy.

I feel this is being overly gracious to be honest as I personally find it irresponsible to run if you are knowledgeable your RL schedule will impose upon your attendance in Council for 3 weeks of time during an 8 week course of duty.

However in the interest of compromise to achieve an end result I will agree to the stipulations above for this motion.

I agree with you analyse here, but a comprimise seems in order

I will attempt a new wording, containing the results of this discussion once I've returned home from work (about 12 hours from now).

Excellent I look forward to a permanent solution to lack of attendance to this job for the future of Somerset!

Second Draft

Quote :

Proposed Addendum to Book I, Article 2 of the Somerset Legal Corpus

Art. 1.2.9.: Councilors who will not be available for a period of time may, at their discretion, post in the Private Council Rooms a letter granting proxy to such other Council member as they feel will adequately reflect their views on the diverse issues this council may discuss.

i. Any Council member may be granted such proxy by any other Council member.
ii. No Council member shall be required to accept the responsibility of casting proxy votes for another.
iii. Council members must be in retreat ingame, or any such proxy designations shall be invalid.
iv. Proxy votes must be clearly marked as such, and must be cast in a separate posting from the designee's own vote.
v. Notices of proxy given must include the start and end dates of the proxy.
vi. No proxy shall be granted for a period of more than ten (10) days.
vii. No Councilor shall be permitted to render proxies for more than a total of twenty (20) days during a singularl Council term.
vii. Any Councilor who may be found absent for more than twenty (20) days during a singular Council term shall lose his or her Council privileges and shall be asked to submit their resignation.

This looks reasonable to me.

That is excellent and should go a long way to lending weight to the serious commitment to fellow citizens that this job entails and to solve the perpetual absence issue to ensure Somerset is well represented at all times.

I fully support bringing this Law to vote.

I think it should be amended to:

Quote :

Proposed Addendum to Book I, Article 2 of the Somerset Legal Corpus

Art. 1.2.9.: Councillors who will not be available for a period of time may, at their discretion, post in the Private Council Rooms a letter granting proxy to such other council member as they feel will adequately reflect their views on the diverse issues this council may discuss.

i. The councillor granted the Proxy vote may vote on behalf of the councillor granting the proxy in any vote not requiring in-game action, in addition to casting their own personal vote.
ii. The proxy vote should reflect the views of the proxy granter as far as possible, and does not have to be the same as the personal vote of the councillor granted the proxy.
iii. Any Council member may be granted such proxy by any other Council member.
iv. No Council member shall be required to accept the responsibility of casting proxy votes for another.
v. Council members must be in retreat ingame, or any such proxy designations shall be invalid.
vi. Proxy votes must be clearly marked as such, and must be cast in a separate posting from the designee's own vote.
vii. Notices of proxy given must include the start and end dates of the proxy.
viii. No proxy shall be granted for a period of more than ten (10) days.
ix. No councillor shall be permitted to grant proxies for more than a total of twenty (20) days during a single Council term.
x. Any councillor who is found to be absent for more than twenty (20) days during a single Council term may lose his or her Council privileges at the discretion of the Duke, and may be asked by the Duke to submit their resignation.

My thoughts on Vana's suggestions:

Quote :

i. The councillor granted the Proxy vote may vote on behalf of the councillor granting the proxy in any vote not requiring in-game action, in addition to casting their own personal vote.

Entirely reasonable, and probably required. I overlooked this enabling wording; I'm glad that Vana did not!

Quote :

ii. The proxy vote should reflect the views of the proxy granter as far as possible, and does not have to be the same as the personal vote of the councillor granted the proxy.

I would hesitate to write this into law, for it makes a legal requirement that Councilor FancyPants tries to guess the views of Councilor BathingSuit. I would prefer to not open the can of worms when BathingSuit comes back and starts in on FancyPants, "How could you think I'd vote for that (choose your own expletives) action!!!" We all have at least a modicum of understanding of where each other stands, or is likely to stand, on any given issue. Choose wisely, and this should never be a problem, while insisting upon telepathy in the designated voter well cause no end of bickering.

Quote :

x. Any councillor who is found to be absent for more than twenty (20) days during a single Council term may lose his or her Council privileges at the discretion of the Duke, and may be asked by the Duke to submit their resignation.

I see no reason to give that discretion. Again, it's a license for screaming about partisan interests should the Duke ever exercise that discretion, or ask someone for a resignation. That screaming would be equaled in volume should the Duke discretely choose otherwise. This wording would be the linch- or perhaps, lynch -pin for any amount of acrimony, and sides would be chosen by party affiliations. My initial phrasing,

Quote :

Any Councilor who may be found absent for more than twenty (20) days during a singular Council term shall lose his or her Council privileges and shall be asked to submit their resignation.

allows no favorites to be played, nor even the hint of favoritism to appear; do this and this is the result. Simpler. No personalities involved. Less prone to causing another Somerset breakdown. All good things

I do hope for more discussion