[Discussion] Proposal to allow proxy votes

Quote :

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

I concur with Point 1 and the change suggested


I do not concur with Point 2 as the language SHOULD and DOES NOT HAVE TO leaves a large loophole for any counsellor to abuse the trust of another and to use the proxy they have been entrusted with for personal/party or political gain and the absent counsellor would have no recourse.

If Lord A knows he is having surgery tomorrow and we are on Day 2 of a Discussion and he Gives his proxy over to Lord B and TELLS him what his vote is to be based on the current discussion then Lord B with this provision STILL has a big loophole he can hide behind if he instead uses the proxy to vote in a manner NOT Consistent with Lord A's wishes.

I certainly do not concur with point 3.

This change prevents straight across the board accountability and if the Duke has a crony who is slacking off then the Duke has discretion to pardon such for the Duke's personal interests and personal interests are NOT what the council is for.

I do not agree to any change that allows for LESS ACCOUNTABILITY and GREATER CATERING TO PERSONAL INTEREST.

If the proxy giver knows how they wish to vote allow them to designate their vote in the proxy itself. If this is not done we cannot expect the person receiving the proxy to read the minds of the proxy giver.

I do not agree with the rewording of that portion of the motion.

As pointed out previously I also believe that giving discretion to the Duke/Duchess to ask/demand a resignation only opens this council up to more cries of partisan politics and is not a very good idea.

I do like the reworking of the restriction regarding in game actions.

I accept the arguments against my choice of words for the second part of my amendments, and did not intend for the proxy voter to get into trouble for voting 'the wrong way'. My original purpose was merely to say that the two votes did not have to be the same, in fact should be distinct, and could be different. I like Gregarious's suggestion that a proxy grant should declare how to vote, given certain wordings or conditions.

My suggested change about the Duke/Duchess having some discretion was not due to any thoughts of cronyism, I think you know I am totally against that, though it didn't actually come into my mind when I was writing the amendment. (Though any cronyism could probably in fact work both ways, with an enforced absence causing someone to lose a position in favour of a preferred crony).
The real reason I suggested it was because I felt that there may well be circumstances under which a person's absence is unavoidable unwanted and unforeseen for which some mercy should be shown, rather than the strict prescription of loss of council position. I felt that a councillor in the unfortunate position of being unable to attend and enjoy his/her position would feel much worse and more anxious knowing that there was no chance of forgiveness and mercy. The circumstances of their absence may well be a private personal thing though, so I didn't want to make them have to report their reasons to full council in a plea for mercy, just to the Duchess/Duke.

The consensus, I thiunk, has been that this is for handling normal stuff - family vacations, business trips, a weekend at the lake. Nobody is upset with Budicca, for instance; we all recognize that she has been caught in a family emergency IRL. Nobody expects her to think about anything but her family, all are agreed that her focus is where it should be. (Budicca, I use you here only as an example, as you've been struck by such currently.) Perhaps a sentence should be added, though, to make it clear that RL emergencies would not be covered under this law. I would be happy with that, so that our intention in creating this law is closer to explicit.

This law is not being drafted in relation to Buddica's family's emergent illness by any means and is not intended to be portrayed as such, She has performed her job in past councils with good attendance and has the track record to back that up. That being settled.....

This Law is designed more for PLANNED/KNOWN Work related, Vacation related, scheduled surgeries etc that are on the calendar. It allows for pre planning to ASSURE the citizens you take your DUTY seriously and that you have made provision for it just as you make it for someone to feed your dog or water your plants or get your mail in and just as you take care of your character in game by putting him into retreat .

HOWEVER Yes I do believe it should apply to emergent situations at the 4 week mark because as much as we all empathize with RL illness or Injury or Bereavement we do have to be considerate enough of the people we play with to know if we cannot be here for at LEAST half our term due to emergent circumstance that our fellow citizens are BEST SERVED by our relinquishing our seat to someone who CAN serve them in our stead.

I do not believe for the sake of being cut and dried and across the board that allowing ANY Ducal pardons for this or any reason should be allowed. That way no counsellor claim bias in any fashion. The law will be law. Show up or give it up. Period.

Again this Law is not and should not be to make our lives as counselors easier or less accountable it is being set forth to ASSURE THE PEOPLE THEY WILL AT ALL TIMES HAVE A WORKING AND ACTIVE AND PRESENT COUNCIL.