Yy4u Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 I am starting this thread because I am having logistical issue as well as wording issues about Advocate/Voice definitions/interactions as stated within the Charter as it currently stands. (8) The Advocate will serve terms of four months, with a limit of two consecutive terms. (9) The Advocate may appoint officials to assist in government and may dismiss such officials. (10) The Voice may, by two-thirds majority vote, dismiss the Advocate from office. (11) The Voice may dismiss any official appointed by the Advocate from office.8). Is this to mean that terms are indefinite and only restricted should they be consecutive?9) Is there a process/protocol involved?10) If the Advocate is a member of the Voice, is this not technically a conflict of sorts? 11) See #9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Called the Vlagh Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 8. Yes, I believe this was the intent. 9. I believe each new Advocate can establish his/her own protocols for appointments. 10. Not really. If a member of the Voice motions for the removal of the Advocate and 2/3 support the motion then the Advocate is removed. One would assume the Advocate would fall in the 1/3 opposition portion. 11. Yes, this is unclear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elegarth Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 8, 9, 10: see above 11: making a simple proposal and voting for it, simple majority would suffice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mediobogdum Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 I believe that (8) the terms of service for the Advocate as written is ambiguous and should read: "The Advocate can serve any number of total terms of four months, but if terms are consecutive, then no more than two may be served in that sequence." I also suggest that the period of service should be increased from 4 to 6 months, for the sake of continuity. Drachmaland 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fujai Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 8. I agree with changing the terms to months, with elections on the first of September and March. Plus no term limits unless they are consecutive, as stated above. 9. There should be some protocol here, I feel. 10. See above. 11. I've stated previously that this should be changed to requiring a 2/3 majority vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts