Proper MC Removal

[Lüc da Schir]

Chapter III, Article 3, Section 4 (Removal from the Cosa), Part 1 to 4 be struck in full and replaced by the following:

Part 1. Repugnant Behavior. The Cosa shall retain authority to determine conduct that it deems repugnant warranting removal of a sitting member. All repugnant conduct shall be inherited from the preceding Cosa, and may be modified by a three-fifths majority of the Cosa.

Part 2. Procedure for Investigation. Pursuant to procedures set forth by the Cosa, any member may charge another member with repugnant conduct, and upon a petition signed by two-fifths of the Cosa being presented, the sitting member is deemed under investigation. No member shall be investigated due to repugnant conduct that went into effect after the action was committed.

Part 3. Procedure for Removal by the Cosa. When a member is under investigation, an internal trial shall be held according to a procedure established under the rules and procedure of the Cosa. At the conclusion of that trial, upon an affirmative vote of three-quarters of the sitting members, the member under investigation is deemed removed, with the seats to be reallocated by the Party who has an interest in those seats.

Part 4. Procedure for Removal by the Party. A Party may, upon a petition signed by two-fifths of the Cosa being presented, recall one of its members and reallocate their seats according to its own procedures.

[Lüc da Schir]

• Repugnant conduct can be modified anytime, but with a greater majority
  
• "Expulsion" is replaced with "Under investigation" for greater clarity; isn't expulsion equal to removal? Why "expulsion" if the charged member can still apparently vote? Most importantly, why "expel" a member that hasn't even been tried by a majority of his peers?
  
• Procedure for opening investigation changed, it previously required 1/4 + Seneschal or 2/5 + no Seneschal, and is now a simple majority; why was the Seneschal mentioned when no Seneschal has even sat in the Cosa for almost two years now?
• Part 4 stays as it was (it referred to Part 2)

I should have highlighted all the key differences in the text.

[Ian Plätschisch]

I think the stipulation that repugnant behavior can only be changed in the first Clark is too make sure we don't have any ex post facto changes.

I would also keep the threshold to place a member under investigation at 2/5 (but getting rid of the 1/4 + Seneschal makes sense)

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Why not just prohibit ex post facto changes?

[Lüc da Schir]

Added ex post facto prohibition in Part 2; I welcome any rephrasing anyone might suggest as I struggled to get an elegant sentence together. Returned investigation threshold at 2/5th.

Also "consent of 2/5th of the Cosa" is now "petition signed by 2/5th of the Cosa", mostly because I felt that "consent" was the wrong word for an action by effectively a minority of a body, while I think "petition" is more appropriate as a procedural tool (eg. discharge petitions).

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I'd like to adapt this and put it in the amendment I'm writing, since I think a lot of this would improve the current process. Is that ok?

[Lüc da Schir]

You're welcome to do so, with the understanding that I will not abandon this standalone version if I don't like whatever else is in your amendment.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

You probably shouldn't abandon this standalone version no matter what, since it amends the FDT/MRPT constitution. My amendment is to the Organic Law, instead. I think there's a lot of good ideas that can come out of this convention process, even if it's deeply problematic as a whole. I'm snapping up these good ideas as I see them so that they can be proposed in a more practical venue, even if nothing actually comes out of this thing. As I said before we started this, this is the third time this approach has been tried, and it didn't work the previous two times.

So thanks! I think we can get this fix done, no matter what happens with this constitution.

[Lüc da Schir]

(Nevermind, I thought you were writing an amendment to the draft, because I forgot about the mega amendment thread and hadn't read the new posts yet.)