Fall Allthing discussion - 2010/08/24 09:12I have some questions about 2 of the proposals on the ballot.
2. Allow for Pro-tem positions when there are no declarations. It is proposed to add the following language to 5.A.h, 5.B.h, 5.C.h, 5.D.h, 6.A.f, 6.B.f, 6.C.f, 6.D.g, 7.A.c, 7.B.c, 7.C.c, and 7.D.b: "… If, upon the end of the declaration period, no other candidates have declared for the office, the incumbent officer can, if desired, declare for an additional term as a pro-tem officer if he or she has already met the two consecutive term limit. "
Rationale: Currently, if there is no one else willing to take a necessary position, the officer currently holding that position is ineligible to be considered a candidate if they have already held the position for two consecutive terms. This proposal allows for them to take office again only so long as there is no one else willing to step up and take the office instead. If another candidate steps up, then the incumbent officer is still ineligible to step into office if the two term limit has been reached.
Is this only allowing them to step up for a third term? From the wording I believe this is the intent, but what happens after the third term and the same thing happens again? Fortunately this hasn't been an issue in our neck of the woods, but shouldn't it be more specific to state if it only allows a third term or if it is meant to basically bypass the term limit rule?
3. Remove Taxation It is proposed to remove sections 3.E and 3.F in their entirety, remove the statement “Provincial donations need not be forwarded to the Empire and are not taxed in any way” from section 3.D, and remove “and payment of taxes to the Empire” from 7.B.i, 7.C.h, and 7.D.g.
Rationale: Taxes are a waste of space in the corpora. Not a single group in the IM core is currently taxes paid, and repeated attempts to request funds from the provinces have received no response. There is no point having a section in the corpora that we have proven incapable of enforcing, and that the provinces have proven unwilling to follow.
What reasoning have the specific parks given as to why they are not paying taxes? I guess I don't understand if each group has a bank account as required by Capora why they can't write a check twice a year to cover their taxes. How long has this been going on?Baronet Tsani Duke of Querna Tema PGMR of Rivermoor Eternal Flame House Ironwood
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Korderellin
Admin
Posts: 529
Re:Fall Allthing discussion - 2010/08/24 15:39Tsani wrote: Is this only allowing them to step up for a third term? From the wording I believe this is the intent, but what happens after the third term and the same thing happens again? Fortunately this hasn't been an issue in our neck of the woods, but shouldn't it be more specific to state if it only allows a third term or if it is meant to basically bypass the term limit rule?
The wording is intentionally ambiguous to allow for multiple extra terms if necessity requires it. As soon as one other person declares, the incumbent officer is ineligible for another term. We've been running into issues on both the park and Kingdom level with a lack of leadership. In some instances, groups have been breaking corpora by allowing the incumbent officer to hold office beyond their normal allotment due to the fact that they are the only one willing to do so. We also have difficulty getting people willing to hold Imperial offices; while we can usually get someone to declare eventually, in many cases, it requires a further delay in the althing schedule to finally get someone to declare. This allows for someone who may want the position to take it if there is no one else able or willing to do so, so the IM does not just end up with an empty office.
What reasoning have the specific parks given as to why they are not paying taxes? I guess I don't understand if each group has a bank account as required by Capora why they can't write a check twice a year to cover their taxes. How long has this been going on?
Reasons that have been provided have been "We don't have any dues paid members (which is in itself breaking the corpora, since there should always be at least two dues paid members at the shire level, and at least four at every level thereafter)" to just not responding to inquiries regarding taxation. This has been going on for years.Kord
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Grendel
User
Posts: 2066
Re:Fall Allthing discussion - 2010/08/24 16:16I heard Zumat stole one of Arthur's mountain dews over the weekend, that's amtgard related theft, ban Zumat.Strike First. Strike Hard. No Mercy. Hús Vetra Skald
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Korderellin
Admin
Posts: 529
Re:Fall Allthing discussion - 2010/08/24 17:56While I realize Grendel's comment was intended to be tongue in cheek, it poses an interesting illustration of how this sort of change will actually work with the new proposal.
Let's say that Zumat stole Arthur's Mountain Dew while at Amtgard. If he was "caught and/or proven guilty" of doing so, the corpora automatically requires that he would be suspended under the "Petty Theft" category, and have his belt and titles stripped for a minimum of 6 months.
Now, under the new proposal, the monarch would have discretion whether or not this is something that would require punishment. Knowing Zumat and Arthur, and the fact that they regularly share bodily fluids, one would be inclined to think this is not a punishment worthy offense. Unless this occurred at Amtgard, I have a hard time seeing how this could be considered "Amtgard related theft" and is therefore not justifiable as punishable under the new proposal. Also, in the extremely unlikely event that a monarch decided to be vindicative and apply a punishment, the punishment can be overturned by Zumat getting 20% of the active populace (or two people, considering our recent level of participation) to put it on the althing ballot, and 7 people out of 10 saying the monarch's decision was inappropriate.
I'm not sure if Grendel's intent was to show that such a proposal is potentially abusable given the vagueness of the wording or not. However, I think the likelihood that a monarch would abuse such a proposal, especially considering the ability to have their decision potentially overturned, is extremely low.Kord
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Grendel
User
Posts: 2066
Re:Fall Allthing discussion - 2010/08/25 15:13Korderellin wrote: I'm not sure if Grendel's intent was to show that such a proposal is potentially abusable given the vagueness of the wording or not. However, I think the likelihood that a monarch would abuse such a proposal, especially considering the ability to have their decision potentially overturned, is extremely low.
that was my intent.
"proven guilty and/or caught" - by who? what method? what evidence?Strike First. Strike Hard. No Mercy. Hús Vetra Skald
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
3. Remove Taxation It is proposed to remove sections 3.E and 3.F in their entirety, remove the statement “Provincial donations need not be forwarded to the Empire and are not taxed in any way” from section 3.D, and remove “and payment of taxes to the Empire” from 7.B.i, 7.C.h, and 7.D.g.
Rationale: Taxes are a waste of space in the corpora. Not a single group in the IM core is currently taxes paid, and repeated attempts to request funds from the provinces have received no response. There is no point having a section in the corpora that we have proven incapable of enforcing, and that the provinces have proven unwilling to follow.
What reasoning have the specific parks given as to why they are not paying taxes? I guess I don't understand if each group has a bank account as required by Capora why they can't write a check twice a year to cover their taxes. How long has this been going on?
It's possible the only people who are dues paid are the ones in office. And I don't think anyone really wants a 6 dollar check.
Besides, that 6 dollars might be more useful in the hands of the province anyway
Post edited by: Lokin, at: 2010/08/29 20:40
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Korderellin
Admin
Posts: 529
Re:Fall Allthing discussion - 2010/08/29 20:58True. This doesn't really speak very highly of the willingness of Amtgarders to participate in the running of the club, unfortunately.
As it stands, for the Empire, taxes have never been a significant source of revenue. In reality, they general are more of a formality than anything else. In most instances, the funds that go to the Empire would be better suited to remaining in the park coffers for their uses. Rakis more or less funds the Empire for the year anyway, so we're not exactly in need of the funds.
As a side note, this proposal only affects the IM Core; Principalities still have taxation included in the corpora under the Principalities appendix. If this principalities want to remove taxation, this would have to be implemented as a separate proposal.Kord
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Medryn
User
Posts: 241
Re:Fall Allthing discussion - 2010/09/16 17:16So I realize this is a bit late, since ballots are due tomorrow, but I had some thoughts about the change to Appendix B.
I realize that the language in the proposal regarding the 20% is almost identical to the language currently in our corpora, but it raises a question. What exactly does 20% of the active populace mean? We don't define the term "Active Populace" anywhere in the corpora. "Populace" appears to be defined in section 1.G. as anyone who has signed a waiver. We don't actually define or even use the word "active" in relationship to membership in any place other than the appendix (fun fact: the word 'active' only appears twice in the corpora in any context). We will likely need to address this in a future althing, regardless of whether this proposal passes.
As I'm sure everyone is aware, I am a huge proponent of the Monarch's executory authority and discretion, so this may sound a little dissonant, but it seems to me that in trying to remove the mandatory provisions of the current appendix B we may have overshot the middle path. The proposal very much requires a Monarch with sack, because he or she now has total discretion over punishment. I'm not sure it is actually an issuw, but it certainly puts more pressure on the Monarch.
Finally I'm a little uneasy in relying solely on the Althing in reinstating titles. It pushes awful close to allowing the populace to grant awards. I think there might again be a middle ground somewhere balancing between the Monarch and the Althing.
Overall I think this is an improvement, but it looks like we will need to make a couple modifications in the future.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Korderellin
Admin
Posts: 529
Re:Fall Allthing discussion - 2010/09/16 17:43At the althing discussion on Saturday, it was proposed that, in a future althing, the wording could be changed to having the althing make an official recommendation to the seated monarch, who could then use their discretion in reinstating the titles. This way, we still retain monarch's authority in determining awards, but give the populace an official method of providing their input into the process.
I had also realized that there is no real definition of "active" populace, thus leaving it up to intepretation the total number required. Unfortunately, I realized this after the althing had been submitted, so was unable to submit any changes prior to this election. My inclination would be to submit a change on the next althing directly defining "active populace" with regards to the appendix, since that is the only place where it is truly pertinent.
As for the requirement for MWS's (Monarchs with Sack), I think anyone who is in a position to implement such a requirement is going to need to be an MWS regardless of whether the corpora mandates a specific punishment, or whether they are required to mete out punishment at their own discretion. It is never a pleasant situation to be forced to handle a matter such as this, but I think a monarch who does not possess the fortitude to come to a decision on a penalty would have just as much difficulty implementing the corpora mandated penalty.Kord
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Medryn
User
Posts: 241
Re:Fall Allthing discussion - 2010/09/17 02:49With those to addendums, I think this proposal is very much the direction we want to go.
I very agree that implementing decisions under either version of appendix B requires MWS. However it's hard enough for a monarch to say X occurred and I am therefore taking action as required by corpora. It becomes doubly hard to say X occurred and I have the option of imposing anything from no consequence to long term bans and stripping of titles. While I think the current version may be too much of a straight jacket, I worry that the new version may make it difficult for a monarch to gauge an appropriate sanction.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Home 
