board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Admin Removal --- VOTING CLOSED

Post Reply   Page 1 of 11  [ 203 posts ]
Jump to page 1 2 3 4 511 »
Author Message
Faramond
Post subject: Admin Removal --- VOTING CLOSED
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 12:27 am
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
Voting is now open and will last until Monday 5:00 am GMT.


BALLOT
Article 2: ¶8 When is an Admin Removed from Office


Question 1:
1. An Admin cannot be removed from office without due process.

A. Yes
B. No

Question 2:
2. Except for those special cases listed, no single violation or act of negligence will be sufficient to remove an admin from office. If a hearing is convened, a pattern of repeated violations or negligence damaging to the board must be shown, and an admin must have received warnings and Formal Complaints.

A. Yes
B. No

Question 3:
3. When an admin resigns or is removed from office, a new admin is selected to complete the term of office.

A. Yes
B. No

Question 4: Grounds for Warnings

1. Being absent from the board for more than 72 hours without notifying the other admins, except in personal emergency or computer failure.

2. Failing to repond in timely fashion to business-related emails and PM's from members and other admins

3. Posting hidden at times when the admin is needed to be visible.

4. Special treatment of posters or arbitrary enforcement of the by-laws.

5. Conduct Unbecoming an Administrator, such as discourtesy or intimidation, or attempting to influence poster behavior on other messageboards.

SELECT ONE:
A. I accept all five grounds for warnings, with 72 hour limit to absences
B. I accept all five grounds for warnings, with [#] hour limit to absences
fill in the hour limit you prefer
C. I do not accept grounds [#] fill in the number(s) of all grounds you do not accept

Question 5: Procedure for Warnings

1. The action or omission must be brought to the attention of the current
admins.

2. Two admins must agree that a warning is justified.

3. These two admins will notify the admin under complaint and give that person a chance to explain themselves. If the explanation is satisfactory, nothing more need be done.

4. If two current admins still believe a warning is justified, they will write briefly the reason and forward this to the Mayor by email.

5. If the current admins are in disagreement as to whether action is required, no warning will be filed.

6. Warnings are private and kept on the record by [options are given in the next question

7. Warnings are purged after the admin leaves office.

SELECT ONE:
A. I accept all seven steps of the procedure
B. I do not acccept step(s)[#] fill in the number(s) of all steps you do not accept

Question 6: How is the record of warnings maintained

A. The record of warnings is maintained by the Mayor and does not become public unless it aggregates to a Formal Complaint.

B. The record of warnings is maintained in a thread in the admin view post only section of the admin forum during the term of the admin in question, after which it is deleted.

C. The record of warnings is maintained by the Mayor. A member who makes a complaint is told if it resulted in a warning or not. [So warnings in effect are no longer private.]

D. The record of warnings is maintained in a thread in the admin view post only section of the admin forum during the term of the admin in question, after which it is deleted. A member who makes a complaint is told if it resulted in a warning or not. [So warnings in effect are no longer private.]

Question 7: Ground for Formal Complaints

1. Three warnings for the same action or omission.

2. Being absent from the board for more than two weeks and failing to notify the other admins in advance to arrange for a temporary admin.

3. Deliberate unilateral actions for which the by-laws require a majority of admins to agree, or any other deliberate and direct violation of the by laws.

4. Failing to convene and oversee an arbitration when required, or refusing to convene a hearing on a ban when this is necessary.

SELECT ONE:
A. I accept all four grounds for Formal Complaints
B. I do not acccept grounds[#] fill in the number(s) of all grounds you do not accept

Question 8: Procedure for Formal Complaints

Option A contains the following steps:

1. The action or omission that is the basis of the Formal Complaint must be brought to the attention of the current admins.

2. Two admins must agree that a Formal Complaint is justified.

3. These two will notify the admin under complaint and give that person a chance to explain themselves. If the explanation is satisfactory, nothing more need be done.

4. If the two current admins still believe a Formal Complaint is justified, they will write briefly the reason and forward this to the Mayor by email.

5. If the current admins are in disagreement as to whether action is required, the Formal Complaint will be filed but it will be marked “Disputed.” Disputed complaints are purged when the admin’s term of office ends and will not bar them from serving as a temporary admin.

Option B contains the following steps:

1. The action or omission that is the basis of the Formal Complaint must be brought to the attention of the current admins.

2. Two admins must agree that the matter justifies a Formal Complaint rather than a warning.

3. An arbitration for Formal Complaints will be convened to determined whether or not a Formal Complaint should be filed the convention would then have to consider what form this arbitration should take when they consider the judicial part of the agenda.

SELECT ONE:

A. I accept Option A as it is written
B. I accept Option A except for Step(s) [#] fill in all the steps you would like to have reopened for discussion
C. I accept Option B as it is written
D. I accept Option B except for Step(s) [#] fill in all the steps you would like to have reopened for discussion
E. I do not like either of these procedures and want this clause left open for discussion

Question 9: Time Limit for Formal Complaints

Formal Complaints are posted where all members can read them and are kept on the record after term of office ends for a period of [A, B, C below] after which they expire and are removed from the record.

SELECT ONE:

A. Six months
B. Nine months
C. One year

Question 10: Penalty for Formal Complaints

During the time that Formal Complaints are on record, the member may not serve as temp admin or begin a new term of office as full admin.

A. Yes
B. No



Question 11: Grounds for Removal of an Admin

1. Pattern of Absences, Failure to Respond And Other Warnings: If a series of warnings or violations results in three Formal Complaints, the other admins may consider whether to convene a hearing to remove that admin. If five Formal Complaints have been filed, a hearing is required. [Note: this means there must be at least 15 separate complaints about the admin.]

2. Desertion: An admin who deserts the board and cannot be contacted for a period of 30 days should be removed from office.

3. Extreme Abuse of Power: a hearing may be convened if an admin deliberately and maliciously bans a member who is entitled to a hearing or suspends posting rights without due process, except in the course of exercising extraordinary powers.

4. An Immediate Hearing is required if:
....a. An admin reveals private information obtained as a result of their office, such as profile information that members have made hidden or the contents of secret ballots cast by PM or email
....b. Gives another poster access to the admin panel
....c. Uses the board to boast about criminal behaviors and/or encourage other posters to engage in them

SELECT ONE:
A. I accept all four grounds for removal
B. B. I do not acccept grounds[#] fill in the number(s) and letter(s) of all grounds you do not accept

Question 12: Procedure for Removal of an Admin

1. Two admins must agree that the charges against an admin are sufficiently serious and not manufactured, and that a hearing is justified. The admin who is considered for removal will be notified by PM and by email, and the call for a hearing will be posted in the Jury Room.

2. The posting rights of the admin in question will be restricted to the Jury Room and Admin powers will be revoked for the duration of the hearing.

The convention will have to consider what form this hearing should take when they consider the judicial part of the agenda.

SELECT ONE:
A. I accept both provisions
B. I reject Provision #1
C. I reject Provision #2

Questions 13 through 19: Penalties for Removal of an Admin

An admin can be removed from office and barred from holding office in the future for a length of time commensurate with the offense. All penalties must be longer than three months because admins cannot serve consecutive terms anyway.

Questions 13: Pattern of Absences and Failure to Respond
A. 1 year
B. Other than one year [#] fill in the number you prefer

Questions 14: Extreme Abuse of Power
A. 1 year
B. Other than one year [#] fill in the number you prefer

Questions 15: Desertion
A. 1 year
B. Other than one year [#] fill in the number you prefer

Questions 16: Breach of Privacy
A. six months
B. one year
C. other [#] fill in the number you prefer

Questions 17: Access to the admin panel
A. six months
B. one year
C. other [#] fill in the number you prefer

Questions 18: Encouraging criminal behavior
A. 1 year
B. Other than one year [#] fill in the number you prefer

Question 19: The offices that currently exist are Mayor and Administrator. Should a member barred from holding office also be barred from serving on a jury?

A. Yes
B. No
C. I wish to discuss this question after we know what kinds of juries exist,
and amend this article accordingly at a later date

Question 20: We have a paragraph about admins who have to leave office for RL reasons and we don’t know where to put it or what to call it.

“An admin who finds that they will not be able to serve for a period longer than than four full weeks should resign, because it is not possible to replace them with a temporary admin. This will not affect their eligibility to serve as a full admin in the future or as a temp admin at any time, but their name will return to the bottom of the roster of full admins as if they had served their term.”

SELECT ONE:

A. Call this a dismissal and include it in the paragraph about removals, because if a person is forced to resign then it is a dismissal and not a resignation.

B. Call this a resignation because it is not nice to say a person has been dismissed when in fact they have agreed to resign for the sake of the by-laws.

C. Give this provision it’s own paragraph: Article 2, ¶9 and title it “When Resignation is Required,” because it does not belong in the paragraph that deals with things an Admin might do wrong.

Newly added option based on Prim's suggestion:
D. Or have a paragraph that reads as follows:

“Incoming admins must agree to resign if at any time in their term they will be away from the board for a continuous period longer than four full weeks, because it is not possible to replace them with a temporary admin. Such a resignation will not affect their eligibility to serve as a full admin in the future or as a temp admin at any time, but their name will return to the bottom of the roster of full admins as if they had served their term. If an admin faces this circumstance and does not resign, then this is considered Grounds for Removal.”

Last edited by Faramond on Mon 18 Apr , 2005 9:54 pm, edited 18 times in total.

Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 12:28 am
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
Things that need attention now are in red.

Blue items are ones where competing proposals have been made.

Green items are new.



The structure and contents of this outline is based on Jn's contribution from page 4 of this thread, which grew out of the discussion up to that point.

I will be adding in points of controversy and competing suggestions from the obsolete outline to this new one over between now and 7 am GMT of 13 April 2005.




Philosophical Foundation of New Outline Structure

It is suggested that there be warnings and Formal Complaints. The list of things an admin can be warned about might be fairly long, and multiple warnings can result in a Formal Complaint, but the only consequence of a Formal Complaint is that you cannot serve as a temp admin for a period of time. There should have to be lots of complaints before we go to the trouble of removing an admin. Grounds for Removal should be restricted to the really serious stuff.



Outline



Basic principles of Admin removal and discipline

1. An Admin cannot be removed from office without due process.

2. Except for those special cases listed, no single violation or act of negligence will be sufficient to remove an admin from office. If a hearing is convened, a pattern of repeated violations or negligence damaging to the board must be shown, and an admin must have received warnings and Formal Complaints.

3. When an admin resigns or is removed from office, a new admin is selected to complete the term of office.



I. Warnings

A. Grounds for Warnings

1. Being absent from the board for more than [72 hours] without notifying the other admins [except in personal emergency or computer failure.]

2. Failing to repond in timely fashion to business-related emails and PM's from members and other admins

3. Posting Hidden at times when the admin is needed to be visible.

4. Special Treatment of posters or Arbitrary Enforcement of the by-laws.

5. Conduct Unbecoming an Administrator, such as discourtesy or intimidation, or attempting to influence poster behavior on other messageboards.


B. Procedure for Warnings

1. The action or omission must be brought to the attention of the current admins.

2. Two admins must agree that a warning is justified.

3. These two admins will notify the admin under complaint and give that person a chance to explain themselves. If the explanation is satisfactory, nothing more need be done.

4. If two current admins still believe a warning is justified, they will write briefly the reason and forward this to the Mayor by email.

5. If the current admins are in disagreement as to whether action is required, no warning will be filed.

6. Warnings are private and kept on the record by the mayor. Warning are purged after the admin leaves office.
OR
6. Warnings are kept track of in a thread in the admin view/post only section of the admin forum during the term of the admin in question, after which it is deleted.


C. Penalties for Warnings

None suggested



II. Formal Complaints

A. Grounds for Formal Complaints

1. Three warnings for the same action or omission

2. Being absent from the board for more than two weeks and failing to notify the other admins in advance to arrange for a temporary admin .

3. Deliberate unilateral actions for which the by-laws require a majority of admins to agree, or any other deliberate and direct violation of the by-laws

4. Failing to convene and oversee an arbitration when required, or refusing to convene a hearing on a ban when this is necessary.


B. Procedure for Formal Complaints

There are competing proposals here. Please read carefully, as well as Alandriel's and Jnyusa's supporting arguments and explanations in page 5 of the thread.

Alandriel's Proposal --- Formal Complaints are handled in public
1) The action or omission that is the basis of the Formal Complaint must be brought to the attention of the Mayor (if I understood right as per the above, then it would be only the Admins who would be able to do so since warnings are not subject to public record at all)

2) mayor notifies the admin in question via email (every effort is made via PM, email, and telephone to notify) and a thread is opened in bikeracks to hopefully settle the complaints in the first instance [note: in case of a formal complaint – no minor issue and probably very rare IMO I really REALLY would like to see this going public in the bikeracks from which it can be removed when settled]

3. Admin needs to respond within 72h. Failure do so will result in temporary removal of Admin powers and restricting posting rights to the bikeracks if settled to everybody's satisfaction, Admin resumes job, if not

4. possible activation of temporary admin for replacement and process moves to arbitration/ jury etc. resulting either in re-instigation of Admin or removal. During the arbitration process the Admin under question resumes full posting rights so long as no other offences are in evidence (sorry for the lousy wording)

5. if admin does not respond in bikeracks within 10 days and no previous reason/info was given re his/her absence the amin is removed and bikeracks is halted. Possible to start an arbitration process if admin re-assumes contact after 10 days

6. Formal Complaints are public

End Alandriel Proposal

OR

Jn's Proposal
1. The action or omission that is the basis of the Formal Complaint must be brought to the attention of the current admins

2. Two admins must agree that a warning or Formal Complaint is justified.

3. These two will notify the admin under complaint and give that person a chance to explain themselves. If the explanation is satisfactory, nothing more need be done.

4. If the two current admins still believe a Formal Complaint is justified, they will write briefly the reason and forward this to the Mayor by email.

5. If the current admins are in disagreement as to whether action is required, the Formal Complaint will be filed but it will be marked “Disputed.” Disputed complaints are purged when the admin’s term of office ends and will not bar them from serving as a temporary admin.

6. Formal Complaints are Public and are kept on the record for [six months, nine months, one year] after term of office expires.
End Jn Proposal


C. Penalties for Formal Complaints

1. During the time that Formal Complaints are on record, the member may not serve as temp admin.
OR
1. If there are active formal complaints on record, the member may not serve as Admin.

[Outline keeper's note: I have no idea if these are competing proposals or what. Someone help me out here.]

2. Once Formal Complaints are purged from records, the member may serve again.



III. Removal

A. Grounds for Removal

1. Pattern of Absences and Failure to Respond: If a series of warnings or violations results in three Formal Complaints, the other admins may consider whether to convene a hearing to remove that admin. If five Formal Complaints have been filed, a hearing is required.[Note: this means at least 15 people must have complained about the admin]

2. Desertion: An admin who deserts the board and cannot be contacted for a period of 30 days should be removed from office.

3. Extreme Abuse of Power: a hearing may be convened if an admin deliberately and maliciously bans a member who is entitled to a hearing or suspends posting rights without due process, except in the course of exercising extraordinary powers.

4. An Immediate Hearing is required if:
....a. An admin reveals private information obtained as a result of their office, such as profile information that members have made hidden or the contents of secret ballots cast by PM or email
....b. Gives another poster access to the admin panel
....c. Uses the board to boast about criminal behaviors and/or encourage other posters to engage in them


B. Procedure for Removal

There are competing proposals here. Please read carefully, as well as Alandriel's and Jnyusa's supporting arguments and explanations in page 5 of the thread.

Jnyusa's proposal
1. Two admins must agree that the charges against an admin are sufficiently serious and not manufactured, and that a hearing is justified. The admin who is considered for removal will be notified by PM and by email, and the call for a hearing will be posted in the Jury Room.

2. Beyond this point follow procedure for a ban with appropriate modifiction.
End Jnyusa's proposal

OR

Alandriel's proposal
1) Based on the grounds of removal, any admin can notify the admin in question via PM, email and a thread for a hearing will be posted in the Jury room stating clearly the grounds for the action taken. Posting rights of the admin in question will immediately be restricted to post in the Jury room only and Admin powers are revoked for the duration of the deliberations.

2) Beyond this point follow procedures of Jury room with possible re-instigation of Admin in question upon satisfactory outcome or move to procedures for temporary bannings / user rights restrictions

End Alandriel's proposal


C. Penalties for Removal

1. An admin can be removed from office and barred from holding office in the future for a length of time commensurate with the offense.

2. For certain offenses they can also be barred from Jury Duty
a. Pattern of Absences and Failure to Respond - [3 months, 1 year] barred from holding any office
b. Extreme Abuse of Power - 1 year barred from holding any office
c. Desertion - [3 months, 1 year] barred from holding any office
d. Breach of privacy – [6 months, 1 year] barred from holding any office
e. Access to the admin panel – [6 months, 1 year] barred from holiday any office
f. Encouraging criminal behaviour – 1 year barred from holding any office

[Note: Please remember that consecutive terms are not allowed, so any penalty must last more than three months to have meaning.]



IV. [Debated Qualifier] [Resignations or Dismissals]

An admin who finds that they will not be able to serve for a period longer than than four full weeks should resign, because it is not possible to replace them with a temporary admin. This person will be eligible to serve as a temp admin.

Last edited by Faramond on Wed 13 Apr , 2005 6:59 pm, edited 46 times in total.

Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 12:28 am
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
This outline is included here for reference, because the structure of the official outline has radically changed.

Obsolete Outline as it was on 12 April 2005

Things that need attention now are in red.

Blue items are ones where competing proposals have been made.

Green items are new.


Structure of Discussion

The discussion now will follow the below model, which of course is open to modifications. This model integrates Formal Complaints into our guidelines for removing admins, and allows for greater flexibility of policing the admins, since most offenses may only result in a warning. This model also integrates expectations of admins into the guidelines for removing admins, by treating violations of the Code of Admin Conduct as grounds for Formal Complaints.


Grounds for Formal Complaints

Mild abuses of power (defined in this thread)
Mild shirking of duty (defined in this thread)
Failure to live up to Code of Conduct (defined in Admin Code of Conduct thread).


Grounds for Removal of Admin

Extreme abuses of power (defined in this thread)
Long or frequent derelictions of duty (defined in this thread)
Three Formal Complaints


So we list violations that result in warnings for an admin, and we also list those especially serious offenses that may result in removal. An admin who received three warnings may also be removed.


Formal Complaints would require a hearing or arbitation to become official and result in a warning.

Removal of an admin would require a hearing or arbitration to be carried out.

The procedures for these hearings need to be defined. I want a small group of people to start thinking about this.




Outline of Discussion for Admin Removal


I. On what grounds may an admin be removed from office?

A. Failure to Perform Duties necessity of this entire section has been contested The philosophical discussion underlying these issues has run its course --- both camps have made their cases. We need now to decide which of these clauses are grounds for a formal complaint, and which are more serious and grounds for outright removal of an admin. In some clauses we may have to define two time frames, one for warnings and one for removal.


Unexcused Absence Clause
An admin can be [removed from office, given a warning] if he or she is absent from the board for [72 hours or 7 days or 10 days] and through negligence fails to notify the other admins and hand over pending tasks.
OR
An admin can be [removed from office, given a warning] if he or she is absent from the board for 72 hours and fails to notify the other admins, unless the failure to notify is caused by a genuine emergency such a serious personal or family illness, or is caused by an unavoidable loss of internet access making such notice impossible.


Excused Absence Clause
An admin can be [removed from office, given a warning] if he or she is absent from the board for more than two weeks and fails through negligence to arrange for a temporary admin to fill in.


Maximum Absence Clause
An admin who is going to be gone longer than the longest term a temporary admin may serve must resign.


Failure to Respond Clause
An admin can be [removed from office, given a warning] if he or she through negligence fails to respond to a business-related PM or email within [48 or 72 hours] by either handling the issue him or herself or handing the issue over to another admin, obtaining the agreement of the other admin that he or she can handle it, and advising the poster that this has happened.


Pattern of Absences Clause
An admin can be removed from office if he or she is repeatedly absent for short periods of 48 to 72 hours, establishing a pattern of avoiding responsibility and being unresponsive to the needs of members and other admins.


B. Abuse of Power Let us start taking a serious look at this subject, and decide what is grounds for warning and what is grounds for outright removal.

A admin may be warned or removed from office for:
....• Violation of charter and its bylaws contested
....• Enforcement of rules not in charter

....• Violation of admin code of conduct
....• Revealing private information
.......•• votes by PM or email that are intended to be secret
.......•• profile information that members have made hidden (such as an email address)
....• Using power to indimidate or influence board members to take a certain action or refrain from a certain action off of the board, including:
........•• discouraging members from joining or participating in other boards
........•• encouraging members to quit or curtail activities on other boards
....• Giving special treatment to any poster contested
........•• giving or exempting them from appointments as temporary admin or other offices or services
........•• failing to edit or delete posts when that is clearly necessary
........•• unfairly editing or deleting posts when it is clearly not necessary
....• Giving another poster access to the admin panel

....• Discourteous behavior toward posters contested
....• Deliberately cancelling the registration of a member, except during routine clearance of inactive members
....• Deliberately banning a member who is formally entitled to a hearing, or suspending posting rights without due process. If these things are done in the course of exercising extraordinary powers, the situation must be brought to [special arbitration] as soon as possible.
....• Failing through negligence to convene and oversee an arbitration when requested to do so without handing it off to another admin. contested
....• Refusing to convene a hearing on a ban when other admins agree that it is necessary. If an admin resigns rather than convene a hearing on a ban they can still be formally removed from office and barred from holding office [for a specified time] in the future. contested
....• Deliberately taking any unilateral action that requires a majority of admins to agree. contested
....• Engaging in any criminal behavior off the board or encouraging others to do so contested


C. Abuse of Title

Items to be added later



II. By what process are Formal Complaints made official? By what process are admins removed?

I would like a small group of people to start working on these procedures.

Proposed process for removal of admin:

1. Official petition to remove admin made by board member (including a current admin)

2. Admin under petitition to be removed is notified of nature of complaint against him or her. Every effort is made via PM, email, and telephone to notify the admin before next step in procedure.

3. Arbitration settles complaint
OR
3. Special Arbitration (to be defined when convention does juries) Similar to what will be used for arbitrations that consider whether a by-law has been broken, as opposed to regular arbitrations involving disputes between members.



III. What restrictions are placed on members removed from admin position?

1. How long is a removed admin barred from office?

proposed time frames:

1 year

2. Is a removed admin barred from any other office or board governing responsibility?

3. Does the type of violation an admin is removed for affect the above two points?

(For example, some might want to bar an admin removed for abuse of power from serving on juries, but not an admin removed for failure to perform duty, or the other way around.)

End of Obsolete Outline as it was on 12 April 2005

Last edited by Faramond on Wed 13 Apr , 2005 3:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 12:52 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Bee-yoo-tee-ful, Faramond.

sits back and puts feet up on chair

Now I can re-read carefully what you've got and offer an opinion about these options without fear of pushing the discussion one way or another. :)

OK - regarding the first few items:

1. Being absent from boards for 3 (or 4) consecutive weeks
(If admin notifies other admins that he or she will be gone for 2 weeks, will a temp admin be named during his or her absence?)

2. Being absent from boards for more than 72 hours and failing to notify other admins or failing to hand over pending tasks
(In other words, an admin has a duty to inform other admins and hand over her pending tasks if she will be absent from the board for 72 hours or more.)

3. Not responding to a PM request for more than 72 hours


My position is that the terms are short, and admins should commit to at least checking their PM’s and email every day. If they are unable to deal with something they should hand it off to another admin. So I’d like to see these first three items go like this:

A. Failing to Perform duties.

1. If an admin knows they will be off the boards for more than x consecutive weeks, they should resign their office. x= the term we vote for a temp admin

2. An admin can be removed from office if they are absent from the board for 72 hours without notifying the other admins and handing over pending tasks.

3. An admin can be removed from office if they fail to respond to a business-related PM or email within 48 hours, either handling the issue themselves or handing the issue over to another admin, obtaining the agreement of the other admin that they can handle it, and advising the poster that this has happened.

4. An admin can be removed from office if they repeatedly post hidden in order to avoid receiving member requests.

B. Abuse of power

• I agree completely with items 1, 2, 3 and 6.

• I’m not thrilled about item 4. Technically the one example given might be included in ‘violation of the charter’ because the mission statement will be part of the charter.

• number 5 is OK with me.

C. Abuse of Title

There might be things that fall in this category, but an admin should not be removable for bragging.

Jn

Last edited by Jnyusa on Mon 11 Apr , 2005 2:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 2:05 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5175
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Great job, Faramond. :) Thank you for stepping up to the plate. :D

Jn has already addressed all of my initial concerns. I'll take another fresh look tomorrow and see if anything else pops out at me.


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 2:38 am
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
Okay, Jn ---

so far I have the following:


I'm going to eliminate:

Using power to indimidate or influence board members to follow a vision that is not the vision of B77 from under the Abuse of power category of reasons of remove admins.

Why?

Because it is vague and wasn't really a prior proposal, but something I wrote in an attempt to broadly capture a particular type of abuse of power represented by the prior proposal to make trying to take the board in a direction not consistent with the vision a removable offense. I'll leave it to board members other than myself to come up with any specific abuses of power they think should be included in the list, and I'll move the proposal that was made before to the violation of charter heading as Jn suggest. If anyone has a problem with this let me know.


Under the heading:

A. Failing to Perform duties

I'm going to add options that admins off the boards for x number of weeks must resign, and the option for 48 hour instead of 72 on the handling of business related PMs.

I am adding the option of the hidden posting too much as a grounds for removal.

I am also going to add in the more exact language Jn has proposed in this section.



edit in progress


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 2:52 am
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
I have a problem with the idea that admins who are off the boards for a time equal to the temp admin period must resign.

This period could be as little as a week. Even two weeks could conceivably come up during an admin's term--say a vacation followed by an illness.

Could we instead say that an admin who is absent that long must arrange for a temp admin to cover them? Or, if the absence is unplanned, somehow notify the other admins so they can put someone in place?

It seems less disruptive to the boards to allow longer absences if they're arranged in advance and covered by a temp, than to have to bring in a complete new midterm replacement.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Griffon64
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 2:59 am
Garrulous Griffon
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2147
Joined: Fri 05 Nov , 2004 12:21 pm
Location: Moving away from the madding crowd
 
I sort of agree with Prim on the admin absence issue, for the sake of the admin. Say your computer blows up two days before you leave on a hurried business trip or something like that? You just have no control over it.

For the sake of the board though, Admins falling into RL cracks is not desirable, I understand that. Perhaps planned RL outages should be reported, and the unplanned ones perhaps patched up with a temp Admin. How about having a pool of say three posters that can be rotated in AT ANY TIME if an admin goes AWOL? Those posters should perhaps be ex-admin so they can easily pick up slack, frequent visitors to B77 and actively participating in the "business side" so they have their finger on the pulse of the site. They get rotated in until either the original admin re-appears, or some period elapses that requires a replacement to be elected.

Something like that.

_________________

moment's hurt may harm or scar
but not inert nor beaten are
those who look and see afar
the healing hand of morning's star.


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 3:07 am
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
Okay, I've added in your proposal, Prim, as an alternative to Jn's number 1 under removal due to failure to perform duty.

Griff, I'll get to your specific proposal later.

Right now I'm still trying to make sure we don't have time periods of admins being gone with or without leave that are falling through the cracks.


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 3:34 am
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
Okay, there are three separate time periods I see coming into play in the question of removing admins for failure to perform duty:


1. time after which unpermitted absence allows removal

> 72 hours [in original outline]
> never, or after a much longer time [Griffon64] (could you be more specific, please? :))


2. time of absence requiring a temp admin be named

> no specific time periods named yet

3. time after which reported absence allows removal

> 3 weeks [in original outline]
> 4 weeks [in original outline]
> length of temp admin term [Jn]
> never [Prim]

Please look these over and make sure I'm getting the proposals made correct. I'm still trying to figure out how to put all this in the outline.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 3:35 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Maybe there's a different way to approach this ... because I was actually thinking of a situation that arose on another board where the person was repeatedly and conveniently absent with a series of "plausible" difficulties whenever something was going on they didn't want to deal with.

Being unavoidably absent is ... unavoidable, and the admin should not be dinged for that, nor does it improve efficiency to have them resign as a result.

Let's see - it will help Faramond if I write what I want instead of throwing vague ideas ... :D

If an admin is:
• going to be absent for more than 48 hours and fails through negligence to notify other admins of the impending absence
• going to be absent for more than two weeks and fails through negligence to arrange for a temporary admin
• fails through negligence to respond to PM's and emails of a business nature for more than 48 hours
• repeatedly absent for short periods of 48 to 72 hours, establishing a pattern of avoiding responsibility and being unresponsive to the needs of members and other admins

*****

I want to offer some additions under Abuse of Power: I've re-pasted the whole list and put my suggested additions in blue so it will be easier for others to check if these are repetitious.

B. Abuse of Power
....• Violation of charter and its bylaws
....• Violation of admin code of conduct
....• Revealing private information
.......•• votes by PM or email that are intended to be secret
.......•• profile information that members have made hidden (such as an email address)
....• Using power to indimidate or influence board members to take a certain action or refrain from a certain action off of the board, including:
........•• discouraging members from joining or participating in other boards
........•• encouraging members to quit or curtail activities on other boards
....• Giving special treatment to any poster
........•• giving or exempting them from appointments as temporary admin or other offices or services
........•• failing to edit or delete posts when that is clearly necessary
........•• unfairly editing or deleting posts when it is clearly not necessary
....• Receiving more than three complaints of discourteous behavior toward posters
....• Deliberately cancelling the registration of a member, except during routine clearance of inactive members
....• Deliberately banning a member who is formally entitled to a hearing, or suspending posting rights without due process. If these things are done in the course of exercising extraordinary powers, the situation must be brought to [special arbitration] as soon as possible.
....• Failing through negligence to convene and oversee an arbitration when requested to do so without handing it off to another admin.
....• Refusing to convene a hearing on a ban when other admins agree that it is necessary. If an admin resigns rather than convene a hearing on a ban they can still be formally removed from office and barred from holding office [for a specified time] in the future.
....• Deliberately taking any unilateral action that requires a majority of admins to agree.
....• Engaging in any criminal behavior off the board or encouraging others to do so


Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Griffon64
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 3:42 am
Garrulous Griffon
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2147
Joined: Fri 05 Nov , 2004 12:21 pm
Location: Moving away from the madding crowd
 
Faramond, part of the point I'm making is that it would be hard to establish a period. If we say a week and someone's computer is down for a week and a day - yish. So to elaborate, I have an idea where the temp rotation could potentially cover the entire remainder of the admin's term, in case they did have unfortunate circumstances.

That, however, leans towards considering the individual at the cost of the board. So, given that an Admin term is 3 months, I propose an admin absent for longer than about 10% of that consequetively WITHOUT explanation, be replaced. That would be a week and a half to make it easy. Something like that. I suck at being specific, you know ;)

Jn - but how does one define negligence? That becomes an subjective thing, and someone may simply have a crap run of luck. I do get what you aim at, though. "conveniently" being unable to repeatedly help out is something many RL people also suffer from :) I think the pattern establishing, yes.

I agree completely on Admin who post hidden being rapped on the fingers, by the way. It is an office that should not be entered into if RL will make it difficult to devote the time required to member requests.

The rest of your list rocks.

_________________

moment's hurt may harm or scar
but not inert nor beaten are
those who look and see afar
the healing hand of morning's star.


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 3:46 am
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
Wow, Jn.

Okay, first off, since no one else has made any suggestions yet under B. Abuse of Power, I'm going to just paste in what you wrote in your post since it preserves what was already there and adds in several new things.

I'll get to A Failure to Perform Duty in a bit.

Prim and Griff, could you look at Jn's new proposal under A. failure to perform duty and tell me if you have any objections to it? Does it address your concerns?


Top
Profile Quote
Griffon64
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 3:53 am
Garrulous Griffon
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2147
Joined: Fri 05 Nov , 2004 12:21 pm
Location: Moving away from the madding crowd
 
I'm a bit uneasy about the 72 hour rule ... maybe implement a warning system of some kind. Three strikes and you're out kind of thing. Sometimes being busy just makes you forget things. I've forgotten personal mail I really wanted to address for 2 days before! Falling ill, unexpected family crisis, kind of thing.

I'd say that option should include some sort of a warning system. Two or three warnings before the Admin is removed. Warnings could maybe be posted in the Info forum, publically, so posters can know their concerns are being addressed or something like that.

_________________

moment's hurt may harm or scar
but not inert nor beaten are
those who look and see afar
the healing hand of morning's star.


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 4:03 am
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
Okay, I cross posted with Griff here. edit: (actually twice now!)

To answer your question, Griff, the word negligent will be defined by the arbitrators, whoever they are. There is no proposal that admins are summarily dismissed by the mayor or something. If the word 'negligent' winds up in the constitution, the meaning of it and if it applied to a certain situations would be hashed out by the arbitrators.

Let's not forget that these aren't exactly hard and fast rules here, but grounds under which an admin could be removed, not must be removed. Under the currect proposals it is still up to a complainant and the arbitrators to make it happen in every case. Or is this something that needs to be addressed?

Okay, Griffso 10 days consecutive absent without explanation would be ground for removal under your proposal.

I'll try to get all this Dereliction of Duty stuff organized now in the outline.


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 4:09 am
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
I second the wow. I think Jn's ideas address my concerns, especially with the addition of "through negligence." I can easily see being unable to handle a PM for more than 48 hours for reasons beyond one's own control--one might even try to hand it off to another admin and be unable to find one in that span of time.

Yes, "negligence" is subjective, but in the arbitration the jury would determine whether the term was justified.

I do think there should be a maximum length for excused absence, beyond which an admin should simply resign; I think this should be equal to the maximum approved length of time for temp admins to serve.

******

Under Abuse of Power, I paused a bit over "receiving more than three complaints of discourteous behavior toward posters," because (worst case scenario) this would be an easy way for a small group of vindictive posters to cause trouble for an admin they didn't like. But I suppose if the posters' complaints were found to be false, the admin could complain against them.

I do think the "bragging about being an admin" item should go. We're grownups. We're also a bit satirical at times. Someone who's really unbearably grandiose about the whole thing would probably have worse problems than just that. ;)


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 4:13 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
What I was trying to get at regarding time frame is that if the admin is going to be absent longer than the time period for which we can appoint a temp admin with renewals, they should resign rather than have a series of temp admins replace them. But we don't know what the temp admin time frame is yet. And if we *can* put in a temporary admin to plug the gap, that would be more efficient and the admin should stay in office.

Griff: You mentioned two related things:

how does one define negligence? That becomes a subjective thing and I'm a bit uneasy about the 72 hour rule ... maybe implement a warning system of some kind

We need to fill in the procedure for removing an admin. I don't think it should be automatic no matter what the offense. In some kind of arbitration setting the admin would have a chance to defend themselves against subjective misperceptions.

I also think it should be possible to lodge a formal complaint against an admin, whether this results in removal or not, and there should be some independent evaluation here and protection against over-subjective or vindictive complaints as well. The reason for this is that "no formal complaints against them" is one of the requirements of a temp admin (assuming we vote for it).

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 4:52 am
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
Okay. I just redid the entire [A. Failure to Perform Duties] section. Read these carefully, especially those with a hand in directing my reforging of that section, to make sure I have captured all of the proposals.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 5:38 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
That was nice and clear, Faramond! Thank you.

Unexcused Absense Clause:

“and notify the mayor” -- If they are going to resign, they need to notify the Mayor but for short absenses it is mainly the other admins who need to know because they’ll be picking up the slack. Otherwise clause is OK with me.

Excused Absence -- OK with me

Maximum Absence -- when we know how long that term is, I think we should fill in the number, followed by “because a single temp admin cannot be appointed for a longer period.” That way the rule and the reason are explicit.

Failure to Respond -- for my part you can remove the first option and go with the second, because I presume some kind of warning would be given for all of these things. I have to think more about the idea of putting warnings where members can see them.

Convenient Crisis Clause -- Ok with me

C. Abuse of Title - no ojection to removal of “bragging” but please leave the category up because my spider sense is telling me there are things that belong there. I just haven’t thought of them yet.

I think that the provisions regarding procedure are going to be extremely important in this case, but I can’t think about this any more tonight.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 5:50 am
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
Jn

Okay, I'm going to fix the mayor mention in Unexcused Absence Clause.

And I'll edit the Maximum Absence Clause as you suggest when vote is over.

The Failure of Response Clause I'll wait on so others can see what is up there now, but I'll revisit it tomorrow night for certain.


And yes, there is a reason I included the category Abuse of Title even though there was only one thing (which many find questionable) --- I had a feeling there might be more to be added.


Edit--- I'm going to remove the bragging clause as ground for removal under Abuse of Title after all. It's still preserved in the original outline in post three of the thread as something proposed in the past, and if someone feels strongly enough about it to want to re-insert it, I'll put it back in.


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 11  [ 203 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page 1 2 3 4 511 »
Jump to: