board77

I'm with holby. I think we're creating too many offices here. I didn't even like the idea of the mayor. It seems to me that we're not leaving very much for the admins to do. Now that usergroups have been created (and we'll be opening) it will be much easier for admins to process registrations. Really that's going to be their main job and that's not much. Spliting off a thread or dealing with a problem isn't going to be that common.

I really feel that we don't need these extra offices. I'm not that happy with this revote. Sorry V.

Prim wrote:

I really like the dovetailing of the two jobs, having the Loremaster become the Mayor after six months.

That's asking for some serious burnout. I remember I felt quite burnt out after 3 months of being an admin (though granted it was through the tougher time). 6 months is a REALLY long time to ask someone to hold a job and then asking them to do another for even longer? Sorry, but I'm with Cerin. Bad idea.

Jn, I went back and looked again at the old thread in which we discussed this. At least three other current members of the committee, Impy, Hobby, and Holby, expressed the opinion that they were voting no on the creation of the office not because they thought the task wasn't necessary but because they thought it could be done by the Mayor or someone else without creating a new office. That's four people (including me) out of the nine who voted against the creation of the office but still believed that the function was valuable. I think that is enough to justify re-evaluating the issue. But I agree that the ballot should be restructured. I have some ideas of how to accomplish this that I will explore later, when I get a chance.

I agree on second thought that my proposal was a bad idea. However, I do think we need this office or the functionality of this office. Some things really do need to be laid out, and some jobs do need to be official jobs. The problem with not doing that and leaving everything to happy anarchy, or to a constantly changing pool of admins of varying outlooks on life and varying abilities, is that it is not fair to the members involved in hearings when those hearings are not run the same way every time—and they would not be.

Also, if a task is needed people tend to emerge to do it, and I think it's better to have a regularly elected person than someone self-appointed behind the scenes—there is no transparency or accountability there, and both are important values of this board.

And as has been discussed, it's not a matter of the admins' workload, but a matter of the admins not being around very long, when a position like this needs continuity.

Alatar wrote:

I like the idea of a seperate Loremaster who is neither the Mayor nor the Deputy Mayor. Is it possible that the Loremaster could be selected from among the admins? Surely at any time at least one of the admins would need to know the procedures?

I suppose that would depend on having a number of admins who aspired to being Loremaster.

Cerin wrote:

Alatar wrote:

I like the idea of a seperate Loremaster who is neither the Mayor nor the Deputy Mayor. Is it possible that the Loremaster could be selected from among the admins? Surely at any time at least one of the admins would need to know the procedures?

I suppose that would depend on having a number of admins who aspired to being Loremaster.

And we've gone to a great deal of trouble to remove just about all discretion in who gets to be admin when, and there is no requirement for particular interests and talents to always be on the admin staff. In fact Loremaster and admin are very different roles, and people interested in one might not be interested at all in the other.

Also, admins are involved in other roles in hearings, and it is not appropriate for them to oversee hearings as well as calling them and testifying in them. I don't see how it's better to vest more and more power in the position we are most afraid of having become too powerful, than to create a new position that does the job that needs to be done while holding no administrative powers.

Primula_Baggins wrote:

Also, if a task is needed people tend to emerge to do it,

I'm not so sure about that. How many people have been clamouring to be part of this convention? How many people out of those who have volunteered are really that active...maybe 5 or 6?

Quote:

And as has been discussed, it's not a matter of the admins' workload, but a matter of the admins not being around very long, when a position like this needs continuity.

Why does this role need more continuity than the other roles?

Because we have to have someone in the job who actually knows the charter inside and out, and there are not, as you say, a whole lot of people clamoring to do that kind of work.

With this proposal we'd need about one such person a year. If the admins do the job (which, again, I think is a bad idea—they have other roles in hearings), we would need by the luck of the draw to have at least four such people happen to serve every year. There would be no way to select them, or to get around the problem if all four happened to be on at the same time and no one the rest of the year.

As for whether someone "behind the scenes" might take on the role, we only need one to cause a problem.

A summary of my opinion, mostly expressed several times in the past.

- We need an elected Mayor

- I don't disagree with Holby's concern about numerous elected positions.

- We need an independent expert (Loremaster) on our procedure, not tied to any of the other roles involved in the proceedings who can advise any party to the proceedings.

- The loremaster could be elected

- The Loremaster could be appointed, like some positions in the US, by the Executive, but operate independently after the appointment. This pattern is known to work, especially in the judiciary, and I'm not too fearful of purist/revisionist style disputes over the Loremasters decisions.

- I don't see the roles of Mayor and Loremaster connected at any point, other than the initial appointment, if that is what is decided.

Primula_Baggins wrote:

Because we have to have someone in the job who actually knows the charter inside and out, and there are not, as you say, a whole lot of people clamoring to do that kind of work.

It seems to me Jnyusa is the only one who really knows the charter inside and out. You and Voronwe come in next. This isn't convincing me.

Quote:

With this proposal we'd need about one such person a year.

That's a really long time for someone to have a position. Who is going to want to be responsible for that long of a time? Isn't this setting up someone with a tad too much power? Aren't we worried about keeping the same people in positions?

Quote:

If the admins do the job (which, again, I think is a bad idea—they have other roles in hearings), we would need by the luck of the draw to have at least four such people happen to serve every year. There would be no way to select them, or to get around the problem if all four happened to be on at the same time and no one the rest of the year.

I'm not getting this. (edit: now I think I do get this part)

Quote:

As for whether someone "behind the scenes" might take on the role, we only need one to cause a problem.

Or this...sorry.

Eruname wrote:

Primula_Baggins wrote:

Because we have to have someone in the job who actually knows the charter inside and out, and there are not, as you say, a whole lot of people clamoring to do that kind of work.

It seems to me Jnyusa is the only one who really knows the charter inside and out. You and Voronwe come in next. This isn't convincing me.

Then where are we going to get all those knowledgeable admins? You object because there are too few people who can do the job (I would dispute your list—there are quite a few more and one of them would not be me), but then you prefer a system that requires at least four times as many people who can handle the work.

Eruname wrote:

Quote:

With this proposal we'd need about one such person a year.

That's a really long time for someone to have a position. Who is going to want to be responsible for that long of a time? Isn't this setting up someone with a tad too much power? Aren't we worried about keeping the same people in positions?

Not a position that, like Mayor, would consist of keeping track of things. There just isn't much power to abuse. If a Loremaster gives advice during a hearing that favors a friend, that will be noticed and objected to, because it will have to be done publicly. If the admins have to seek someone out and ask advice, that person can help their friend out invisibly—the person giving the advice isn't accountable to the board.

How do you appeal a decision when you don't know who made it or why? A few months ago on TORC that was a pretty important question, and we're trying hard with this charter to make it impossible for such a situation to occur here.

Prim wrote:

Quote:

How do you appeal a decision when you don't know who made it or why? A few months ago on TORC that was a pretty important question, and we're trying hard with this charter to make it impossible for such a situation to occur here.

I think we needed that reminder.

Quote:

Not a position that, like Mayor, would consist of keeping track of things. There just isn't much power to abuse.

I don't see the position as either powerful or controversial. In RL length of service has always been extremely important. Many are life time positions, unlike elected offcials. It's the depth of knowledge that is most important, which comes with experience.

Quote:

Sorry V.

No reason to be sorry for expressing your opinion, Eru.

Here is the dilemna:

I am convinced that there is at least a majority of the committee that thinks that it would be valuable to have someone who is knowledgable about the charter and can help jurors who may not be as familiar with all the details with the procedural aspects of hearings.

However, there is significant opposition to the formation of another separate office to handle this role.

There is also significant opposition to having the Mayor handle this role.

It is, in my opinion, inappropriate to have the admins handle this role, and I believe other people agree with me.

How to get around these seemingly insurmountable contradictions? Here is my proposal:

Instead of forming a separate elected or appointed office, or delegating this task to the Mayor or the admins, I propose that we have a pool of volunteers who were would be willing to become sufficiently familiar with the charter to assist in this way. I could this working in one of two ways. Either, when there is a hearing one of these volunteer loremasters would be appointed to oversee the procedural aspects of the hearing (either by being chosen by the jurors, or on some kind of rotation system). Or the whole pool could be available to answer questions of the jury that came up. Does this idea have any attraction to anyone else?

Sounds good to me Voronwe. Practically speaking, as Eru said, there's only a small number of people who can actually do this job anyway.

Oh, and I withdraw my suggestion that Loremasters come from Admins. It was just thrown out there without much thought. Sorry!

Alatar

Quote:

I propose that we have a pool of volunteers who were would be willing to become sufficiently familiar with the charter to assist in this way. I could this working in one of two ways. Either, when there is a hearing one of these volunteer loremasters would be appointed to oversee the procedural aspects of the hearing (either by being chosen by the jurors, or on some kind of rotation system). Or the whole pool could be available to answer questions of the jury that came up. Does this idea have any attraction to anyone else?

On a permanent basis until a volunteer resigns?
Anybody can volunteer?
Any way to 'verify' volunteers are up to par?
sorry, just asking....

I'm still having problems with this but I guess I could live with 'the whole pool could be available to answer questions of the jury ..' whoever from the pool is available there and then though I would like to see it limited to say max 3 'per case' for balance, speedyness and clearness.

_______________
Resident witchâ„¢

Um, yes, I'm afraid I feel I need to muddy the waters quite a bit, too.

Jny, thanks for bringing up the problems with this vote!
I must admit, I have a problem with this vote as such:

Quote:

Friends, when we previously discussed the idea of creating an office oversee hearings there was a lot of confusion. Several people (me included) voted against this because they (we) wanted this task to be included among the Mayor's duties. But then the proposal for having the Mayor do this also got voted down. It has been pointed out (primarily by Cerin and Jnyusa) that it would be fair to revisit the question of creating a separate office now that we know that the Mayor will not be doing this.

Creating a special office for overseeing hearings was voted down.
Letting the mayor oversee hearings was voted down, too.

I agree this is a problem, but I don't see why this means the first vote should be re-voted on?
Maybe people would like to change their vote in the second question instead!

When you say "now that we know the Mayor will not be doing this" we should revisit this question, that means you are accepting that vote as more final than the one about a new position, and that's just not right, I think.
What we know, according to previous results is that the Mayor will not be doing this AND that we won't have a separate position to do it.
Or else, we don't "know" about either of these choices!

But let's say we do continue with this vote - what if this time the office is voted down again (I for one would still vote "no") - in that case we are still where we have begun.

I seem to remember that voting down having the mayor oversee hearings meant people might not want anyone to oversee hearings - or they might want the admins to do it - I really can't tell, but I think revisiting the question should mean discussing carefully who if anyone should oversee a hearing, rather than re-voting on the special loremaster position.

You and Jny are both right about my reasons: I voted no because I thought the mayor should perform this function, and I voted no because I don't want another office.
So, if it was up to me, we'd be re-discussing whether the Mayor should oversee hearings after all.

Hmmh, I normally don't make suggestions for basic changes, but how about this for a ballot on this question:

I want a new office to be created to oversee hearings

I want the Mayor to oversee hearings

I want someone else to oversee hearings (specify)

I don't want anyone to oversee hearings.

Or, seeing that I'm very much for the Mayor overseeing hearings, I'd suggest that we wait with this until we have a better idea of what the Mayor would do under our current plan, and for how long the office would last, how the deputy role would be handled (ie till after the vote on the Mayor's office) - and decide from those givens whether it makes sense to add overseeing hearings to his/her duties.

Because I think most of the objections to having the mayor do this came from people fearing it would be too much for the person in this office, or too different tasks - correct me if that's wrong, though - and this might just be something we haven't been able to assess correctly before.

Didn't we vote on the Mayor not being the Loremaster after we voted down the Loremaster as a separate position? If so, that choice was made knowing the Loremaster would not exist and therefore the issue of the Mayor being involved is already resolved. It's the vote for a separate Loremaster, knowing the Mayor won't be involved, that has not taken place.

So the choices seem to be revisiting Loremaster or anarchy.

Please correct me if the vote on the Mayor started before we were sure what was happening with Loremaster.

Edit:

By the way, I dropped the idea of having the Loremaster oversee hearings when the first objections were raised. I think it has been a discussion of having an expert on procedure available, for anyone involved, to have as a resource.

IdylleSeethes wrote:

Didn't we vote on the Mayor not being the Loremaster after we voted down the Loremaster as a separate position?

Yes.

Quote:

If so, that choice was made knowing the Loremaster would not exist and therefore the issue of the Mayor being involved is already resolved.

That is correct.

Quote:

It's the vote for a separate Loremaster, knowing the Mayor won't be involved, that has not taken place.

That is correct.

The vote is justified on that basis, IMO.

Quote:

By the way, I dropped the idea of having the Loremaster oversee hearings when the first objections were raised. I think it has been a discussion of having an expert on procedure available, for anyone involved, to have as a resource.

Aren't they the same thing? Isn't discussion of having an expert on procedure available as a resource, the discussion of whether or not to have a Loremaster to oversee hearings?

TH

Trust me, the opposition to the Mayor overseeing hearings is not based on something or things we haven't been able to assess. I am dead set against the Mayor overseeing hearings, I will continue to be deadset against the Mayor overseeing hearings, so much so that I will have to vote against any Charter article that proposes the Mayor overseeing hearings.

Here are the questions I think would clarify the situation (if we could only get people to declare themselves in short order).

We need to answer this question first:

Do you recognize the need for procedural oversight of hearings?

If we have a majority that answer no, then the discussion is over.

If we have a majority that answer yes, then we need THESE PEOPLE ONLY to declare themselves in one of these groups:

1. I oppose the creation of a new office for this function; my opposition is so strong that I prefer there be no procedural oversight of hearings, than that an office be created for this function.

2. I oppose the Mayor overseeing hearings; my opposition is so strong that I prefer there be no procedural oversight of hearings, than that the Mayor oversee them.

3. I oppose the creation of a new office for this function, but the need for someone to oversee procedure outweighs in my mind the inadvisability of creating a new office.

4. I oppose having the Mayor oversee hearings, but the need for someone to oversee hearings outweighs in my mind the inadvisability of the Mayor overseeing them.



This is where I stand: I believe we need procedural oversight of hearings. I believe it is absolutely in every way a bad decision to have the Mayor oversee hearings. I believe it would be far worse to assign the Mayor oversight of hearings, which would create an ungodly mess of a situation, than to have no oversight and have the membership eventually come to realize we need oversight, and finally vote to fill a need we already recognize but for some reason can't seem to take the necessary steps to address.

IdylleSeethes wrote:

- The Loremaster could be appointed, like some positions in the US, by the Executive, but operate independently after the appointment. This pattern is known to work, especially in the judiciary, and I'm not too fearful of purist/revisionist style disputes over the Loremasters decisions.

But who would appoint? The only entity that can appoint here is the membership, which equals an election?

Eruname wrote:

That's a really long time for someone to have a position. Who is going to want to be responsible for that long of a time?

Someone really interested in the hearings procedure, and really enthused about being available as a resource to members and jurors.

Quote:

Isn't this setting up someone with a tad too much power?

There is really no power involved. The Loremaster would not make decisions, he would simply be a source of information for people, and make sure procedure is followed correctly.

Quote:

Aren't we worried about keeping the same people in positions?

Not for positions that require continuity and expertise, but do not involve the exercise of power.