Jump to content
krause

Charter Operation: Removal of inactive officers implementation [2011-04-27]

Recommended Posts

This is a poll to implement the following opinion here:

 

http://unitedoperations.net/Thread-Opinion-Poll-Removal-of-officers-that-have-been-Inactive-MIA

 

This is a poll to modify the charter by adding section 6 to the Officer section:

 

6. All officers must be reelected every 3 months, to be conducted on the forums. A simple majority is required for reelection. Officers who fail to be reelected are considered inactive or otherwise unsuitable for duty and will have their officer status removed.

 

Forum SOP to be implemented:

 

3. Reelection of officers shall be conducted as follows: a single thread entitled "Officer Reelections Day Month Year" shall be created every 3 months from the passing of this SOP in the operations forum. This thread will contain a multi-option poll, with options such as "Reelect [name] for [office]: YES" and "Reelect [name] for [office]: NO" for ALL officers, as well as a posting of the following text in the thread body:

 

"Vote yes to the following officers you feel are active and performing their duties as officer well - vote no for those you feel are inactive and performing their job poorly.

 

Here are the officer job descriptions:

 

[paste officer job descriptions from the charter]

 

 

Example picture:

http://www.krauselabs.net/dump/reelect.png

 

This poll would also make the effective date of officer reelection immediate upon it's passing.

Share this post


Link to post

voted yes, also to note this is intended for ALL officers, even people who want to become officers. They will put polls in at the same time as reelections so the administration part of this will be easier

Share this post


Link to post

You would still have the ability to remove officers at any time if they are doing very poorly

Share this post


Link to post

Does this over write the current voting in and removing poll rules for officers?

 

No, it's an addition to the charter - it does not replace the regular rules for removing an officer at any time. It's a vote of "confidence" as opposed to a vote for misconduct.

Share this post


Link to post

i believe its a good idea in theory but the application of it i think is just going to be a bunch of forum bureaucracy

Share this post


Link to post

Polls should start at the conclusion of this Op. Then at the end of the "3 months poll" there can be a "Vote A to keep the new results and this SOP. or B to get rid of this crap and go back to how we were (original officers aswell)"

 

(not that I dont like it, just thats how the reaction would be if a person didn't i'd assume)

Share this post


Link to post

i believe its a good idea in theory but the application of it i think is just going to be a bunch of forum bureaucracy

 

...hence why I took a screenshot of what it would look like. IT would be one thread every 3 months...

Share this post


Link to post

i believe its a good idea in theory but the application of it i think is just going to be a bunch of forum bureaucracy

 

...hence why I took a screenshot of what it would look like. IT would be one thread every 3 months...

 

I still dont like it, I can see your point though. If someone is that inactive just remove his officer status, they wont notice due to being inactive.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm going to vote no because I still think it will turn into a bureaucratic CF.

Share this post


Link to post

Too many words, for something that should be simple.

 

Just because your legalizing the crap out of every function that we have doesn't maker it better.

Share this post


Link to post

http://unitedoperations.net/Thread-Officer-Removal-Skin-Inactivity-MIA

http://unitedoperations.net/Thread-Officer-Removal-ThePieSpy-Inactivity-MIA

http://unitedoperations.net/Thread-Officer-Removal-Kezei-Inactivity-MIA

http://unitedoperations.net/Thread-Officer-Removal-Corporal-Cody-Inactivity-MIA

 

The following polls are in accordance with the existing charter rules.

We only need to make the poll and let the existing rules work out what is already there.

Is there truly a reason to make even more rules before using the ones we have?

Share this post


Link to post

Just an idea.

 

We could have a complete turnover of Officers of one type sometime. For continuity I am not sure that would be best.

 

The US Senate is divided into three classes for purposes of elections. Senators are elected to six-year terms, and every two years the members of one class—approximately one-third of the Senators—face election or reelection.

 

Instead of every 3 months we could have one-third of the Officers elected every month. And instead of starting at the end of the poll we could have the vote the first week of the month starting May 1st. That would be easy to remember… First week of the month - “Officer Elections”.

Share this post


Link to post

Like diving up the elections AAO/MMO, GSO/WSO, FO/PRO in 3 consecutive months then repeating?

 

Edit:

Also, is this going to be a 2/3 majority vote?

Share this post


Link to post

Like diving up the elections AAO/MMO' date=' GSO/WSO, FO/PRO in 3 consecutive months then repeating?

 

Edit:

Also, is this going to be a 2/3 majority vote?

[/quote']

 

I would suggest splitting up each grop so we do not lose all MMO at the same time.

 

BTQ krause love your idea, voted yes.

Share this post


Link to post

Too many words' date=' for something that should be simple.

 

Just because your legalizing the crap out of every function that we have doesn't maker it better.

[/quote']

 

I'm seconding this. I've got a feeling this will last maybe one or two cycles and then we'll drop it.

 

The current system functions. Now that we've developed a PRECEDENCE for removing inactive officers, why not just stick with what we've got?

 

I've got a feeling that this community would feel a lot more streamlined if, instead of instating rules for every blade of grass in the yard, we'd operate more of precedence and common sense.

 

Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post

Krause,

 

based on the implementation of the poll, there is an adminstrative problem as you can only make 10 categories per poll. Moreover, would it not make more sense to simply have the person vote for persons they wish to see as an officer? I do not see the need to vote no as it appears redundant for what you are proposing.

Share this post


Link to post

i believe its a good idea in theory but the application of it i think is just going to be a bunch of forum bureaucracy

 

QFT

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...