Resolution 0219: Reform of Council Procedure

Resolution 0219 has been split into separate parts:

=/\= ----- =/\=
RES 0219A: Inclusion of all COs and ExOs for all discussions in the Main Council
=/\= ----- =/\=

All COs and ExOs will be included in all Council discussions.
Note: This does not end (or table) debate on Res 0219 B and C.

Votes:
Subfleet A: Aye
Subfleet B: Aye
Subfleet C: Aye
Subfleet D: Aye
Subfleet E: Aye

Outcome: Passed/Closed
Note: This does not give the sub-fleet COs a voice or a vote on the Council. That is what Res 0219 B is for.

SD 2.21017.0903

=/\= ----- =/\=
RES 0219B: Rules governing Council votes?
=/\= ----- =/\=

B - 1: Do all COs get a voice on the Council? (As opposed to just receiving Council emails.)

Votes:
Subfleet A: Aye
Subfleet B: Aye
Subfleet C: Aye
Subfleet D: Aye
Subfleet E: Nay

B - 2: Do all COs get a vote on the Council?

Votes:
Subfleet A: Aye
Subfleet B: Aye
Subfleet C: Nay
Subfleet D: Aye
Subfleet E: Nay

Combined outcome for B-1 and B-2: Passed/Closed
Notes: I strongly urge the Council to determine a maximum size for the Council, before the end of this discussion, lest we end up with a similar resolution in the future.

SD 2.21023.0757

=/\= ----- =/\=

B - 3: Does ACT get a voice on the Council?
B - 4: Does ACT get a vote on the Council?

TABLED (see Res0401)

SD 2.21024.0851

=/\= ----- =/\=

For reference, the original text of the proposal is still given below.

=/\= ----- =/\=
Drafter: Fran Churchard, ExO, USS SUTTNER
Priority: High
=/\= ----- =/\=

Note to the reader - this resolution is not intended to be passed intact. I am hoping people will discuss and modify it rather than just reaching a snap decision. I am aware this is a topic that is about as popular as the bubonic plague; never mind. It's still worth thinking about.

For the duration of the debate on this resolution, I respectfully request that Britt Larsen and Naomi Bartolin be added to the Council mailing list and allowed to speak to the Council directly, as this concerns them more than anyone. I would also like to be able to speak directly myself, since some points may well need explaining.

Finally, it would be best, I think, for the Council to vote on each section of the resolution separately, as there are several contentious issues and it would be a shame to fail one part just because of another. Therefore, voting separately on each of the four clauses seems logically. [N.B There is no need to vote on Clause Three, as it follows logically from the outcome of Clause One.] A 'ballot paper' is included at the bottom, just to keep things clear.

-----------------------------------------

1) This resolution proposes that;

a) The current sub-fleet system be abolished, and that every CO is both on the Council mailing list, and has an equal vote. [N.B If every CO has a vote, then logically all ExOs would also have to be on the mailing list].

This is suggested simply because there seems a certain inequality to giving some Captains votes and not others, and because no two people are ever going to agree on every issue, so having one person vote for an entire sub-fleet is inefficient. Also, it seems only sensible for every CO to have the same level of information. There are, however, potential problems, depending on whether or not the ACT Council retains its vote (see part two).

In the event of a tied vote (as there as six ships currently, and the intention of abolishing the ACT vote is stated below), the deciding vote should go to the most senior CO, unless
i) The resolution concerns an ExO appointment, in which case the deciding vote goes to the CO of the ship in question.
ii) The resolution refers to a particular department, e.g. JAG, Ops, in which case the deciding vote goes to the relevant CINC. If they are NOT on the Council, this would not be an option, barring exceptional circumstances at the Council's discretion.
iii) The most senior CO is for some reason unacceptably biased e.g. it is a resolution to promote him, to remove him, or so on, in which case, the next most senior CO, or, if inappropriate, the Chairman, receives the deciding vote.
iv) The resolution concerns the Academy, in which case, the vote goes to ACT.

b) Proposes that, IF the Council is unwilling to give every CO a vote, on the grounds that it would increase the number of active players on the Council too much (though since we have six ships, that's debatable), then I suggest that we STILL put every CO on the Main Council mailing list; at the very least they should know what's going on.

So, just to recapitulate, there are three options here:

A - every CO gets a vote on the Council, and they and their ExOs are on the mailing list.
B - every CO is put on the mailing list, but has no vote.
C - The author's preference is for A, simply because the reasons for introducing a subfleet system are now defunct. but either of the above would be an improvement on the current state of affairs.

At the time that the system was introduced, I understand that the some COs actively did not want to participate in the Council; I suspect that is no longer the case, but for that reason, the two subfleet COs should be included in this debate. Additionally, prior to the subfleet system, both COs and ExOs had a voice, leading to a twelve-person council and the inherent delays. Under the proposed system, there would be at most seven votes, depending on whether or not the ACT vote is retained, so that problem should not reoccur.

2) The ACT, whilst remaining on the Council mailing list, should no longer have a vote on the Council, as it is not directly concerned in all Council business. BUT the following exemptions would apply;

i) When the resolution assigns cadets.
ii) When the resolution alters the current Academy procedures in any way.
iii) When the resolution alters the requirements for COs and ExOs to be academy instructors.
iv) When the resolution closes or creates a new RP unit.

3) IF the Council gives every CO a vote, then the Alternate Council should be made redundant. This may be deemed acceptable, since it is rarely called into use. However, if it is felt the vacancy needed to be filled, it may be possible to grant the ExO council authorization to handle rank promotions, cadet assignments, and some other areas in times when the council is snowed under.

IF, however, the Council does not give every CO a vote, the Alternate Council should remain. I could not find any specified conditions for it's activation, so I suggest something like;

'The Alternate Council will be activated when there is a backlog of more than 15 resolutions, several of which cover relatively minor matters such as promotions, medals, etc.'

4) Proposes that a time limit be set for resolution debate, as follows (open to alteration, or the imposition of a uniform time limit) ; a)10 days for resolutions with priority 'urgent' b) Three weeks for 'normal' resolutions. c) Up to five weeks for the opening/closing of a unit, anything affecting the Council, and anything affecting ACT.

This is designed to spur active Council debate and avoid huge waiting lists. To my mind, what the limits are is not as important as their presence, so long as they're not overly long - just having a definite deadline gives people an incentive to say something and say it quickly. This will be particularly important if Council numbers increase. The limits would also be flexible; if there is a fierce debate continuing, and someone proposes a motion to extend debate time, and that is seconded, then the Chairman can settle on an extended deadline.