[Discussion] New Senators and participation

[Ghost Rider]

This is from Mr Coffee:

So how about setting some participation guidelines for the senate. Don't participate in the discussions or votes, then slap them with a Senator Emeritus title and make room for a new senator that will actually participate.

Instead of the Senate choosing new candidates and voting on them, how about once every one or two months open a public thread in OT and let the general membership toss out some candidates and let the Senate narrow the list from there before voting. That way the "plebes" have a say in who gets to be part of the board leadership and the Senate still has final say on who their members will be.

Personally the first part does have some merit. Some have left for other areas, be it the board or personal with barely any word.

As for the second, that can be debated amongst you, but it does foster the thought that the Senate is leading or trying to being a body of the people rather then incestual voting amongst itself.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

We actually currently have rules about how much Senators must participate.

I do however like the reverse of this idea, sort of. Instead of having plebes nominate Senators, why don't we have the Senators nominate prospective Senators and then let the plebes vote on which one they prefer to be elevated to the Senate?

That lets the Senate create a list of people with acceptable traits to be Senators, and then the plebes can choose which one they want in the Senate the most.

[Ted C]

Personally the first part does have some merit. Some have left for other areas, be it the board or personal with barely any word.

I have no objection to this in principle, but the Senate rules would need to be updated to reflect the requirements for participation. Also, one of the officers of the Senate (the Whip, perhaps?) would need to be charged with monitoring and reporting minimum participation.

As for the second, that can be debated amongst you, but it does foster the thought that the Senate is leading or trying to being a body of the people rather then incestual voting amongst itself.

Should the number of Senators be fixed then? That would mean that nominations and voting would be required whenever a Senator left, for whatever reason.

[Ted C]

I do however like the reverse of this idea, sort of. Instead of having plebes nominate Senators, why don't we have the Senators nominate prospective Senators and then let the plebes vote on which one they prefer to be elevated to the Senate?

That lets the Senate create a list of people with acceptable traits to be Senators, and then the plebes can choose which one they want in the Senate the most.

I don't see any immediate problems with this suggestion.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I don't see a reason why the number of Senators should be fixed, since that means that if we get to a point where all the Senators are participating actively then we can't add anymore. I suggest instead that they be held in a rough ratio to the board's population. Currently there is (at 51 Senators), 1 Senator for every 58 accounts on the board. Let's say that the population of Senators cannot exceed 1 Senator for every 40 accounts, or be less than 1 Senator for every 60 accounts--or more precisely, elections are automatic in the later case, and in the former case, are frozen.

[CmdrWilkens]

So real quick:

- I already maintain a current roll of active and inactive Senators 9one merely ahs to look at all of my administrative Minutiae posts). I've said before and I'll say again that if the abscence goes on for too long that I will bring the matter forward but as of yet I've not had anyone reach the magically trip line of 1 year inactive without request.

- I like Marina's proposal...except that the forum is open each month starting on the 2nd and we've now gone roughly 6 months without a nomination. I'd much rather rescind the "plebe's can't suggest a nomination" rule and then allow folks to advocate to Senators/Governors to put a name forward but otherwise keep the existing structure for admission.

[Publius]

The rules of the Senate say that senators "get to discuss board policy." When did this become an obligation instead of a privilege? When did the Senate become the board legislature? The proposal appears to stem from a misunderstanding of the Senate's role.

[K. A. Pital]

I agree with Publius. Senatorial position is not a Moderating one where you are tasked actively. The Senate is "tasked" in a passive fashion, meaning it can (and should if it has the time), but is not obliged to make changes and vote on proposals for the entire Board.

[Knife]

The rules of the Senate say that senators "get to discuss board policy." When did this become an obligation instead of a privilege? When did the Senate become the board legislature? The proposal appears to stem from a misunderstanding of the Senate's role.

Agreed. For all those who think the Senate is uppity now, imagine if the Senate is filled full of people vying for the position on the planks of 'change' every so few months.

Now, if you want plebes to make a list of prospects the Senate votes on from time to time to make Senators, I'm game with the idea. Make the Senate into the body that has to make rules and you're courting hell.