[Discussion] Censure of Senators?

[Coyote]

In a more serious note, aside from the drama in other threads, it seems that there is still one, important sticking point with regards to the Senate and the Senators. Specifically, it seems to me (by all means point out if I am misreading the situation) that discontent is found not so much in the existence of the Senate as a body per se; most people's displeasure actually appears to stem from issues of accountability.

The accountability can be directed at the Senate as a whole, or, it may be in the case of certain individuals. Would the Commons feel that their concerns are taken seriously if they had the ability to Censure individual Senators if they felt that person was abusing power/being problematic?

So: Should the House of Commons be able to "Censure" a Senator for perceived misconduct?

-What exactly would "Censure" consist of?
-What exactly would "misconduct" consist of?
-How many votes would be needed to pass Censure?
-Would a certain number of Censure votes automatically mean expulsion from the Senate?
-How about a hearing, where individual Senators (or their advocates) could argue their behalf, and defend themselves if a call to Censure is viewed as a personal vendetta?
-If a call to Censure turned out to be bogus/personal, what will happen to the person that levelled th echarges in the first place?

What I want to avoid is a situation where a Senator is attacked because someone doesn't like them/their views, or for behavior which may be irritating but not against the rules, and has nothing to do with them being a Senator (ie, they'd do this regardless).

[DaveJB]

I don't think that we should have the power to directly censure senators, there's way too much potential for abuse there. Ultimately, I think that the fate of a senator should be decided on by those best able to make a judgement in the case - namely the other senators, with punishments being decided on a case-by-case basis depending on the crime. However, perhaps a system could be adopted whereby a if a certain number of posters demand censure of a senator in the HoC, a senate vote is triggered. Of course there would be punishments for anyone that make a frivolous censure movement, or one motivated by personal malice.

[Big Phil]

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, I do have a problem with the Senate per se. I also have a problem with the House of Commons per se, et al, e.g., etc. Both are band aids on the main problem that still hasn't been addressed of insufficient moderation.

That being said, I have noticed a significant improvement in the activity of the mods we currently do have, so kudos to them all.

[Uraniun235]

Briefly: I think that any "censure" function should be exercised by the Senate and/or the Executive, following a review by fellow Senators and/or the Executive.


In detail:
What powers does a Senator have to abuse? This is what I remember:

- The ability to post, and vote, in the Imperial Senate
- The ability to edit posts in forums which normally do not permit editing
* Additionally, per what I remember from the creation of the Senate, Senators are expected to uphold a higher standard of logical discourse and basically represent the best of what the board has to offer.

I don't see how the Commons has any interest in an abuse of the ability to post in the Senate; if someone is being obnoxious in the Senate, it seems like that would be most irritating to other Senators and would therefore be in their interest to act on it themselves. Alternately their silence on the matter would seem to confer approval - or at least tolerance - of a Senator's behavior.

If someone has concerns about the integrity of a Senator with regard to editing, I believe that is something that should be initially handled discreetly with a staff member, so that evidence can be gathered before going public.

Finally, if someone believes that a Senator is habitually intellectually sloppy or dishonest - and therefore no longer fit to remain a Senator - then even if a thread in the Commons to raise awareness and generate discussion on the issue is warranted, I think it would still fall to the Senate (or the Executive) to hold a discussion and weigh the evidence, followed by a vote to "censure" or expel the member in question.

[CmdrWilkens]

Seante rules currently allow for any board member to make a complaint at which point the Senate will consider whether to slap wrists or possibly remove a senator who has acted badly.

[Havok]

Holy crap is this a load of horseshit. Not what any of you guys above have said, but the reason that Coyote posted this.

(by all means point out if I am misreading the situation)

Oh yes.
I want everyone to post the name of the Senators that they feel need censuring. Seriously, do it. Stop being pussies and do it. It's going to be a fucking short list. In fact I will wager that it will have no more than one name on it.

[Connor MacLeod]

Whats the point of censure? In the past its always just amounted to someone coming here and whining about someone in particular (or the Senate in general, it seems to amount to both) if they doin't like it. Its one reason the HoC is probably here (it centralizes all the bitching and whinining in one placee.) I figure if you get enough complaints tha tqualifies as "censure." If someone has a probelm with me I figure they'll probably bring it up here, and if I care enough to check on it, I'll expect to find it here.) Anything more than that is just pointless, IMHO.

[Coyote]

Holy crap is this a load of horseshit. Not what any of you guys above have said, but the reason that Coyote posted this.

(by all means point out if I am misreading the situation)

Oh yes.
I want everyone to post the name of the Senators that they feel need censuring. Seriously, do it. Stop being pussies and do it. It's going to be a fucking short list. In fact I will wager that it will have no more than one name on it.

I know exactly what you're thinking and where you're going, and it stops here & now.

Note that I want to ask what exactly "misconduct" would entail, so there's a burden of proof implied.
I'm also seeking a way to determine if the "misconduct" really is a general problem or if the accusation is a vendetta because of personal dislike.

And, if someone makes a frivolous, personal accusation to satisfy their personal dislikes, then the accuser will find that he or she is the one facing "censure" instead.

Accountability is good. Seeking a pinata is bad.

[Havok]

You're misinterpreting what I did there I think Coyote. I'm not calling for the one person to be censured, or called out AT ALL. Certainly not for them to be a Piniata. I am calling out all the idiots that feel that they need to accuse the whole Senate, and call for censures because they dislike that one person. I'm saying that the whole thing is a vendetta, but in order to mask it, it becomes "whole senate" instead of the person people dislike or because they feel the senate did not act on what they deemed "gross injustices".

[Coyote]

Ah, okay, Hav. You and I are on the same page in that case.

[Havok]

Ah, okay, Hav. You and I are on the same page in that case.

Groovy. And oddly enough... I seem to be on the "side" of the The Senate most of the time, despite perceptions.