Official Removal Process: Difference between revisions

From Liminal State
← Older edit

Mr Fox (talk | contribs)

3 user groups
347 edits
VisualWikitext
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
 
(8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Should office fitness of a ''Top Branch Official'' ever be in question, there are several paths available for immediate removal.
Should office fitness of a ''Branch Official'' ever be in question, there are several paths available for immediate removal. Collectively these are called ''Removal Paths'', and can also be applied to the ''Alternate''.


=== '''Path 1: Death, Loss of Mental Facilities, Missing Person, etc.''' ===
=== '''Path 1: Resignation''' ===
# The two remaining ''Top Branch Officials'' must be in agreement and then present their request to the ''Enforcement Agency'' of the ''Justice Branch''.
Any candidate interested in becoming a ''Branch Official'' should take the position seriously and should not think of resignation as an option. All elected positions are critical roles, but in certain rare circumstances resignation may be appropriate.
# The ''Enforcement Agency'' of the ''Justice Branch'' will provide an ''Independent Investigation'' of the situation.
 
# Based on the evidence gathered from the investigation, the three ''Top Justice Branch Officials'' will vote, with a simple majority deciding.
Should an alternate ''Removal Path'' outlined below be more appropriate for the situation facing the ''Branch Official'' that wishes to resign, then that other path must be taken. Resignation is not a way to escape accountability from criminal acts, a ''No-Confidence Vote'', fear of impeachment, or other ''For Cause'' actions. If the resignation request be due to the ''Branch Official's'' successful election into a different position, the following procedure will still be used.
 
# The ''Branch Official'' wishing to resign must ''Record'' their resignation notice and present these items to the ''Enforcement Agency'' of the ''Justice Branch''. The ''Record'' must include the following:
## Valid and compelling supporting factors to justify the resignation.
## Proposed final date in the position.
## Mitigation factors that will be taken prior to the proposed resignation date to protect the ''Branch.''
# The ''Enforcement Agency'' will investigate the ''Record'' presented and attempt to confirm that no other ''Removal Paths'' is more appropriate.
# The ''Branch Officials'' of the ''Justice Branch'' will then consider the substance of ''Record'' and the investigation and decide if all of the following are true:
## There is no more appropriate ''Removal Path''.
## The ''Record'' provides compelling reasons to allow the resignation that most would consider valid.
## The ''Branch'' would not be intrinsically harmed by allowing the resignation of this ''Branch Official'' on the requested resignation date.
# After consideration, the ''Branch Officials'' of the ''Justice Branch'' will vote on the matter, with a simple majority deciding the outcome.
 
=== '''Path 2: Death, Loss of Mental Facilities, Missing Person, etc.''' ===
# The two remaining ''Branch Officials'' must be in agreement and ''Record'' their vote to proceed. Following a successful vote, their request will be automatically presented to the ''Enforcement Agency'' of the ''Justice Branch''.
# The ''Enforcement Agency'' of the ''Justice Branch'' will provide an ''Independent Investigation'' of the situation. Their focus will be to ensure the situation meets the criteria for this ''Resignation Path'', which is that the person is physically or mentally unable to fulfill their role and it is unlikely that resolution will come within 15 days. They may include the expertise of any ''Branches'' or specific ''Departments'' to support the investigation.
# Based on the evidence gathered from the ''Independent Investigation'', the three ''Justice Branch Officials'' will vote, with a simple majority deciding the outcome.
## This assumes the official to be removed does not belong to the ''Justice Branch''.
## This assumes the official to be removed does not belong to the ''Justice Branch''.
## For the removal of a ''Top Justice Branch Official'', a simple majority vote by the ''Executive Group,'' based on the evidence gathered from the investigation, will decide the outcome.
## For the removal of a ''Justice Branch Official'', a simple majority vote by the ''Executive Group,'' based on the evidence gathered from the ''Independent Investigation'', will decide the outcome.


=== '''Path 2: Office Misuse, Criminal Activity, etc.''' ===
=== '''Path 2: Office Misuse, Criminal Activity, etc.''' ===
# Anyone within the branch or with information regarding official misconduct of one or more ''Top Branch Officials'' may present their concern to the ''Enforcement Agency'' of the ''Justice Branch'' (anonymously, if desired).
# Anyone within the ''Branch'' or with information regarding official misconduct of one or more ''Branch Officials'' may present their concern to the ''Enforcement Agency'' of the ''Justice Branch'' (anonymously, if desired).
# The ''Enforcement Agency'' of the ''Justice Branch'' will provide an ''Independent Investigation'' of the allegations.
# The ''Enforcement Agency'' of the ''Justice Branch'' will provide an ''Independent Investigation'' of the allegations.
# Based on the evidence gathered from the investigation, the ''Justice Branch'' will hold a ''General Branch Vote'' using a simple majority, independently evaluating each indicted ''Top Branch Official''. If a ''Top Justice Branch Official'' is the target of the investigation, then the ''Top Branch Officials'' of the ''Justice Branch'' will recuse themselves of the branch vote and the ''Executive Group'' will vote in their place.
# Based on the evidence gathered from the investigation, the ''Justice Branch'' will hold a ''Global Justice Branch Vote'' using a simple majority, independently evaluating each indicted ''Branch Official''. If a ''Justice Branch Official'' is the target of the investigation, then the ''Branch Officials'' of the ''Justice Branch'' will recuse themselves of the ''Global Justice Branch Vote'' and all ''Executive Group'' members will vote in their place.


=== '''Path 3: Department No-Confidence''' ===
=== '''Path 3: Department No-Confidence''' ===
Any branch that has three or more permanent or temporary departments can propose a ''Department No-Confidence Vote''.
The ''Departments'' of a ''Branch'' with three or more ''Permanent'' or ''Temporary Departments'' can propose the removal of one or more ''Branch Officials'' through the process called a ''No-Confidence Vote.''


# The ''Department Heads'' of two or more departments must vote in unanimous agreement, along with their standard required vote reasoning.
# All three ''Department Heads'' of two or more ''Departments'' within the same ''Branch'' must ''Record'' their vote in favor of holding a ''No-Confidence Vote.''
# Each charging department must compile all relevant evidence for their argument of no-confidence.
## Each ''Department'' voting in favor of holding a ''No-Confidence Vote'' are called a ''Charging Department.''
# All participating departments must present their evidence to the Justice Branch within 30 days of the conclusion of the charging vote. This information must include:
## It is permissible and expected for ''Department Heads'' to communicate among themselves for this action.
## Which Top Branch Officials are being charged.
# All ''Charging Departments'' must present the following documentation to the ''Enforcement Agency'' of the ''Justice Branch'' within 30 days of the conclusion of the ''Recorded'' vote in favor of holding a ''No-Confidence Vote'':
## ''Charging documentation'' that outlines the reason(s) for the proposed no-confidence vote.
## The identities of the ''Branch Officials'' being indicted.
### This document should not include any information that identifies the charging departments.
## ''Charging Documentation'' - compiled relevant evidence for the basis of holding a ''No-Confidence Vote.''
### As much anonymized evidence as possible should be included to support the charge.
### This documentation should not include any information that identifies the ''Charging Departments''.
## The written basis for each Department Head's vote in affirmative of proposing the no-confidence vote.
### This documentation should not include any information that directly or indirectly identifies any personnel, outside the indicted ''Branch Officials''.
# The Justice Branch will ensure the following before moving on to the next step.
## The ''Decision Basis'' from each ''Department Head'' supporting the proposed ''No-Confidence Vote.''
## The Top Branch Official(s) have been clearly identified.
# The ''Enforcement Agency'' of the ''Justice Branch'' will ensure the following before moving on to the next step:
## The ''charging documentation'' is anonymized.
## There is no more appropriate ''Removal Path'' available that should be used for the situation.
## All three Department Heads of all charging departments have voted affirmative with clear and valid reasons.
## The indicted ''Branch Official(s)'' have been clearly identified.
# The Justice Branch will present the charged Top Branch Official(s) with the ''charging documentation'' only.
## The ''Charging Documentation'' is anonymized.
## The Justice Branch will have 30 days to review the documentation, but should work as quickly as possible to present the charges to the affected Top Branch Officials.
## All three ''Department Heads'' of all ''Charging Departments'' have ''Recorded'' an affirmative vote for holding a ''No-Confidence Vote,'' with clear and valid reasons within their ''Decision Basis''.
## The Top Branch Officials will not be made aware of which departments are bringing the charges.
## The ''Justice Branc''h will have 30 days to review the documentation, but should work as quickly as possible to present it to the indicted ''Branch Officials''.
# The charged Top Branch Officials will have 30 days to compile evidence and respond to the charging documentation.
# The ''Enforcement Agency'' of the ''Justice Branch'' will present the indicted ''Branch Official(s)'' with the ''Charging Documentation'' only.
# No later than 30 days from the charging documentation being presented to the affected Top Branch Official(s) there will be a vote among all the Departments Heads within the branch to decide the outcome of the no-confidence vote.
## No ''Branch Officials'' within the affected ''Branch'', whether indicted or not, shall be made aware of which ''Departments'' are bringing the indictment.
## The charging documentation and the Top Branch Official(s) response will be put in a Branch archive for review by all Department Heads.
## There will be no further interviews or communication regarding this matter between any personnel, ''Department Heads,'' or ''Branch Officials'' within this window.
## The Heads of all departments within that branch will vote, with the aggregated decision of each department counting as one vote towards the total tally.
# Each indicted ''Branch Official'' will have 30 days to compile evidence and respond to the provided ''Charging Documentation''.
## A simple majority of of all branch departments must vote in favor of the no-confidence decision for the immediate removal of the Top Branch Official(s).
# A ''No-Confidence Vote'' will be held no later than 37 days from the ''Charging Documentation'' being presented to the indicted ''Branch Official(s).''
## The ''Charging Documentation'' and the response(s) of the ''Branch Official(s)'' will be put in an ''Informed Vote Archive'' for review by all ''Department Heads'' no less than 7 days prior to the vote.
## All ''Departments Heads'' within that ''Branch'' will decide the outcome of each indicted ''Branch Official'' using the ''Aggregated Vote'' method.
## Each affirmative tally will result in the immediate removal of that ''Branch Official'', and that former official will be forbidden from holding any leadership position within the Liminal State in the future.


=== '''Path 4: Defiance of Guidance''' ===
=== '''Path 4: Defiance of Guidance''' ===
The Executive Group can only recommend the removal of Top Branch Officials for unlawfully defying guidance, therefore this method does not apply to independent branches, such as the Justice Branch.
The ''Executive Group'' can only recommend the removal of ''Branch Officials'' for unlawfully defying guidance, therefore this method does not apply to ''Independent Branches'', such as the ''Justice Branch''.


# The first step requires at least four members of the Executive Group to vote in favor of removing a branch's Top Branch Officials.
# The first step requires at least four members of the ''Executive Group'' to vote in favor of removing the ''Branch Officials'' from a ''Branch'' with an included ''Dicision Basis'' from all members of the ''Executive Group.''
# Upon as successful vote, the Justice Branch's Enforcement Agency is tasked with investigating the matter in a neutral way. They must determine two parts to continue:
## They may only remove all ''TBranch Officials'' of a ''Branch'' at the same time.
## The directions of the Executive Group were lawful, clear, possible, and should have been able to be followed by the Top Branch Officials.
## The ''Executive Group'' may not single out a specific ''Branch Official'' to remove.
## The directions of the Executive Group were not carried out, either intentionally, by inaction, not in spirit, or otherwise in such a way as to circumvent the express directions of the Executive Group.
# Upon a successful vote by the ''Executive Group'', the ''Enforcement Agency'' of the ''Justice Branch'' is tasked with investigating the matter. They must examine the following parts:
# If both parts are true:
## There was one or more specific directions by the ''Executive Group'' that were not followed.
## The Justice Branch's Enforcement Agency next investigates the actions and voting reports of each of the indicted Top Branch Officials.
## The directions of the ''Executive Group'' were lawful, clear, possible, and should have been able to be followed by the ''Branch Officials''.
## They will also interview the Top Branch Officials and compile additional evidence to support the justification of the Top Branch Officials actions or inactions.
## The directions of the ''Executive Group'' were not carried out, either intentionally, by inaction, not in spirit, or otherwise in such a way as to circumvent the express wishes of the ''Executive Group'' - the ''Branch Officials'' are solely responsible for ensuring their ''Branch'' follows the directions of the ''Executive Group.''
# Following the completion of these steps, all information compiled by the Justice Branch's Enforcement Agency will be made available to all Top Branch Officials, along with details of the Executive Group's indictment.
# The ''Enforcement Agency'' of the ''Justice Branch'' next investigates the following on the other side:
## The Top Branch Officials will have 30 days to review all the information, independently ask any additional questions of the Executive Group or the indicted Top Branch Officials (though they are forbidden from discussing among themselves, even with the other Top Officials within their own branch).
## The actions or inactions and ''Decision Basis'' of each of the indicted ''Branch Officials''.
## At the conclusion of the 30 days, all Top Branch Officials, excluding the accused branch, will cast their votes to determine what actions, if any, will take place.
## Interview the ''Branch Officials'' and compile additional evidence that supports the justification of the ''Branch Officials'' actions or inactions.
### The fate of each indicted Top Branch Official will be individually considered.
# Following the completion of these steps, all information compiled by the ''Enforcement Agency'' of the ''Justice Branch'' will be made available to the ''Branch Officials'' of all ''Branches'', along with entirety of the ''Executive Group's'' indictment through a ''Informed Vote Archive.''
### The aggregate vote of each branch will count as one vote, with all the votes for or against each indicted Top Branch Official tallied upon completion.
## The ''Branch Officials'' of each ''Branch'' will have 30 days to review all the information, independently ask any additional questions of the ''Executive Group'' or the indicted ''Branch Officials'', though the indicted ''Branch Officials'' are forbidden from discussing amongst themselves, with the ''Executive Group'', or via any linked personnel.
### A simple majority in favor of removal will cause that Top Branch Official to immediately lose their seat.
## At the conclusion of the 30 days, all ''Branch Officials'', excluding those of the indicted ''Branch'', will cast their votes using the ''Aggregated Vote'' method to determine what actions, if any, will take place.
### Per procedure, the Top Branch Officials must officially record their reason for approval or descent with each vote cast.
### A final tally in favor of removal will cause those ''Branch Officials'' to immediately lose their seats. They are also prohibited from working in any leadership roles within the Liminal State in the future.
### Per standard procedure, all ''Branch Officials'' will provide the ''Decision Basis'' for their votes.


=== '''Path 5: Impeachment''' ===
=== '''Path 5: Impeachment''' ===
The normal branch election cycle is not only used to elect a new Top Branch Official, but also an opportunity to grade all the existing Top Branch Officials on their performance thus far, and impeach if necessary. All existing Top Branch Officials are graded in this way, including the outgoing Senior Top Branch Officials.
The normal ''Election Cycle'' is not only used to elect a new ''Branch Official'', but also an opportunity to grade all the existing ''Branch Officials'' on their performance thus far, and impeach if necessary. All existing ''Branch Officials'' are graded in this way, including the outgoing senior ''Branch Official''.
 
While it may seem counterintuitive to potentially impeach the outgoing senior ''Branch Official'', there is a year or more prior to the newly elected candidate actual filling the seat, so it may be in the best interest of the ''Branch'' personnel to still remove someone early. Additionally, this means there is no place for a lame duck official in the Liminal State, and this system encourages all officials to finish the final years in their seats just as actively as their first.


While it may seem counterintuitive to potentially impeach the outgoing senior Top Branch Official, there is a year or more prior to the newly elected candidate actual filling the seat, so it may be in the best interest of the branch personnel to still remove someone early. Additionally, this means there is no place for a Lame Duck official in the Liminal State, and this system encourages all officials to finish the final years in their seats just as actively as their first.
To calculate the grade that each ''Branch Official'' receives every four years, divide the the number of votes against impeachment to the number of votes for. The greater the result, the better that official is doing. If they receive a number less than one, then they lose their seat. This differs from ''Executive Group'' member impeachment in that there is no requirement of a minimum number of voters, as it's expected that ''Branch Elections'' will naturally garner high engagement.
Example 1: Out of 5000 votes cast, 1000 votes are against impeachment and 250 are for. That means 1000 / 250 = 4 (the seat of this ''Branch Official'' is safe).


To calculate the grade each Top Branch Official receives every 5 years, divide the the number of votes against impeachment to the number of votes for. The greater the number, the better that official is doing. If they receive a number less than one, then they lose their seat.
  Example 2: Out of 5000 votes cast, 250 votes are against impeachment and 1000 are for. That means 250 / 1000 = 0.25 (this ''Branch Official'' has lost their seat).
  Example 1: Out of 5000 votes cast, 1000 votes are against impeachment and 250 are for. That means 1000 / 250 = 4 (this Top Branch Official's seat is safe).
This method is used because it's not good enough to be be okay in this position. If a ''Branch Official'' is only getting by and isn't actively engaging with personnel within their ''Branch'' and generating good will during their tenure, then they will likely get few people to vote against impeachment. That means that even a low number of votes in favor of impeachment can unseat a mediocre official.


Example 2: Out of 5000 votes cast, 250 votes are against impeachment and 1000 are for. That means 250 / 1000 = 0.25 (this Top Branch Official has lost their seat).
On the other hand, an exceptional ''Branch Official'' will not only be doing a great job, but the staff of their ''Branch'' will know it and be supportive of their continued term.
This method is used because it's not good enough to just do okay in this position. If a Top Branch Official is only getting by and isn't actively engaging with personnel within their branch and generating good will during their tenure, then they will likely get few people to vote against impeachment. That means that even a low number of votes in favor of impeachment can unseat a mediocre official.


On the other hand, an exceptional Top Branch Official will not only be doing a great job, but the staff of their branch will know it and be supportive of their continued term.
In the Liminal State it's not enough to get to the top. Those with power are expected to do great things with that power, not just hoard it. In the Liminal State only exceptional individuals that are exceptional leaders will make it to the top and stay at the top, and that's good for the entire nation.


In the Liminal State it's not just enough to get to the top. Those with power are expected to do great things with that power, not just hoard it. In the Liminal State only exceptional individuals will make it to the top and stay at the top, and that's good for the entire nation.
=== '''Site Navigation''' ===
=== '''Site Navigation''' ===
''Continue Reading:''
''Continue Reading:''

Latest revision as of 23:38, 1 August 2026

Should office fitness of a Branch Official ever be in question, there are several paths available for immediate removal. Collectively these are called Removal Paths, and can also be applied to the Alternate.

Path 1: Resignation

Any candidate interested in becoming a Branch Official should take the position seriously and should not think of resignation as an option. All elected positions are critical roles, but in certain rare circumstances resignation may be appropriate.

Should an alternate Removal Path outlined below be more appropriate for the situation facing the Branch Official that wishes to resign, then that other path must be taken. Resignation is not a way to escape accountability from criminal acts, a No-Confidence Vote, fear of impeachment, or other For Cause actions. If the resignation request be due to the Branch Official's successful election into a different position, the following procedure will still be used.

  1. The Branch Official wishing to resign must Record their resignation notice and present these items to the Enforcement Agency of the Justice Branch. The Record must include the following:
    1. Valid and compelling supporting factors to justify the resignation.
    2. Proposed final date in the position.
    3. Mitigation factors that will be taken prior to the proposed resignation date to protect the Branch.
  2. The Enforcement Agency will investigate the Record presented and attempt to confirm that no other Removal Paths is more appropriate.
  3. The Branch Officials of the Justice Branch will then consider the substance of Record and the investigation and decide if all of the following are true:
    1. There is no more appropriate Removal Path.
    2. The Record provides compelling reasons to allow the resignation that most would consider valid.
    3. The Branch would not be intrinsically harmed by allowing the resignation of this Branch Official on the requested resignation date.
  4. After consideration, the Branch Officials of the Justice Branch will vote on the matter, with a simple majority deciding the outcome.

Path 2: Death, Loss of Mental Facilities, Missing Person, etc.

  1. The two remaining Branch Officials must be in agreement and Record their vote to proceed. Following a successful vote, their request will be automatically presented to the Enforcement Agency of the Justice Branch.
  2. The Enforcement Agency of the Justice Branch will provide an Independent Investigation of the situation. Their focus will be to ensure the situation meets the criteria for this Resignation Path, which is that the person is physically or mentally unable to fulfill their role and it is unlikely that resolution will come within 15 days. They may include the expertise of any Branches or specific Departments to support the investigation.
  3. Based on the evidence gathered from the Independent Investigation, the three Justice Branch Officials will vote, with a simple majority deciding the outcome.
    1. This assumes the official to be removed does not belong to the Justice Branch.
    2. For the removal of a Justice Branch Official, a simple majority vote by the Executive Group, based on the evidence gathered from the Independent Investigation, will decide the outcome.

Path 2: Office Misuse, Criminal Activity, etc.

  1. Anyone within the Branch or with information regarding official misconduct of one or more Branch Officials may present their concern to the Enforcement Agency of the Justice Branch (anonymously, if desired).
  2. The Enforcement Agency of the Justice Branch will provide an Independent Investigation of the allegations.
  3. Based on the evidence gathered from the investigation, the Justice Branch will hold a Global Justice Branch Vote using a simple majority, independently evaluating each indicted Branch Official. If a Justice Branch Official is the target of the investigation, then the Branch Officials of the Justice Branch will recuse themselves of the Global Justice Branch Vote and all Executive Group members will vote in their place.

Path 3: Department No-Confidence

The Departments of a Branch with three or more Permanent or Temporary Departments can propose the removal of one or more Branch Officials through the process called a No-Confidence Vote.

  1. All three Department Heads of two or more Departments within the same Branch must Record their vote in favor of holding a No-Confidence Vote.
    1. Each Department voting in favor of holding a No-Confidence Vote are called a Charging Department.
    2. It is permissible and expected for Department Heads to communicate among themselves for this action.
  2. All Charging Departments must present the following documentation to the Enforcement Agency of the Justice Branch within 30 days of the conclusion of the Recorded vote in favor of holding a No-Confidence Vote:
    1. The identities of the Branch Officials being indicted.
    2. Charging Documentation - compiled relevant evidence for the basis of holding a No-Confidence Vote.
      1. This documentation should not include any information that identifies the Charging Departments.
      2. This documentation should not include any information that directly or indirectly identifies any personnel, outside the indicted Branch Officials.
    3. The Decision Basis from each Department Head supporting the proposed No-Confidence Vote.
  3. The Enforcement Agency of the Justice Branch will ensure the following before moving on to the next step:
    1. There is no more appropriate Removal Path available that should be used for the situation.
    2. The indicted Branch Official(s) have been clearly identified.
    3. The Charging Documentation is anonymized.
    4. All three Department Heads of all Charging Departments have Recorded an affirmative vote for holding a No-Confidence Vote, with clear and valid reasons within their Decision Basis.
    5. The Justice Branch will have 30 days to review the documentation, but should work as quickly as possible to present it to the indicted Branch Officials.
  4. The Enforcement Agency of the Justice Branch will present the indicted Branch Official(s) with the Charging Documentation only.
    1. No Branch Officials within the affected Branch, whether indicted or not, shall be made aware of which Departments are bringing the indictment.
    2. There will be no further interviews or communication regarding this matter between any personnel, Department Heads, or Branch Officials within this window.
  5. Each indicted Branch Official will have 30 days to compile evidence and respond to the provided Charging Documentation.
  6. A No-Confidence Vote will be held no later than 37 days from the Charging Documentation being presented to the indicted Branch Official(s).
    1. The Charging Documentation and the response(s) of the Branch Official(s) will be put in an Informed Vote Archive for review by all Department Heads no less than 7 days prior to the vote.
    2. All Departments Heads within that Branch will decide the outcome of each indicted Branch Official using the Aggregated Vote method.
    3. Each affirmative tally will result in the immediate removal of that Branch Official, and that former official will be forbidden from holding any leadership position within the Liminal State in the future.

Path 4: Defiance of Guidance

The Executive Group can only recommend the removal of Branch Officials for unlawfully defying guidance, therefore this method does not apply to Independent Branches, such as the Justice Branch.

  1. The first step requires at least four members of the Executive Group to vote in favor of removing the Branch Officials from a Branch with an included Dicision Basis from all members of the Executive Group.
    1. They may only remove all TBranch Officials of a Branch at the same time.
    2. The Executive Group may not single out a specific Branch Official to remove.
  2. Upon a successful vote by the Executive Group, the Enforcement Agency of the Justice Branch is tasked with investigating the matter. They must examine the following parts:
    1. There was one or more specific directions by the Executive Group that were not followed.
    2. The directions of the Executive Group were lawful, clear, possible, and should have been able to be followed by the Branch Officials.
    3. The directions of the Executive Group were not carried out, either intentionally, by inaction, not in spirit, or otherwise in such a way as to circumvent the express wishes of the Executive Group - the Branch Officials are solely responsible for ensuring their Branch follows the directions of the Executive Group.
  3. The Enforcement Agency of the Justice Branch next investigates the following on the other side:
    1. The actions or inactions and Decision Basis of each of the indicted Branch Officials.
    2. Interview the Branch Officials and compile additional evidence that supports the justification of the Branch Officials actions or inactions.
  4. Following the completion of these steps, all information compiled by the Enforcement Agency of the Justice Branch will be made available to the Branch Officials of all Branches, along with entirety of the Executive Group's indictment through a Informed Vote Archive.
    1. The Branch Officials of each Branch will have 30 days to review all the information, independently ask any additional questions of the Executive Group or the indicted Branch Officials, though the indicted Branch Officials are forbidden from discussing amongst themselves, with the Executive Group, or via any linked personnel.
    2. At the conclusion of the 30 days, all Branch Officials, excluding those of the indicted Branch, will cast their votes using the Aggregated Vote method to determine what actions, if any, will take place.
      1. A final tally in favor of removal will cause those Branch Officials to immediately lose their seats. They are also prohibited from working in any leadership roles within the Liminal State in the future.
      2. Per standard procedure, all Branch Officials will provide the Decision Basis for their votes.

Path 5: Impeachment

The normal Election Cycle is not only used to elect a new Branch Official, but also an opportunity to grade all the existing Branch Officials on their performance thus far, and impeach if necessary. All existing Branch Officials are graded in this way, including the outgoing senior Branch Official.

While it may seem counterintuitive to potentially impeach the outgoing senior Branch Official, there is a year or more prior to the newly elected candidate actual filling the seat, so it may be in the best interest of the Branch personnel to still remove someone early. Additionally, this means there is no place for a lame duck official in the Liminal State, and this system encourages all officials to finish the final years in their seats just as actively as their first.

To calculate the grade that each Branch Official receives every four years, divide the the number of votes against impeachment to the number of votes for. The greater the result, the better that official is doing. If they receive a number less than one, then they lose their seat. This differs from Executive Group member impeachment in that there is no requirement of a minimum number of voters, as it's expected that Branch Elections will naturally garner high engagement. 

Example 1: Out of 5000 votes cast, 1000 votes are against impeachment and 250 are for. That means 1000 / 250 = 4 (the seat of this Branch Official is safe).

Example 2: Out of 5000 votes cast, 250 votes are against impeachment and 1000 are for. That means 250 / 1000 = 0.25 (this Branch Official has lost their seat).

This method is used because it's not good enough to be be okay in this position. If a Branch Official is only getting by and isn't actively engaging with personnel within their Branch and generating good will during their tenure, then they will likely get few people to vote against impeachment. That means that even a low number of votes in favor of impeachment can unseat a mediocre official.

On the other hand, an exceptional Branch Official will not only be doing a great job, but the staff of their Branch will know it and be supportive of their continued term.

In the Liminal State it's not enough to get to the top. Those with power are expected to do great things with that power, not just hoard it. In the Liminal State only exceptional individuals that are exceptional leaders will make it to the top and stay at the top, and that's good for the entire nation.

Continue Reading:

← Filling Empty Branch Seats | Official Removal Process | Voting Requirements →

Site Map:

Forward
LS Framework
Other
Retrieved from "https://liminalstate.wiki/index.php?title=Official_Removal_Process&oldid=328"