Official Removal Process: Difference between revisions

From Liminal State
← Older editNewer edit →

Mr Fox (talk | contribs)

3 user groups
347 edits
VisualWikitext
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 14: Line 14:


=== '''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 ''Top 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.
''Top Branch Official No-Confidence Vote''. A ''Department'' that votes in favor of proposing a ''Top Branch Official No-Confidence Vote'' are a ''Charging Department'', and their affirmative votes result in a ''Proposed No-Confidence Vote''.
# Each charging department must compile all relevant evidence for their argument of no-confidence.
 
# 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:
# The ''Department Heads'' of two or more ''Departments'' within the same ''Branch'' must vote in favor of holding a ''No-Confidence Vote.''
## Which Top Branch Officials are being charged.
## Each ''Department'' voting in favor of holding a ''No-Confidence Vote'' are called a ''Charging Department.''
## ''Charging documentation'' that outlines the reason(s) for the proposed no-confidence vote.
## It is permissible and expected for ''Department Heads'' to communicate for this action.
### This document should not include any information that identifies the charging departments.
# All ''Charging Departments'' must present the following documentation to the ''Justice Branch'' within 30 days of the conclusion of the successful vote in favor of holding a ''No-Confidence Vote'':
### As much anonymized evidence as possible should be included to support the charge.
## Identify which ''Top Branch Officials'' are being indicted.
## The written basis for each Department Head's vote in affirmative of proposing the no-confidence vote.
## ''Charging Documentation'' - compiled relevant evidence for the basis of holding a ''No-Confidence Vote.''
# The Justice Branch will ensure the following before moving on to the next step.
### This documentation should not include any information that identifies the ''Charging Departments''.
## The Top Branch Official(s) have been clearly identified.
### This documentation should not include any information that directly or indirectly identifies any personnel, outside the indicted ''Top Branch Officials''.
## The ''charging documentation'' is anonymized.
## The ''Decision Basis'' from each ''Department Head'' behind the ''Proposed No-Confidence Vote.''
## All three Department Heads of all charging departments have voted affirmative with clear and valid reasons.
# The ''Justice Branch'' will ensure the following before moving on to the next step:
# The Justice Branch will present the charged Top Branch Official(s) with the ''charging documentation'' only.
## The indicted ''Top Branch Official(s)'' have been clearly identified.
## 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.
## The ''Charging Documentation'' is anonymized.
## The Top Branch Officials will not be made aware of which departments are bringing the charges.
## All three ''Department Heads'' of all ''Charging Departments'' have voted affirmative for holding a ''No-Confidence Vote,'' with clear and valid reasons within their ''Decision Basis''.
# The charged Top Branch Officials will have 30 days to compile evidence and respond to the charging documentation.
# The ''Justice Branch'' will present the indicted ''Top 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.
## 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 ''Top Branch Officials''.
## The charging documentation and the Top Branch Official(s) response will be put in a Branch archive for review by all Department Heads.
## No ''Top Branch Officials'' within the affected ''Branch'', whether indicted or not, shall be made aware of which ''Departments'' are bringing the indictment.
## 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.
## There will be no further interviews or communication regarding this matter between any personnel, ''Department Heads'' or ''Top Brach Officials'' within this window.
## 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).
# Each indicted ''Top Branch Official'' will have 30 days to compile evidence and respond to the provided ''Charging Documentation''.
# A ''No-Confidence Vote'' will be held no later than 30 days from the ''Charging Documentation'' being presented to the indicted ''Top Branch Official(s).''
## The ''Charging Documentation'' and the response(s) of the ''Top Branch Official(s)'' will be put in a ''Informed Vote Archive'' for review by all ''Department Heads'' prior to the vote.
## All ''Departments Heads'' within that ''Branch'' will decide the outcome of each indicted ''Top Branch Official'' using the ''Aggregated Vote'' method.
## Each affirmative vote will result in the immediate removal of that ''Top Branch Official''.


=== '''Path 4: Defiance of Guidance''' ===
=== '''Path 4: Defiance of Guidance''' ===

Revision as of 18:43, 28 July 2026

Should office fitness of a Top Branch Official ever be in question, there are several paths available for immediate removal.

Path 1: Death, Loss of Mental Facilities, Missing Person, etc.

  1. The two remaining Top Branch Officials must be in agreement and then present their request to the Enforcement Agency of the Justice Branch.
  2. The Enforcement Agency of the Justice Branch will provide an Independent Investigation of the situation.
  3. Based on the evidence gathered from the investigation, the three Top Justice Branch Officials will vote, with a simple majority deciding.
    1. This assumes the official to be removed does not belong to the Justice Branch.
    2. 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.

Path 2: Office Misuse, Criminal Activity, etc.

  1. 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).
  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 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.

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 Top Branch Officials through the process called a No-Confidence Vote.

Top Branch Official No-Confidence Vote. A Department that votes in favor of proposing a Top Branch Official No-Confidence Vote are a Charging Department, and their affirmative votes result in a Proposed No-Confidence Vote.

  1. The Department Heads of two or more Departments within the same Branch must 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 for this action.
  2. All Charging Departments must present the following documentation to the Justice Branch within 30 days of the conclusion of the successful vote in favor of holding a No-Confidence Vote:
    1. Identify which Top Branch Officials are 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 Top Branch Officials.
    3. The Decision Basis from each Department Head behind the Proposed No-Confidence Vote.
  3. The Justice Branch will ensure the following before moving on to the next step:
    1. The indicted Top Branch Official(s) have been clearly identified.
    2. The Charging Documentation is anonymized.
    3. All three Department Heads of all Charging Departments have voted affirmative for holding a No-Confidence Vote, with clear and valid reasons within their Decision Basis.
  4. The Justice Branch will present the indicted Top Branch Official(s) with the Charging Documentation only.
    1. The Justice Branch will have 30 days to review the documentation, but should work as quickly as possible to present it to the indicted Top Branch Officials.
    2. No Top Branch Officials within the affected Branch, whether indicted or not, shall be made aware of which Departments are bringing the indictment.
    3. There will be no further interviews or communication regarding this matter between any personnel, Department Heads or Top Brach Officials within this window.
  5. Each indicted Top 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 30 days from the Charging Documentation being presented to the indicted Top Branch Official(s).
    1. The Charging Documentation and the response(s) of the Top Branch Official(s) will be put in a Informed Vote Archive for review by all Department Heads prior to the vote.
    2. All Departments Heads within that Branch will decide the outcome of each indicted Top Branch Official using the Aggregated Vote method.
    3. Each affirmative vote will result in the immediate removal of that Top Branch Official.

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.

  1. The first step requires at least four members of the Executive Group to vote in favor of removing a branch's Top Branch Officials.
  2. 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:
    1. The directions of the Executive Group were lawful, clear, possible, and should have been able to be followed by the Top Branch Officials.
    2. 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.
  3. If both parts are true:
    1. The Justice Branch's Enforcement Agency next investigates the actions and voting reports of each of the indicted Top Branch Officials.
    2. They will also interview the Top Branch Officials and compile additional evidence to support the justification of the Top Branch Officials actions or inactions.
  4. 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.
    1. 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).
    2. 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.
      1. The fate of each indicted Top Branch Official will be individually considered.
      2. 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.
      3. A simple majority in favor of removal will cause that Top Branch Official to immediately lose their seat.
      4. Per procedure, the Top Branch Officials must officially record their reason for approval or descent with each vote cast.

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.

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 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 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).

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).

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 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.

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=184"