Hello all,
The Electorate convened to discuss a proposed amendment to the Covenant. The proposal is to add a subsection to section 7.04 pertaining to juries and formalizing a process for holding an expulsion jury in the event that a former member with a deleted dossier acts against our standing rules for members or in a manner that is deemed dangerous or hostile to existing members.
A vote was called consisting of 17 members of the Electorate, with the Arcona Proconsul sitting in place of the Consul. The vote tally consisted of 1 abstention, 3 against, and 13 in favor of the amendment. As such, the Covenant has been updated as below.
Section 7.04
(f) Notwithstanding any provisions contained in section 2.02 regarding the rights or lack thereof of former members with removed dossiers, the Justicar shall have jurisdiction to convene an expulsion jury for a former member with a removed dossier who commits an offense, as defined in section 7.06, against the club or a particular member of the club while their dossier is removed.
(i) For the purposes of this section, “former member” shall refer to a person who was a member of the club at one time and has subsequently had their dossier removed under the provisions of section 2.02. This section does not apply to members who have created new dossiers under 2.02(d).
(ii) In order to convene an expulsion jury under this section, the Justicar, in consultation with the Hands of Justice, must first make a determination by preponderance of the evidence that the former member has committed a Covenant defined offense against a current member or the club itself. This determination is an internal Chamber of Justice deliberation and is not a judicial proceeding. The former member does not have a right to present evidence or argument to the Chamber during this deliberation but the Justicar at their discretion may seek and consider such submissions before making a determination. Any expulsion jury convened under this section must follow the composition requirements of 7.04(a).
(iii) If an expulsion jury convened under this section confirms the expulsion in accordance with 7.04(d) then the former member shall be expelled. If an expulsion jury does not confirm the expulsion, then the Justicar shall transmit an administrative note containing the charges and result of the expulsion jury to the Master at Arms, which shall be attached to any subsequent dossiers of the accused created under the provisions of 2.02(d). No sentence other than expulsion may be entered following a proceeding initiated under this provision.
(iv) Proceedings initiated under this section must comply with the statute of limitations contained in section 7.03(b). There is no statute of repose for proceedings brought under this section.
You can find the revised Covenant Section 7.04 on the wiki.
I'm happy to answer any questions about this amendment, if any should exist.
You need to be logged in to post comments
As always I'm amazed by the inclusion of this process and the high degree of civility and respect that comes with its execution. The discussion was rich, engaging, and ultimately helps to further protect the rights of members, both current and former, when a decision is being made regarding their ability to remain engaged with our community.
Very glad to see due process exhibited here, and appreciative of all the work that went into this.
It's also comfort knowing we added yet another protection for the members of our community.
Neat
read this 4x and still confused by it? how about a dummied downed version for us simpletons
If you delete your dossier and commit an offense that expulsion would be the required punishment; the expulsion jury must rule on the request.
Is the intent to restrict a member with a deleted dossier from making a new one following an expulsion ruling?
Not quite, A'lora. The intent is to ensure that anyone who has previously deleted their dossier and then violates the covenant after that fact with a punishment that would equal an expulsion that the CoJ can seek out that expulsion. Our Covenant states that any Covenant violation cannot be tried 2 years after the fact. This closes the loophole that would allow a member to rejoin under the circumstances in which a future JST or MAA may overlook those actions.
These are important because it puts the onus on us as an organization to do our due diligence and make sure there is proper record keeping. It has other benefits as well, but the primary reason is that we want to protect our membership from disgruntled former members.
This seems like an important change to protect the membership. Curious as to why anyone would vote against this. What are the drawbacks?
The news post comments probably aren't the best place for a nuanced discussion, but in short I think those who voted against it simply didn't think it was necessary. People who have their dossiers deleted are not members and therefore have none of the rights of a member. Until now, that also meant they couldn't be charged with Covenant violations. The Covenant sets out a very restrictive process for former members to be readmitted, requiring the MAA and JST to agree to allow someone back in. If they believe the person should not return, that's the end of the story.
That is still the case, but now the JST also has an extra arrow in his quiver: a former member can now be expelled if they do something that the JST thinks would warrant expulsion were they a member. Expulsion is permanent, which means if this new process is followed and the expulsion jury votes in favor of the expulsion, the former member will never be able to return regardless of whether a future MAA and JST may think it would be okay to let them back in.
So in short, this just adds a second, more permanent way to keep a former member out of the club. It's unlikely to see much, if any use, and some Electors thought it was superfluous.