Bi annual / seasonal CoD elections

[Bnjemann]

Brief description of idea:

Either bi annually (every 6 months) or seasonally (every 3 months), host a new election for CoD.

How it should work:
> Candidates sign up for the election:
Candidates will sign up for the election with an application form, submitted either on the forums, google docs, or the Paralake city website.In order to sign up for the election, you should meet the following requirements:
- Should hold the Rank of senior officer or above.
- Should have a clean infraction record for the past 3 months, including reprimands, activity warnings, etc.
- Should have a clean ban record for the past 3 months.
> The candidate must also step forward with a consenting DCoD candidate too.
- The DCoD candidate will have the same requirements as the CoD candidate in terms of infraction / ban history.
> The candidates which are approved by SMT will be put onto a poll
- The vote will be sent in game similar to how it was done last time.
- Candidates May be denied by SMT if they do not meet requirements, have unrealistic promises, or aren’t planning on taking the role seriously.
> The poll is completed and the winning party gains CoD and DCoD.


Prevention of inactive / bad chiefs will be put into place by requesting a impeachment vote. Impeached Chiefs may not reapply for the role in the near future.

An existing or new member of the senior management team will be put into a position where they can trigger a vote to impeach the existing chiefs, or one individual chief, if they are acting in a manner that is hindering progress in the PD, or aren’t benefitting it at all through neglect and / or mismanagement. This vote can be triggered upon 2 members of SMT believing it is appropriate.

Senior administration may also intervene in neglect of the CoD role.

Personally, I like collier and momo, but of course a significant portion of the community have massive doubts in there CoD positions. Can’t say I’m one of them but honestly I feel as though it's just going to be something people demand action against for as long as the server is up.

What benefits would this idea have for the department:
- Allows us to keep things fresh and elect candidates which have new ideas
- Gives the community more control over the PD
- This idea has been mentioned an awful lot lately

What potential negatives could this have for the department:
- People could intentionally elect someone not suitable for the role
- Someone could overrule the electoral process upon getting CoD, possibly securing the role for themselves for the rest of the servers lifespan. (Could be prevented with policies but again chiefs can edit those)
- Command members could be fired by said individuals for stupid reasons.​

 

[jacf104]

I think this is a solid suggestion as every time one of these elections happen we will have fresh candidates who put themselves up for CoD and would mean that the people who have being working hard since the last election have a shot in the elections.

The only thing what could happen is the same CoD could win repeatedly

 

[CaughtRed]

imo cod election every year so its not outplayed and CoD has a chance to make worthwhile changes over a staggered period of time

 

[CensoredExe]

This is a very popular idea within the community, however Fredy said in an interview with ParalakeNews that the PLPD isn’t a democratic institution and never was, so there were no plans for an election, despite over 80% voting for regular elections.

I see no reason why the PLPD can’t be a democratic institution of sorts?

source:

Paralake News - Fredy intervenes: Collier demoted with McGlinchy now taking charge

Chief Of Department Removed From Office

paralakenews.com

 

[Bnjemann]

I have full faith in @McGlinchy as CoD and personally no longer believe this is entirely necessary, however keep it open for the people who disagree with my standpoint.

 

[CaughtRed]

He paid you off to say this, didn't he?

 

[KeiwaM]

- Should have a clean infraction record for the past 3 months, including reprimands, activity warnings, etc.
- Should have a clean ban record for the past 3 months.

really don't know about this. In theory, someone could be demoted/discharged and 3 months later run for CoD? It should at least be an entire term you have to stay clean. 3 months is nothing. I like the idea in theory, although the community doesn't always know what's best for the pd. What stops an org of powergrowers to get one of their guys to be elected and start making changes that benefit their org? Senior officer is setting the bar too low. Imo you need to show you are actually dedicated to the PD before you can run for Chief of it? I would go no less than Corporal or maybe even Sergeant. Senior Officers often have no clue how to lead departments, moreso the entire PD.

But as it has been said before, the PD isn't a democratic institution for the simple reason that one big org could completely tip the balance scale. So my final opinion is that in theory it is a good system, but in practice, I have a hard time seeing it work.

 

[CensoredExe]

I think you said yesterday exactly how I feel about it, I want an election but would still vote for McGlinchy

 

[blackdown]

I feel like the best solution here is to have a vote every few months say 3 or so. The current CoD can be elected over and over again, no limit. This way, if the CoD suddenly falls off, its not 6 months before we can change that. Overall, this system will favor the current CoD if they are performing well, and still provide security for the rest of the player base and PD should the CoD fail to perform their duties properly.

 

[flugs]

Whilst I do believe this is a solid suggestion, I'm sure we all trust the current CoD completely and so long as they are still performing up to the standard they began with, I see no reason to have the ability to vote them out of an office they are still contributing to.

On the flip side, Blackdown made a good point about them being able to be re-elected in one of the 3-monthly votes, however I don't necessarily believe the dates for these re-elections should be scheduled and instead should be called for by SMT (at popular request or internal decision) if the current CoD is not performing up to an acceptable standard. I do believe CoD should be voted for when the position is vacant though, unless there's a clear winner like glincher in the pool.

Just my thoughts, it's a nice and inclusive concept however I personally believe it should stay as it is.

 

[Alliat]

I think this system should be implemented but every 6 months should be sufficent. Someplans take a long time to implement thats why we should give the chiefs a fair amount of time to implement their plans. I say we keep @McGlinchy here for an other six months to get things in order. And then we hold a vote.

 

[jacf104]

God help the PLPD,None of you are now safe

 

[Bert]

This would be nothing but a handicap for the department as a whole. One person should be in charge of running it until they get sick of it. This ensures that there is always a constant within the PLPD. If the chief were to be re elected every 6 months this drastically changes the flow of work within the department and a large portion of time would have to be spent by this new chief in order to re adjust to the role. However I will say if someone has proven to be under performing in the role of chief, Senior Administration should reserve the right to hold a vote for the new chief, that way people who go inactive with the role can be removed and replaced with a more suitable candidate.

 

[CensoredExe]

This oddly feels like an argument in favour of a dictatorship.
Just because an election is being held every 3-6 months, doesn't mean the chief will change, or SMT for that matter. Not much will change, most likely just the SMT member whos leading it every few elections.

 

[Bert]

If someone is a capable leader, and is doing a good job. Why should they have to take some of their time which could be spent fixing issues to focus on an election. Most police departments operate this way. It's not a dictatorship its simply realistic, as well as much more reasonable if you expect anything to get done.