[Discussion] Inactive Senators

[CmdrWilkens]

So I feel like after we get through the current slate of votes it is probably worthwhile to review something that I brought up with the Duchess and Bean in the Senate Reconstruciton thread. That is we have a number, admittedly pretty small, of Senators who have been inactive for a long time.

By way of example:

Stravo: Last recorded vote was 25 March 2008

Zaia: Last recorded vote was 16 August 2007

InnerBrat: last recorded vote was 19 February 2008

All three have been sent PMs by me indicating that they have been placed on "inactive" status which can be dropped by PMing me back at any time. I think all three are fine posters but what I'm unsure of is at what point do we cut losses and what criteria should we use. The rules allow for a vote of removal after 1 year of "inactive" status but I'd rather discuss whether we should hold such a vote or not and what other circumstances should factor in (the vote is discretionary on the part of the Chancellor/Whip).

[Coyote]

The rules are already in place, and everyone knew what they were/are. I see no reason to vote. Just put them in Emeritus status according to schedule and then if they wish to re-activate, we can do votes then.

[Ender]

Add me to the list as well. I mentioned to Thirdfain that my real life had just gotten much more demanding. Last week we learned that my mother has a "mass". The biopsy results and inconclusive, they "lead them to believe it is still pre cancerous", but she's still going under the knife ASAP because they aren't sure. (That or they do know and my parents just aren't telling us so we don't worry excessively, I don't know). This kind of thing is never good, but it comes right as my dad has to do a bunch of work related travels, meetings, etc in preparation for the summer construction season. Being the oldest and one of the closest to home, I'm the one who is stepping up to help with all the stuff there that needs to get done. Add into that all the demands of school and work, plus the travel time to my parents house, and I have basically no free time. And family comes first, so this place will be falling on the wayside. I won't be "gone" so much as "have a very reduced presence", but if this past week serves as an example that will be so much as to effectively be the same thing. If all goes well and it is benign, this will all be wrapped up in about a month. If it isn't benign, then I'll be gone for longer.

Ciao.

[CmdrWilkens]

Let me clarify a bit:

The list above is NOT inclusive of all incative Senators. Rather its a list of those folks who have been inactive for a very long period of time AND have not contacted me with details of their abscence. For instance Ender would be listed as "inactive" but I'm not gonna put him up for questioning because he hasn't even technically left yet. Likewise RobW is still listed on the roster and remains a Senator because I know where he is and why he is inactive, same again with Stuart Mackey who contacted me with details of his absence.

In other words the folks I brought up are those who simply stopped voting and have not contacted me. What I am hoping to get is a sense of the Senate with regards to actually bringing this to a vote. The rules allow for Chancellor's discretion about bringin up folks for a vote after 1 year of absence but I'd rather not just toss everyone out at the 1 year mark without cause.