(b) Administrative members (Bylaw 3) who hold Captain rank or above maintain CC participation at the tier appropriate to their rank, provided they meet the 60% vote participation threshold.
Somewhat duplicative of Bylaw 3, Section 4(c), but also creates an impression of a difference for CC membership of Commander-ranked Administrative members which is not reflected in anything else in Bylaw 3.
Is this intentional?
must pass before proceeding to practical
Given that I am, as of this writing, an example of an exception to this rule, is it worth it to add a 5(d)(3) that explains the EC's ability to waive the written prerequisite (but not the written requirement) in extraordinary circumstances? I do not see space for that exception elsewhere in these Bylaws.
If all commanding officers deny placement, the returning member is deemed no longer in good standing and is expelled.
Redundant to the second half of Section 5(d), another reason to change the language there.
Section 7 — Placement After Return
Possible to streamline by combining with Section 5 as a general "Fleet Placement" section.
If all commanding officers deny placement, the member retains the right to remain on their current ship. A member who has no current ship and is denied by all commanding officers is deemed no longer in good standing and is expelled from the community.
The rest of Section 5 contemplates no other means by which a transfer may occur than by voluntary request of the transferring member. This section creates an impression that upon a transfer request the original CO can revoke permission to stay aboard the originating ship. Consider alternative language:
"At all times until a transfer is approved and confirmed by a receiving commanding officer, the member retains the right to remain on their current ship."
For involuntary transfers as a disciplinary matter, it should either be its own point or it should be moved to a more detailed section on discipline—which the Bylaws here do not currently contain.
Article 8: Discipline
Sections 1, 2, and 5 make sense for the Constitution. Sections 3, 4, 6, and 7 should be moved to a Bylaw and provided greater detail and explanation. As it stands, this feels a bit too crunchy for a Constitution, but maybe not detailed enough on process.
Captains and above: Leave may not exceed 24 consecutive months.
My understanding is that no one's leave can exceed 24 consecutive months under current policy. This (in connection with the language in Section 3(a) below) suggests that for more junior officers, indefinite leave is permitted. Is that the correct intention? I only ask because it is not included in the "Changed" summary above.
provided they renew annually
See annotation on Section 2(d) above.
(b) If the CC requests the EC to participate in a CC vote as advisors, the EC may not subsequently veto the outcome of that vote.
So, my understanding from this is that the CC can overrule the EC by asking the EC to provide non-binding participation in a CC vote? If not, this language should be adjusted.
discipline officers
In light of Section 2, this could be problematic. I'm reading this as a 30-day delay in EC action, before we get to emergency authority, and then indefinite delay thereafter. Disciplinary functions should be available, and if the highest ranking active officer (HRAO) cannot be trusted to carry out discipline it probably needs to be done. Perhaps by an emergency committee called by the HRAO?
Questions about how to interpret this Constitution are resolved by the Executive Council.
I think this sentence is sufficient. There's no need for an appeal for a non-binding advisory opinion; in practice the interpretation of the Constitution would come up through a Captain, into the CC, and then to the EC. I don't see much value in going back down to the CC for dicta.