The Jedi High Council

Me again. I understand that I am just a member, but I have to release my imagination somewhere. I know that we have a clergy, but maybe it is a good idea to have a Jedi high council comprised of 12 knights, senior knights and masters or even apprentices and members. So, each year in january we have an election, or The Grand Master and the clergy choose 12 people, including the grand master himself, and the 12 Jedi do not have to take the job, they can apply, or they can drop out and be replaced if they want. Just an idea, but a good one, I'll say.

I actually posed suggestions about changing the make-up of the council when I was a knight... The only change it resulted in was a Secretary, and even that wasn't my idea

you were a knight ?? What happened ur a member now

Other then the existing Coucil?
https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/council
Dare I ask what it would do?

omg

wow, i didn't see this. In that case skip straight to the trample thread. (Time to rip out pages and pages of my notebook)

Silas Mercury wrote: Me again. I understand that I am just a member, but I have to release my imagination somewhere. I know that we have a clergy, but maybe it is a good idea to have a Jedi high council comprised of 12 knights, senior knights and masters or even apprentices and members. So, each year in january we have an election, or The Grand Master and the clergy choose 12 people, including the grand master himself, and the 12 Jedi do not have to take the job, they can apply, or they can drop out and be replaced if they want. Just an idea, but a good one, I'll say.

The setup we have now is regulated in the bylaws of TOTJO. The process only allows for qualified members who have experience here to lead. While "democracy" seems like a good concept, rule of law (republic) ultimately does more good than rule by mob. Self-determination in this sense means any member here has the means to suggest changes like this, is there a specific position you wish to fill or change?
Right now, the council seems like a self-regulating mechanism since as there is need positions are created or condensed. While in a larger scale governing body, this might be succeptible to corruption, the relatively low power and complete vestment of financial responsibility in Br. John makes this incredibly unlikely.
Tbh, your idea is obviously not fully fleshed out, but I am interested in the direction you're taking this.

Silas Mercury wrote: Me again. I understand that I am just a member, but I have to release my imagination somewhere. I know that we have a clergy, but maybe it is a good idea to have a Jedi high council comprised of 12 knights, senior knights and masters or even apprentices and members. So, each year in january we have an election, or The Grand Master and the clergy choose 12 people, including the grand master himself, and the 12 Jedi do not have to take the job, they can apply, or they can drop out and be replaced if they want. Just an idea, but a good one, I'll say.

Every member is as valuable as a knight! Every knight is also as valuable as a member!

The problem thingy with election, is that each member of the council preforms a specific task to oversee an area of the Temple. They are to be compared with specialists in their own area, in order to be able to represent each area as good as possible. And to safeguard its integrity, rules, quality and quantity.. What eventually makes the council a works like a council, they know what they say? How would this system be, if council members would change every year, how can a temple area be safeguarded then?

Instead of letting a small group making decisions/advice, each Jedi can share their voice! Personally I would not like to see it changed into a more closed / -layered kind of system. But that is just my personal opinion!


~ Aqua

This would be hard to really tackle without some transparency of the existing discussions and format of the existing council. Meaning a lot of discussions go on behind closed doors, and I know of only a select very few, I also know theres a number of them that end up undecided or stalemated or with very opposing views and not as much consensus, or at least thats how it has been described to me. If it's not that way thats fine, but since we(the majority of the members) have no idea of the state of things behind those doors we really can't judge whether they are the best for everyone or not. Of course the purpose of the current council is to decide that, so how do you decide if the deciding council is decisive or not.....

If there was one change I would even remotely suggest is would be nice if there was quarterly or monthly reports of topics of discussions and things, not even too many if any details but just to know what discussions were going on. Of course once you do that the inquisitive would want to know what were in the discussions and those who follow the reports what the results were etc and then again defeating the purpose of the council in its current state again....oh the paradox!

We're a meritocracy, not a democracy. For most of the Temple's history there has been no need for rule by anything other than Council because the Temple was small. But there is already far greater involvement by non-Councillors, the Synod, Clergy/Knights meetings, assistant positions, the AIP, PR (since I'm resigning), non-Councillor led gatherings etc...

The Council is a Supreme Court providing 'a sense of direction without inhibiting the latitude and trust each Master, Knight and member deserves'. We're not here to legislate every member's action. The Council's scope is far less than a government's, there is less of a need for representative democracy.

Tellahane wrote: If there was one change I would even remotely suggest is would be nice if there was quarterly or monthly reports of topics of discussions and things, not even too many if any details but just to know what discussions were going on. Of course once you do that the inquisitive would want to know what were in the discussions and those who follow the reports what the results were etc and then again defeating the purpose of the council in its current state again....oh the paradox!

There already is .