Regrettably, I feel the time has come for the RA to consider the prospective recall of our Speaker, Fregerson. I am not the only person who has taken issue with his performance in this office, especially lately, though I have personally observed and pointed out numerous occasions where this Speaker has failed to properly execute his duties, despite being reminded and having these errors brought to his attention many times. These problems have been exacerbated by recent revelations that the Speaker's office has failed to properly handle citizenship applications in a very crucial way: well over a dozen individuals who should have failed to become citizens because they failed the admin check were not properly rejected, and as a result were legally required to become citizens after two weeks. Among their number included an applicant who, had they passed the admin check, would have failed the Vice Delegate check under the terms of the Reject Fascism law. This individual would have automatically become a citizen!
Our Speaker has been elected to this office three times, and has served in this role for roughly the equivalent of two normal terms. It is no longer acceptable to dismiss these as innocent errors from a new occupant of the office. We have long become accustomed to a Speakers office that is efficient and has a capable staff that can do what the Speaker cannot. It should not matter that Fregerson is busy or has limited time, if he has the deputies in place to carry out the important work. And yet deputy management has been sorely lacking until recently - when the Speaker is unable to open or close a vote on time, he evidently had no deputies to cover that absence. He also took it upon himself to respond to the revelations made by Zyvet about the improperly handled applications, rather than have a deputy take the simple and swift action of properly granting the applicants citizenship. And yet, well over 10 days from the time this was revealed, during which these applicants waited in limbo unsure what was to happen to them, a deputy nevertheless granted the citizenship and revoked it from those who no longer had a nation in the region. The action he chose to take was to illegally revoke citizenship from an applicant who had been improperly given citizenship despite failing the admin check. And then he asked the Court to rule on the legality of the plainly illegal action that he took, so he responded to an illegal act by making another illegal act, and then asking the Court to check his work. This is not a reasonable controversy or difference in opinion - the law is plain and clear as to when the Speaker may remove citizenship, and when he must grant it. Someone who has held this office as long as Fregerson should have known this, but even if he was new, the law is not in dispute. I am confident the Court will say the same when its ruling on his r4r is released.
Deputies have erred throughout Fregerson's time in office, and were responsible for most of these application errors. These deputies rely on the Speaker for training, and if the Speaker does not know the rules, and how to execute these duties, the deputies can hardly be expected to either. Whenever these deputies have been corrected, they have not repeated their mistakes. This Speaker, however, continues to make the same mistakes, and has fallen short of what we have come to expect from this office in recent years. We have seen chronic mistakes in this office before, and speakers have been taken to task for them. It is somewhat of a TNP tradition. When this has happened, they have acted quickly and with clear and immediate communication to fix the error and take steps to stop them from happening in the future. I have not seen this from the Speaker. I have asked, and am I still waiting, for an explanation of what this Speaker plans to do to mitigate these problems, and for clarification on his last statement on this issue, regarding the possible filing of what I can only assume are ore unnecessary r4rs asking the Court to tell him what he can and cannot do despite the law clearly answering those questions. The lack of communication for over two weeks is unacceptable. During this time the Speaker set an arbitrary deadline for a response, and like the constant votes he failed to start and stop on time, he failed to meet his own deadline. While I have awaited a response, he has started one vote in the RA and posted on Discord, but has yet to answer the question in his office.
I have said many times that the Speaker's office was in a tough spot, and I appreciate Fregerson stepping up to try to help. I do not believe any of these issues are due to intentional malice or apathy. Instead, I feel the Speaker may be unable to consistently and adequately serve in this capacity, either because he lacks the knack for this kind of work, or because he is far too busy outside of this game. This should never be held against someone, though I would hope that if they find they cannot capably serve, they take steps to address that reality, up to resignation if they can find no other way to resolve the problem. I have nothing against Fregerson personally, and I have come to appreciate his participation not only in our community but as a long-time member of the executive staff. He is friendly and rightly loved and admired by many in this region. But that does not mean he should not be removed from his office. This saga has gone on almost since the first day he was Speaker, and too little has been done to improve, and too little has gone right. The Speaker is a crucial and essential office in our regional government, and it is incredibly easy to get things wrong. The margin for error, at least the way the law is currently written, is far too small for some of these mistakes. Our Court rulings show how often the Speaker's actions are challenged and how significant an impact they have on regional governance. It is not an easy job, and it is not a popular one, and for very good reason. It should not surprise us that not everyone can do it smoothly, but generally we are forgiving and patient, and we can watch as people in this office rise to the occasion. But sometimes that does not happen. It doesn't mean Fregerson is a bad guy, it does not mean he never did anything right, and it does not even mean he cannot do better. But with what we know now, what the reality of the present time is, I do not believe we should continue to be patient and wait for things to change. I believe it is best for the region if we recall this Speaker.
Our Speaker has been elected to this office three times, and has served in this role for roughly the equivalent of two normal terms. It is no longer acceptable to dismiss these as innocent errors from a new occupant of the office. We have long become accustomed to a Speakers office that is efficient and has a capable staff that can do what the Speaker cannot. It should not matter that Fregerson is busy or has limited time, if he has the deputies in place to carry out the important work. And yet deputy management has been sorely lacking until recently - when the Speaker is unable to open or close a vote on time, he evidently had no deputies to cover that absence. He also took it upon himself to respond to the revelations made by Zyvet about the improperly handled applications, rather than have a deputy take the simple and swift action of properly granting the applicants citizenship. And yet, well over 10 days from the time this was revealed, during which these applicants waited in limbo unsure what was to happen to them, a deputy nevertheless granted the citizenship and revoked it from those who no longer had a nation in the region. The action he chose to take was to illegally revoke citizenship from an applicant who had been improperly given citizenship despite failing the admin check. And then he asked the Court to rule on the legality of the plainly illegal action that he took, so he responded to an illegal act by making another illegal act, and then asking the Court to check his work. This is not a reasonable controversy or difference in opinion - the law is plain and clear as to when the Speaker may remove citizenship, and when he must grant it. Someone who has held this office as long as Fregerson should have known this, but even if he was new, the law is not in dispute. I am confident the Court will say the same when its ruling on his r4r is released.
Deputies have erred throughout Fregerson's time in office, and were responsible for most of these application errors. These deputies rely on the Speaker for training, and if the Speaker does not know the rules, and how to execute these duties, the deputies can hardly be expected to either. Whenever these deputies have been corrected, they have not repeated their mistakes. This Speaker, however, continues to make the same mistakes, and has fallen short of what we have come to expect from this office in recent years. We have seen chronic mistakes in this office before, and speakers have been taken to task for them. It is somewhat of a TNP tradition. When this has happened, they have acted quickly and with clear and immediate communication to fix the error and take steps to stop them from happening in the future. I have not seen this from the Speaker. I have asked, and am I still waiting, for an explanation of what this Speaker plans to do to mitigate these problems, and for clarification on his last statement on this issue, regarding the possible filing of what I can only assume are ore unnecessary r4rs asking the Court to tell him what he can and cannot do despite the law clearly answering those questions. The lack of communication for over two weeks is unacceptable. During this time the Speaker set an arbitrary deadline for a response, and like the constant votes he failed to start and stop on time, he failed to meet his own deadline. While I have awaited a response, he has started one vote in the RA and posted on Discord, but has yet to answer the question in his office.
I have said many times that the Speaker's office was in a tough spot, and I appreciate Fregerson stepping up to try to help. I do not believe any of these issues are due to intentional malice or apathy. Instead, I feel the Speaker may be unable to consistently and adequately serve in this capacity, either because he lacks the knack for this kind of work, or because he is far too busy outside of this game. This should never be held against someone, though I would hope that if they find they cannot capably serve, they take steps to address that reality, up to resignation if they can find no other way to resolve the problem. I have nothing against Fregerson personally, and I have come to appreciate his participation not only in our community but as a long-time member of the executive staff. He is friendly and rightly loved and admired by many in this region. But that does not mean he should not be removed from his office. This saga has gone on almost since the first day he was Speaker, and too little has been done to improve, and too little has gone right. The Speaker is a crucial and essential office in our regional government, and it is incredibly easy to get things wrong. The margin for error, at least the way the law is currently written, is far too small for some of these mistakes. Our Court rulings show how often the Speaker's actions are challenged and how significant an impact they have on regional governance. It is not an easy job, and it is not a popular one, and for very good reason. It should not surprise us that not everyone can do it smoothly, but generally we are forgiving and patient, and we can watch as people in this office rise to the occasion. But sometimes that does not happen. It doesn't mean Fregerson is a bad guy, it does not mean he never did anything right, and it does not even mean he cannot do better. But with what we know now, what the reality of the present time is, I do not believe we should continue to be patient and wait for things to change. I believe it is best for the region if we recall this Speaker.