Current Security Council Roster

Grosseschnauzer

Grosseschnauzer

TNPer
Security Council Chair and Vice Delegate:

Abacathea - 351 Endorsements - Minnow

Security Council Members: (as per the Order of Succession)

Romanoffia - Vassal (396 Endorsements) last admission August 2012
McMasterdonia - Truckler (491 Endorsements) last admission August 2013
Democratic Donkeys - Truckler (405 Endorsements) last admission 5 October 2013
Grosseschnauzer - Vassal (302 Endorsements) last admission 25 January 2011
Great Bight's Mum Vassal (278 Endorsements) last admission 18 April 2012
Lord Byron - Vassal (323 Endorsements) last admission 16 February 2014
Former English Colony - Truckler (282 Endorsements) last admission June 2012
Ator People Minnow (213 Endorsements) last admission 07 April 2014
r3naissanc3r Vassal (358 Endorsements) last admission 07 May 2014
Kiwi Minnow (229 Endorsements) Last Admission 10 June 2014
Lord Nwahs Vassal (264 Endorsements) Last Admission 30 June 2014
 
Great Bights Mum:
The roster shows BW's admission as 10-30-2012, but the vote results do not indicate that is the case.
Click to expand...
I believe he was let in today? Was he not?

Since I cast the 4th Vote FOR. Today....
 
Even if a majority voted to approve the application, which at the moment appears to be in question, the new Constitution still requires admission by the Regional Assembly of the approved application:
Article V, Clause 3 says:
3. The Security Council may approve applicants by a majority vote. The Regional Assembly may admit an approved applicant by a majority vote. If the Security Council does not approve an applicant or does not act on them within thirty days, the Regional Assembly may admit the applicant by a two-thirds majority vote.
Click to expand...
In nay event the Constitution recognizes that approval might not be completed in the Security Council within 30 days, therefore it's clear from the constitution that the vote can take as much time as it takes to allow all SC members to participate in the vote; which has been the practice under the old Constitution and Legal Code. In the discussions over this topic in the Constitution Committee, there was no indication that a specific time limit for voting, other than the overall 30 day period, was intended in the revision(s).
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Even if a majority voted to approve the application, which at the moment appears to be in question, the new Constitution still requires admission by the Regional Assembly of the approved application:
Article V, Clause 3 says:
3. The Security Council may approve applicants by a majority vote. The Regional Assembly may admit an approved applicant by a majority vote. If the Security Council does not approve an applicant or does not act on them within thirty days, the Regional Assembly may admit the applicant by a two-thirds majority vote.
Click to expand...
In nay event the Constitution recognizes that approval might not be completed in the Security Council within 30 days, therefore it's clear from the constitution that the vote can take as much time as it takes to allow all SC members to participate in the vote; which has been the practice under the old Constitution and Legal Code. In the discussions over this topic in the Constitution Committee, there was no indication that a specific time limit for voting, other than the overall 30 day period, was intended in the revision(s).
Click to expand...
I am having trouble finding the RA voting results for Fromer English Colony, Blackshear, Enif, and Romanoffia in July 2012. Was the law recently revised to include admittance by the RA, or am I not good at searching for threads?
 
Lord Byron:
Grosseschnauzer:
Even if a majority voted to approve the application, which at the moment appears to be in question, the new Constitution still requires admission by the Regional Assembly of the approved application:
Article V, Clause 3 says:
3. The Security Council may approve applicants by a majority vote. The Regional Assembly may admit an approved applicant by a majority vote. If the Security Council does not approve an applicant or does not act on them within thirty days, the Regional Assembly may admit the applicant by a two-thirds majority vote.
Click to expand...
In nay event the Constitution recognizes that approval might not be completed in the Security Council within 30 days, therefore it's clear from the constitution that the vote can take as much time as it takes to allow all SC members to participate in the vote; which has been the practice under the old Constitution and Legal Code. In the discussions over this topic in the Constitution Committee, there was no indication that a specific time limit for voting, other than the overall 30 day period, was intended in the revision(s).
Click to expand...
I am having trouble finding the RA voting results for Fromer English Colony, Blackshear, Enif, and Romanoffia in July 2012. Was the law recently revised to include admittance by the RA, or am I not good at searching for threads?
Click to expand...
The constitution was amended to require RA approval.
 
Lord Byron:
Grosseschnauzer:
Even if a majority voted to approve the application, which at the moment appears to be in question, the new Constitution still requires admission by the Regional Assembly of the approved application:
Article V, Clause 3 says:
3. The Security Council may approve applicants by a majority vote. The Regional Assembly may admit an approved applicant by a majority vote. If the Security Council does not approve an applicant or does not act on them within thirty days, the Regional Assembly may admit the applicant by a two-thirds majority vote.
Click to expand...
In nay event the Constitution recognizes that approval might not be completed in the Security Council within 30 days, therefore it's clear from the constitution that the vote can take as much time as it takes to allow all SC members to participate in the vote; which has been the practice under the old Constitution and Legal Code. In the discussions over this topic in the Constitution Committee, there was no indication that a specific time limit for voting, other than the overall 30 day period, was intended in the revision(s).
Click to expand...
I am having trouble finding the RA voting results for Fromer English Colony, Blackshear, Enif, and Romanoffia in July 2012. Was the law recently revised to include admittance by the RA, or am I not good at searching for threads?
Click to expand...
The Constitutional revision that added the additional step (of R.A. voting) was after those members were admitted to the S.C.; the Blue Wolf application is the first under the new process.
 
Yes, I am very sorry Honorable Grosseschnauzer.
I humbly appologize.
I finally found the old Constitution (in effect until Aug 21, 2012) HERE.
So they barely made it!

I am so excited and can't wait until BWII's admittance is called to vote.

Supreme Leader Lord Byron
 
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/6778672/18/

I.E.
Eluvatar:
I, Eluvatar controlling Zemnaya Svoboda, do hereby solemnly swear that during my duly elected term as a member of the Security Council, I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of member of the Security Council, with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.
Click to expand...

The oath has, of course, changed slightly:

I, [forum username], do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as [government position], I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of [government position], with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.
Click to expand...

(You don't need to specify elected/appointed/whatever anymore.)
 
May I please be unsuspended? (Though actually I don't recall an actual declaration of suspension :tb1: )

Edit: Apparently I was never suspended. HIAGAIN.
 
Just a suggestion, Felasia was removed and Pasargad, as you correctly state, was recalled, doesn't that mean they are no longer SC members and should be taken off the list?

I know it's not my place to suggest, but I thought I should mention it in case you were unaware. If your list is intended to include former members as well as current members, then it should technically include Enif also. As far as I can tell, Enif was never publicly removed, and might still be a member.

Thank you for reading.
 
Yes, Enif is still a member and Fel was removed for not being in the WA. His name shouldn't even appear on this list of current Security Council members since, to reiterate, he was removed, not suspended.
 
I think Enif was suspended from the SC after he was removed from the RA for inactivity. I suppose if the RA wants to grant him an exception to the RA membership requirement, they can vote to do that. Tho it might be simpler for Enif to just re-join the RA if he is interested in serving on the SC again.
 
Yeah, there is not actually a RA requirement for continued membership in the SC, there is only a RA requirement for admission, and that can be overruled by a RA vote. Losing your RA membership doesn't suspend your membership, and there is no law that states it does nor has there ever been one.

Enif was removed because someone assumed that RA membership was a requirement for continued SC membership without even consulting the law. There was no legal basis for Enif to be suspended, and he was somehow mysteriously removed from the SC entirely thereafter. I reversed both errors quite some time ago when I was Vice-Delegate.
 
List updated to reflect the above discussion. For reference, I had left the names on as I considered they may become members again in the near future although I understand that, that only confuses matters.

I'll send Enif a TG asking him whether he still wants SC membership and we can proceed from there.

Feel free to object further if I have made any other omissions.
 
Enif has also stated that he does not wish to retain SC membership at this time, just so you are all aware.
 
It will be at vote on Sunday. Ironically, the reason it's not going to vote today is because another piece of legislation is being voted on before it, and the legislation, if passed, would allow this motion to skip the line :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top