- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
I request that the court investigate the actions of the Speaker of the Regional Assembly, Govindia in refusing to remove himself from the regional assembly for missing two consecutive votes.
The law clearly states it is 3 days between the start of the votes.
The Flemingovian Constitutional Proposal Vote was started 3/22 at 9:23 PM GMT; it ended 3/29 at 9:30 PM GMT.
The Privileged Re-Vote for Recall of Delegate was started 3/30 at 3:21 PM GMT; it ended 4/6 at 3:30 PM GMT.
These votes started more than three days apart, and as such satisfy the two consecutive votes rule as noted above.
The legal code clearly states that all assembly members who have missed two consecutive votes must be removed from the RA
While Govindia’s defence is and I quote
While it may be customary for speakers to not vote, it is required by the law that all members of the Regional Assembly do not miss two consecutive votes. The point that this has never been bought up before is irrelevant, as it has been noticed now, and it is a violation of our laws.
Govindias position as speaker does not excuse him from his responsibilities to maintain membership in the regional assembly. His complete disregard for our laws is quite clear.
Govindia is currently standing in the speaker election. This is no doubt the reason why he has refused to remove himself from the regional assembly and simply apply again, as his membership would not be accepted in time.
Whether the laws are right in his view, is irrelevant. This is how they stand now, and Govindia must submit to our regional laws. He has flaunted disrespect for the Delegate, when asked to obey the regional laws, instead choosing to obey customs, over clearly codified laws in our legal code and constitution.
Govindia claims to value customs and traditions, and that is why he feels that he should not have to vote on matters before the assembly. He did not value the tradtion of abstaining from voting for oneself however, in the current elections for speaker. Regardless of tradition, the law is the law, and Govindia must obey it.
I request that the court investigate Govindias actions and his eligibility to run for the position of speaker, given his membership or the regional assembly should have been revoked. And to demand that he come in compliance with our laws.
I understand that with the ongoing judicial and speakership elections that this will create some complications and delays. Regardless of the results of the election, Gov would still be in violation of our laws. The new speaker may choose to act accordingly, but Gov will not doubt continue to disobey and disrespect our laws if he wins.
I further request that the court interpret the meaning of Section 3 Part 7 of the Consitution
“For 30 Days before nominations begin” is unclear. I request that the court decide whether this means 30 consecutive days before the nominations begin, or simply 30 days at any time before the nominations begin. Many esteemed members of our region have been members of the regional assembly for long periods of time, but their membership has lapsed due to unforeseen circumstances.
Under the law, if they have reapplied to the regional assembly, and their membership has been accepted, why then should they be disallowed from standing in elections. I request that the court investigate if this requirement in the constitution will be satisfied by 30 days prior service, regardless of when that prior service occurred.
Hypothetically speaking: If the member has been a member of the RA for more than a year, and their membership is revoked on the 17th of September. They immediately reapply and are accepted back into the regional assembly by the 19th of September, should they be declined the right to stand in an election where nominations start on the 15th of October. I think that under the law, the constitution grants that person the right to stand in the election, given that they have over a period of time served “for 30 days before nominations begin”.
If this could be applied, there would be no reason why people like Gov could actually apply the law to themselves, instead of being concerned that they would be unable to stand in elections. It would ensure that previously active contributors to our region would be able to continue to take a role in our regions future
The law clearly states it is 3 days between the start of the votes.
The Flemingovian Constitutional Proposal Vote was started 3/22 at 9:23 PM GMT; it ended 3/29 at 9:30 PM GMT.
The Privileged Re-Vote for Recall of Delegate was started 3/30 at 3:21 PM GMT; it ended 4/6 at 3:30 PM GMT.
These votes started more than three days apart, and as such satisfy the two consecutive votes rule as noted above.
The legal code clearly states that all assembly members who have missed two consecutive votes must be removed from the RA
While Govindia’s defence is and I quote
While it may be customary for speakers to not vote, it is required by the law that all members of the Regional Assembly do not miss two consecutive votes. The point that this has never been bought up before is irrelevant, as it has been noticed now, and it is a violation of our laws.
Govindias position as speaker does not excuse him from his responsibilities to maintain membership in the regional assembly. His complete disregard for our laws is quite clear.
Govindia is currently standing in the speaker election. This is no doubt the reason why he has refused to remove himself from the regional assembly and simply apply again, as his membership would not be accepted in time.
Whether the laws are right in his view, is irrelevant. This is how they stand now, and Govindia must submit to our regional laws. He has flaunted disrespect for the Delegate, when asked to obey the regional laws, instead choosing to obey customs, over clearly codified laws in our legal code and constitution.
Govindia claims to value customs and traditions, and that is why he feels that he should not have to vote on matters before the assembly. He did not value the tradtion of abstaining from voting for oneself however, in the current elections for speaker. Regardless of tradition, the law is the law, and Govindia must obey it.
I request that the court investigate Govindias actions and his eligibility to run for the position of speaker, given his membership or the regional assembly should have been revoked. And to demand that he come in compliance with our laws.
I understand that with the ongoing judicial and speakership elections that this will create some complications and delays. Regardless of the results of the election, Gov would still be in violation of our laws. The new speaker may choose to act accordingly, but Gov will not doubt continue to disobey and disrespect our laws if he wins.
I further request that the court interpret the meaning of Section 3 Part 7 of the Consitution
“For 30 Days before nominations begin” is unclear. I request that the court decide whether this means 30 consecutive days before the nominations begin, or simply 30 days at any time before the nominations begin. Many esteemed members of our region have been members of the regional assembly for long periods of time, but their membership has lapsed due to unforeseen circumstances.
Under the law, if they have reapplied to the regional assembly, and their membership has been accepted, why then should they be disallowed from standing in elections. I request that the court investigate if this requirement in the constitution will be satisfied by 30 days prior service, regardless of when that prior service occurred.
Hypothetically speaking: If the member has been a member of the RA for more than a year, and their membership is revoked on the 17th of September. They immediately reapply and are accepted back into the regional assembly by the 19th of September, should they be declined the right to stand in an election where nominations start on the 15th of October. I think that under the law, the constitution grants that person the right to stand in the election, given that they have over a period of time served “for 30 days before nominations begin”.
If this could be applied, there would be no reason why people like Gov could actually apply the law to themselves, instead of being concerned that they would be unable to stand in elections. It would ensure that previously active contributors to our region would be able to continue to take a role in our regions future
