PROPOSAL: Motion of No Confidence in the Chairman

plembobria

plembobria

TNPer
-
-
I'd like to propose a motion of no confidence against the chairman. It is possible that RL has prevented him from fulfilling his duties as chairman, but if he is unable, he should resign. This motion would obviously be non-binding, but it should express the sense of the Democratic Council that it has no confidence in the Chairman.

The Motion:
The Democratic Council has no confidence in the leadership of the Chairman.
Click to expand...

Please express your thoughts.
 
He has not been active in over 2 weeks I estimate. Things have been backed up before that, along with the possible (ill)legal expulsion of members that should not have been on that list.
 
I support this motion, and I am also alarmed not just for the DU but for the Ministry of Culture. He is Minister after all.

If this motion goes through and/or he does not return soon we may need to have a special election for both chairman and minister.

Also, concerning what Egalotir said about Scandigrad's expulsion of various members for NOT VOTING, (and some of them did), I can safely (no offense Scandigrad) say this as simply as possible:

He is abusing his power as Chairman of the DU. That's what's happening. What's worse now is that he is inactive too. I am worried for the DU'S survival.

Oh, and McM is active too. And he's the DELEGATE.
 
Based on the four month cycle, new elections are to take place towards the end of March. We also have new officials to elect at that time. I think we should appoint a temporary chairman to work until then. We could get all our current proposals and necessary reforms through before the next election then.
 
Agreed. That said, I'm curious; are you going to be running for Chairman in March? Cus if you are, then that's good cus I wasn't planning on you being temporary chairman until the new elections.

Also, this brings me to the next topic: I have an idea for how the temporary chairman should be appointed. We could select the three most active DU member states and have each DU member vote on who gets the office.
 
I do plan on running for Chairman in the next elections. For temp. chairman we need someone who is going to push through our remaining proposals and some reforms that fix some issues. For example we need a clear definition of the chairman's power so that we do not have issues based on expulsion or other actions of the chairman.
 
syrixia you do realize that you are only a probationary member of the DU, which is not part of the new DU charter. Meaning you are not a member of the DU and have no say in DU politics?
 
I would like to declare that if a temporary chairman is put in place, I would be interested in pursuing that. Seeing as NPTO and DU are in similar situations, I believe that pushing through these proposals would become quite simple for me.
 
Along with a temporary chairman, I suggest that amendments be made to the Constitution on the the DU; seeing as this is the first of this situation, I am glad to see that members of the DU are working to effectively find a logical solution. As said before, let us push through and focus on the legality of it later. These next coming elections are huge in the DU, seeing the judiciary branch getting started to the new form of membership to the Democratic Union. Over the weekend, I feel some sort of meeting should take place to discuss plans of action if none has been taken til then. For now, however, understand that Scandigrad has been a great Chairman and that sometimes life happens.
 
We should meet on irc this weekend to discuss who will take over and how to go from here. We have an irc channel, #DemocraticUnion. I suggest Saturday. I am in EST but I can meet at any time.
 
I would like to throw my hat into the ring. Starting tomorrow, im spending hours in both TNP and I would like to begin pushing everything through for the DU. I will be available all weekend to work on this.

I also agree, amendments to the DU Constitution should take place for these kind of situations.
 
Malvad, I was thinking the same thing but I'm worried that only a few people could partake. I do agree though that some sort of meeting should take place.

Egalotir, the detirmination for success of the DU is admirable, I think that under these circumstances your persistance will help get the DU back on track to being the union we all know it can be.
 
Lord Lore:
Syrixia you do realize that you are only a probationary member of the DU, which is not part of the new DU charter. Meaning you are not a member of the DU and have no say in DU politics?
Click to expand...
And last I checked you were not elected as either Chairman or Deputy Chairman, so the political authority you have over the DU is null.

Also, last I checked, observers may contribute to discussions, they are however not allowed to vote.

As this is not an official voting thread, I have the ability to post on it. And, regardless of probationary or non-probationary status, I am part of this Union.

In events like these I feel it is only necessary as the official vote on who the temporary chairpeople will be has not yet occurred to contribute to the discussion.

I am not allowed to vote but I am allowed to discuss. If I cannot vote in the DU that is because of DU law and because of my membership type and that is acceptable.

However, if I cannot discuss this is a breach of the constitutional freedom of speech and is UNacceptable. Thus, this is why I am allowed to do so.

And if you're sitting there thinking my whole statement is null based on the fact that probationary memberships are no longer in the charter may I remind you my application for membership has a great amount of support in this Union at the moment, and may I also remind you that high on Scandigrad's agenda before he vanished was getting a verdict on my admission as my observer period is LONG since over. However, as this vote has not begun and/or my application has been decided upon by this Union, I AM CURRENTLY ELIGIBLE TO DISCUSS AND I ALWAYS HAVE BEEN SINCE I JOINED THIS UNION FOR THE FIRST TIME.

Also, the way you sent that message was downright rude. You're slowly losing my respect.



Sternly yet Respectfully,

Syrixia
 
Syrixia:
Lord Lore:
Syrixia you do realize that you are only a probationary member of the DU, which is not part of the new DU charter. Meaning you are not a member of the DU and have no say in DU politics?
Click to expand...
And last I checked you were not elected as either Chairman or Deputy Chairman, so the political authority you have over the DU is null.
No but I am part of the RP mod staff which gives me authority to keep order in the RP section.
Also, last I checked, observers may contribute to discussions, they are however not allowed to vote.
Last time I checked that does not include proclamations about who you choose as the interm chairman. Also last I checked you are not even a DU observer.
As this is not an official voting thread, I have the ability to post on it. And, regardless of probationary or non-probationary status, I am part of this Union.
See above you are not an observer or member, as far as it goes you are NOT part of the DU
In events like these I feel it is only necessary as the official vote on who the temporary chairpeople will be has not yet occurred to contribute to the discussion.

I am not allowed to vote but I am allowed to discuss. If I cannot vote in the DU that is because of DU law and because of my membership type and that is acceptable.

However, if I cannot discuss this is a breach of the constitutional freedom of speech and is UNacceptable. Thus, this is why I am allowed to do so.
It does not violate your "freedom of speech" to remind you that you are not a member of a group.
And if you're sitting there thinking my whole statement is null based on the fact that probationary memberships are no longer in the charter may I remind you my application for membership has a great amount of support in this Union at the moment, and may I also remind you that high on Scandigrad's agenda before he vanished was getting a verdict on my admission as my observer period is LONG since over. However, as this vote has not begun and/or my application has been decided upon by this Union, I AM CURRENTLY ELIGIBLE TO DISCUSS AND I ALWAYS HAVE BEEN SINCE I JOINED THIS UNION FOR THE FIRST TIME.

Also, the way you sent that message was downright rude. You're slowly losing my respect.



Sternly yet Respectfully,

Syrixia
Click to expand...
See above for comments in blue
 
Syrixia is indeed an observer state. He was admitted as one back in the fall. He was never removed and there are no grounds to remove him as observer status is still in the constitution.
 
Thank you, Malvad. See, this is why come March I'm voting for you; you're kind and you help all members, including observers, stand up to people like Lord Lore and defend our integrity.

That said, when controversy or debate concerning me is running about, I get butterflies in my stomach :0 Could we have the temporary chairman (after they're elected of course) settle this debate over my membership?

At the moment I'm currently an observer but I applied for full membership using the new constitution's instructions. Perhaps he/she could take a peek at it?
 
Malvad:
Syrixia is indeed an observer state. He was admitted as one back in the fall. He was never removed and there are no grounds to remove him as observer status is still in the constitution.
Click to expand...
He may have been admitted as one back in the fall, but when the new constitution took effect he was listed as a "probationary member" which puts him in a grey zone as "Probationary Member" is not in the new charter. Legally due to that his membership should lapse and then he should have to reapply.
 
Lord Lore:
Malvad:
Syrixia is indeed an observer state. He was admitted as one back in the fall. He was never removed and there are no grounds to remove him as observer status is still in the constitution.
Click to expand...
He may have been admitted as one back in the fall, but when the new constitution took effect he was listed as a "probationary member" which puts him in a grey zone as "Probationary Member" is not in the new charter. Legally due to that his membership should lapse and then he should have to reapply.
Click to expand...
He's right. He needs to re-apply and gain the proper sponsorship.
 
Egalotir:
Lord Lore:
Malvad:
Syrixia is indeed an observer state. He was admitted as one back in the fall. He was never removed and there are no grounds to remove him as observer status is still in the constitution.
Click to expand...
He may have been admitted as one back in the fall, but when the new constitution took effect he was listed as a "probationary member" which puts him in a grey zone as "Probationary Member" is not in the new charter. Legally due to that his membership should lapse and then he should have to reapply.
Click to expand...
He's right. He needs to re-apply and gain the proper sponsorship.
Click to expand...
This.
 
Syrixia:
Also, concerning what Egalotir said about Scandigrad's expulsion of various members for NOT VOTING, (and some of them did), I can safely (no offense Scandigrad) say this as simply as possible:

He is abusing his power as Chairman of the DU. That's what's happening.
Click to expand...
You're right, I expelled them for not voting, which, under the old Constitution was not forbidden. Hell, if I really wanted to, I could've expelled everyone I didn't like or didn't think fit with the DU's mission, but rather I gave them ample time (two weeks) to comply. Those who did not were removed as I had made abundantly clear. I even PMed them reminding them to vote. I was even lenient by keeping dmb in, who had missed the deadline but still voted.

The ones who were removed for voting nay or abstain were removed for not ratifying the constitution, which is a provision in the new constitution. That was out of my hands, and not my choice, so let's not go pointing fingers there.

Everything I did was perfectly legal.
 
Scandigrad:
Syrixia:
Also, concerning what Egalotir said about Scandigrad's expulsion of various members for NOT VOTING, (and some of them did), I can safely (no offense Scandigrad) say this as simply as possible:

He is abusing his power as Chairman of the DU. That's what's happening.
Click to expand...
You're right, I expelled them for not voting, which, under the old Constitution was not forbidden. Hell, if I really wanted to, I could've expelled everyone I didn't like or didn't think fit with the DU's mission, but rather I gave them ample time (two weeks) to comply. Those who did not were removed as I had made abundantly clear. I even PMed them reminding them to vote. I was even lenient by keeping dmb in, who had missed the deadline but still voted.

The ones who were removed for voting nay or abstain were removed for not ratifying the constitution, which is a provision in the new constitution. That was out of my hands, and not my choice, so let's not go pointing fingers there.

Everything I did was perfectly legal.
Click to expand...
I have absolutely no problem with the actions the Chairman has taken with regards to the expulsion of members who did not ratify the treaty. Not voting for the treaty (or not voting at all) is a refusal to join the DU's successor. (Also called the DU.) It's not that he expelled them. Technically they ceased to be members automatically since they did not re-join the DU under its new charter. They could still theoretically be members of the old DU (under the old DU charter), but the old DU has ceased to exist.

The Chairman did not expel anyone, the law expelled them. The Chairman was the messenger. Don't shoot the messenger.
 
So, now I am slightly confused. Are we going to continue with elections or because of Scandigrad's sudden appearance, are going to wait until he either steps down, he becomes inactive again, or his term is over?

EDIT: After actually reading a bit, I realize that I was just confusing myself. Just ignore this post
 
plembobria:
Scandigrad:
Syrixia:
Also, concerning what Egalotir said about Scandigrad's expulsion of various members for NOT VOTING, (and some of them did), I can safely (no offense Scandigrad) say this as simply as possible:

He is abusing his power as Chairman of the DU. That's what's happening.
Click to expand...
You're right, I expelled them for not voting, which, under the old Constitution was not forbidden. Hell, if I really wanted to, I could've expelled everyone I didn't like or didn't think fit with the DU's mission, but rather I gave them ample time (two weeks) to comply. Those who did not were removed as I had made abundantly clear. I even PMed them reminding them to vote. I was even lenient by keeping dmb in, who had missed the deadline but still voted.

The ones who were removed for voting nay or abstain were removed for not ratifying the constitution, which is a provision in the new constitution. That was out of my hands, and not my choice, so let's not go pointing fingers there.

Everything I did was perfectly legal.
Click to expand...
I have absolutely no problem with the actions the Chairman has taken with regards to the expulsion of members who did not ratify the treaty. Not voting for the treaty (or not voting at all) is a refusal to join the DU's successor. (Also called the DU.) It's not that he expelled them. Technically they ceased to be members automatically since they did not re-join the DU under its new charter. They could still theoretically be members of the old DU (under the old DU charter), but the old DU has ceased to exist.

The Chairman did not expel anyone, the law expelled them. The Chairman was the messenger. Don't shoot the messenger.
Click to expand...
I'm confused why not voting would lead to expulsion. The constitution came into effect after two thirds of the member states approved of the treaty. Would the constitution then not take full effect over all members, regardless of voting? Do new members need to add their vote to the constitution when they join?
 
The new constitution had stalled due to inactivity of several members, which meant the difference between ratification and non-ratification. I took measures to make sure the constitution was properly moved along.

See, it's one thing for the constitution to be killed by failing to reach a 2/3rds majority. It's a whole different animal if the constitution is killed by less than 2/3rds even voting. I encouraged people to vote. Those who did not do so were considered to be inactive or indifferent to the DU, and were removed. That brought the majority above the required 2/3rds to ratify, thus making it the new Constitution. Then, as the Constitution dictated, anyone who failed to ratify (thus, anyone who failed to vote aye) was removed (again, as the Constitution dictated.)

I have explained to all former members who were affected by this that they are more than welcome to reapply. If they take what this organization is about seriously, then they should have no problem getting back in. The only active people actually affected were Nessuno and Andrew, to my knowledge. Like I said, I was very lenient, and made every attempt to reach out to those who had not voted, both posting in threads, and by private message.

Again, as I have reiterated, all of this was perfectly legal under the code in effect at the the time each action was taken.
 
But there was no time limit on the ratification vote. Although it does not say anywhere that the removals were illegal, you removed members to get your constitution passed. This was extremely unethical.
 
I'd hardly consider it *my* constitution. But besides the point. They were inactive within the DU, were contacted in multiple formats, and were given ample opportunity to cast a vote. It was on them.
 
Is the debate if whether or not Scandigrad's chioces were legal or not so important that they must be discussed at this current time? Before taking any actions, including making accusations, everyone should wait until an official Judiciary branch is created and judges are elected. There, we can ease up this conflict and finally settle the whole situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top