Recall THO's

As I stated in this post, the formula in the citizens sheet for determining voting activity had a slight error, rendering the numbers generated for quorum inaccurate. This has been rectified, and the new, accurate numbers are as follows:

Quorum is 18 citizens.
The number of motions required for an immediate vote is 6 citizens.

I currently see four motions for an immediate vote. Two more are required for an immediate vote.
 
The law very clearly states that quorum is based on number of citizens voting in -at least one of three- votes, not that the lowest number of votes cast in one vote determines the quorum. I gather that the speaker also reads the law this way given the modified quorum posted.
 
Great Bights Mum:
It is unfortunate that none of the THOs has posted so much as a "Howdy" in this thread. I move that we vote now.
Click to expand...
One of them did post in the Court thread, though, stating that they have come to a consensus but are still settling on final wording, and that RL and the complexity of the issue are responsible for the delays in a ruling.

I would like to again register my objection to recalling the THOs at this time. The Court is a hard job and it takes time to get it right.

I would also like to point out that the 7-day suggestion for rendering a decision, as laid out in the CRaP, was adopted in 2014, and exactly zero of the rulings since then have actually met that guideline. It is, at best, an ideal - and probably an unreasonable one to keep, if we're going to excoriate this set of THOs for not doing what no Court has yet done.
 
Has one of the THO's been here since the message in the court thread? Are they even aware of all this? Could an administrator perhaps say if any of them have been here recently?

I havent voted yet on the recall, for now I'm inclined to the benefit of the doubt and the possibility a recall will only result in more delay.
 
There has been the one post in the Court and otherwise some discussion on discord. The Court has not announced a new timetable or an ETA on the ruling. I understand that RL interferes and that the Court is a difficult job that requires time and careful consideration.

Unfortunately I am not convinced that most of the THOs are going to make any further announcements or undertakings that they'll announce a new timetable. Or even that they take the concerns of citizens seriously. Hence my vote in favour of the recall.
 
mcmasterdonia:
There has been the one post in the Court and otherwise some discussion on discord. The Court has not announced a new timetable or an ETA on the ruling. I understand that RL interferes and that the Court is a difficult job that requires time and careful consideration.

Unfortunately I am not convinced that most of the THOs are going to make any further announcements or undertakings that they'll announce a new timetable. Or even that they take the concerns of citizens seriously. Hence my vote in favour of the recall.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. The amount of time it takes the Court to issue a ruling is not the issue here. Some court cases are more complex than others and rulings should not be rushed. What is extremely concerning is the lack of communication between the THO's and the Citizenry. There has been very little information released regarding the delay and we were only able to get this information out of the THO's after numerous requests were made and a recall was proposed. And to top it all off, not a single one of the THO's have responded to the Regional Assembly when they know their recall vote is currently underway.

I am deeply concerned with the incredibly low standards that the Regional Assembly would be setting for government officials if this recall proposal was to fail.
 
If only the motion would have handled each THO individually... I guarantee we'd see results if that were the case. Of course, that would depend greatly on attempting to communicate with the THOs to discover where the problem is. Have any of you even tried talking to at least one of them? I have, and I have voted accordingly given the motion in front of me.

Also, has the court not seen fit to exercise their ability under the legal code to get rid of problematic THOs, or am I reading these clauses wrong?

Section 3.2: Appointment of Hearing Officers
...
9. The Court may recuse any Justice or Hearing Officer by majority vote.
10. The Court must hold a vote on whether to recuse a Justice or Hearing Officer when publicly requested by the prosecution, defense, or petitioner in any matter before the Court.
Click to expand...

Oh well... one of them will have been considered to have abandoned the office in a week.
 
Sil Dorsett:
Also, has the court not seen fit to exercise their ability under the legal code to get rid of problematic THOs, or am I reading these clauses wrong?

Section 3.2: Appointment of Hearing Officers
...
9. The Court may recuse any Justice or Hearing Officer by majority vote.
10. The Court must hold a vote on whether to recuse a Justice or Hearing Officer when publicly requested by the prosecution, defense, or petitioner in any matter before the Court.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The three elected Justices have recused themselves from that R4R, so they cannot act as members of the Court for that R4R. For that R4R, the Court is staffed by the three THOs, nobody else.

Besides which, recusals are for cases of conflicts of interest, not for "problematic" court members.
 
That clause is actually intentionally non-specific about reasons for recusal. While the legal code requires that justices recuse themselves when they have a conflict of interest, forced recusal doesn't have any boundaries set on the rationale. It was intended not only to address cases where a COI existed but the justice refused to step aside, but also cases of misconduct, insufficient activity, or other situations that might come up.

I haven't decided how I'll vote on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top