[PASSED] Motion to Recall Fregerson as Speaker of the Regional Assembly

Pallaith

TNPer
-
-
-
-
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.
 
That's wild, I only voted for him because you trained him for years and spoke well of him.

Do you have a replacement in mind?
 
That's wild, I only voted for him because you trained him for years and spoke well of him.

Do you have a replacement in mind?
I would say that my feelings about Fregerson as a candidate were…complicated. And I would also note he did not have my vote in the last two elections in which he was a candidate.

I don’t have a replacement in mind. That is not part of this process. The question is whether the person in office ought to remain in office or be removed. I do not believe that the question of potential successors should carry greater weight than the merits of the recall itself. The replacement is whoever wins the election that results from a successful recall. I will say that a good first place to look is the deputies in the office. But whoever it is that I believe should be the next Speaker will depend on who runs in that election.
 
Considering the topic at hand, I thought I might as well chime in. My apologies if my grammar is not great with this post; it is about 2:30 AM where I live and I’m quite exhausted.

Around December 14th, 2021 (give or take), I was given a notice from the Speaker’s office that my citizenship would be lapsing due to failing to send a message in the past 30 days on either the forums or the RMB. This was false. I had posted on the RMB 4 days prior to getting that warning. I informed Fregerson and they apologized for that oversight the next day. I didn’t bother to complain about the warning as I thought it was a simple mistake and that it wouldn’t happen again.

However, on April 27th, 2022, I received the same warning. This time I was quite confused since I had posted on the RMB the day prior to getting the warning. I once again informed Fregerson of that same oversight from December.

This time, though, my telegram response about the secondary oversight was ignored; I was not telegrammed back and was quite concerned I would unfairly lose my citizenship due to an error by the Speaker’s office. That, of course, never happened. I was hoping that this would not happen a third time.

Consequently, when I was checking my telegrams today, I had noticed that 11 days ago Fregerson had sent me another a third warning about my citizenship being in risk of lapsing. At that point I was just confused since I had posted on the RMB 7 days prior to the warning. Make no mistake that this isn’t a spreadsheet maintenance error as the Citizenship and Residency Registry states that I have posted on the RMB in the past 30 days (just not on the forums).

It doesn’t help either that despite me not posting on either the RMB or forums in the following 7 days, I never had my citizenship lapse. I can only believe at this point that this is just gross incompetence from the Speaker’s office. I have been quite patient with this and was hoping this wouldn’t happen 3 times. At this point, though, this is starting to become silly.

I won’t pretend that I am active — I haven’t been truly active in TNP affairs since early 2020 or really 2019 if we’re being technical. I am also not active enough to understand much about the whole dilemma surrounding Fregerson’s speakership. But, if this easily fixable oversight is happening multiple times, I can’t keep my confidence in the Speaker’s office.

I voice my support for the recall by Ghost. I’m sure Fregerson means well and doesn’t mean active malice like Ghost suggested, but the failure to carry out the Speaker’s duties properly and efficiently is very concerning.
Note: I do not have Fregerson’s previous two telegrams saved. However, they are no different than the one sent 11 days ago. I did not bother to respond to the third one due to being ignored the second time amongst other reasons.
43nojKl.png

gJyYlQi.png

bcdRsf2.png
 
Last edited:
I won't say that I know exactly what's going on with the Speaker telegrams, but from my memory as Speaker they were automated API telegrams, the script of which is maintained by the admins. The Speaker slaps their name on it by creating an API telegram template and then handing the telegram ID and secret key to the admins. If this is still the case, then I don't think it's something we can fault Fregerson for. I seem to remember Fregerson acknowledging this as the nature of the problem last term, but I am currently unable to find it.
 
I won't say that I know exactly what's going on with the Speaker telegrams, but from my memory as Speaker they were automated API telegrams, the script of which is maintained by the admins. The Speaker slaps their name on it by creating an API telegram template and then handing the telegram ID and secret key to the admins. If this is still the case, then I don't think it's something we can fault Fregerson for. I seem to remember Fregerson acknowledging this as the nature of the problem last term, but I am currently unable to find it.
Perhaps it is purely an administrative automation error. That being said, I am curious that this hasn’t been appropriately addressed. Is there no way for the Speaker to double-check the spreadsheet to make sure a citizen at least posted on either the RMB or Forums, or is it completely automated via said admin script? If the latter, then that is completely understandable and out of Fregerson’s control.

I haven’t encountered this issue under previous speakerships, though, so I am confused why this has only been an issue under Fregerson’s recent tenures. And regardless, from what I’ve read above, Fregerson has had quite the hurdles throughout their entire speakership and I’m sure this telegram issue would’ve been addressed much earlier. My opinion has not changed all that much.
 
Perhaps it is purely an administrative automation error. That being said, I am curious that this hasn’t been appropriately addressed. Is there no way for the Speaker to double-check the spreadsheet to make sure a citizen at least posted on either the RMB or Forums, or is it completely automated via said admin script? If the latter, then that is completely understandable and out of Fregerson’s control.
The telegrams themselves, as far as I am aware, are completely automated. The Speaker would not even be aware when they are sent out unless they go into the telegrams page to check the list of recipients. They're the same nature as the 30-day telegrams you would get from Ministers.
 
Can confirm that the telegrams are automated.

Can also confirm that when I was speaker I made damn sure I worked closely with admin whenever such a discrepancy or error emerged.
 
The telegrams themselves, as far as I am aware, are completely automated. The Speaker would not even be aware when they are sent out unless they go into the telegrams page to check the list of recipients. They're the same nature as the 30-day telegrams you would get from Ministers.

So if the telegrams are automated, then the bot is in a few errors, possibly? Why would the messages happen to @Dinoium only during Fregerson's terms? I suggest the possibility of malice, as Ghost stated previously.
 
So if the telegrams are automated, then the bot is in a few errors, possibly? Why would the messages happen to @Dinoium only during Fregerson's terms? I suggest the possibility of malice, as Ghost stated previously.
No one has suggested the possibility of malice. Ghost specifically said
I do not believe any of these issues are due to intentional malice or apathy.
I don't think we'll get anything more on this specific issue until either the Speaker or the admins clarify the situation here, and for that matter I don't think there is much more to say on this entire matter until we see what the Speaker has to say. I'm rather more concerned about this current lack of activity from the Speaker, at a time when there are responses expected from them, than the mostly surmountable errors that have been made.
 
So if the telegrams are automated, then the bot is in a few errors, possibly? Why would the messages happen to @Dinoium only during Fregerson's terms? I suggest the possibility of malice, as Ghost stated previously.
I certainly hope that you have more than the most vaguely related of circumstantial evidence to back up this claim.
 
The Telegrams work off the speakers sheet if i remeber my days in office correctly. If the sheet is not updated often then the service sees old information and works off of that. It also can be affected, i believe, by having the sheet missorted and getting the data misaligned.
 
With the number of issues that have come to light over the last couple weeks, it does not surprise me that this recall has been issued.

There’s been a lot of mistakes and just general confusion that I’ve noticed within the regional assembly, I’m arguably still new here and I barely understand why this speaker has a seemingly whole bunch of deputies but nobody really seems to know how to do the job right?

I don’t think it’s normal for somebody who has been in a position before to making this many mistakes in that same position, and also appears just not be properly training their deputies to also do the job right. As pointed out the speaker has made many mistakes, as has the deputies of the speaker. If it is the duty of the speaker to train their deputies to understand how the job works, and how to properly execute your job, it really feels as though this speaker is missing the mark.

I have nothing personal against the speaker, he just seems to be not good at his job, which is fine, but it seems as though this position is not cut out for him.
We need somebody who is a presence, who will take charge of the deputies and tell them when they should be actioning things in place of the speaker, and who will own up if they screw up, but also not get the court involved by doing an action they don’t know if they can or can’t do because of the law.
If it’s unknown in the law that an action can or cannot be done without the court being called, it sounds like an amendment is needed to clarify before an action is done, but that’s just how I’d approach it.

I support this recall.
 
Most of my points were already said by Pallaith and Madeline Valois, but I do intend to vote in favor of a recall.

It's a disappointing choice, especially since I actually casted my vote for you during our election against one another.

I saw that the Assembly believed in your leadership, and was ready to work with you as long as you would have me.

I just feel a lot of the decisions that have been made, especially the last couple of weeks have been too little, too late.

As one of your Deputies worked tirelessly to respond to and attempt to answer the citizenry, you actually opened a vote and ignored them, not even indicating that you were going to agree to what your deputy had said.

And even today, as we debate your Speakership, you chose to focus on the mostly-settled audit over responding to the motion that could decide whether you stay Speaker.

I await your timely response, and hope you understand why it has come to this.
 
Where should I start?

Firstly, I would like to thank Pallaith for spending their time to come up with a recall thread, and bringing their so-called arguments to the table on why I fully deserve a recall from my current position. There can never be a better opportunity to kill off the discussions surrounding my recall, and therefore, I rather get this out of the way than let this cloud any of the possible things that I will do from now till September. I therefore request, that we conclude a vote on this before the end of June. It is 3 things - either this RA finds my conduct unsatisfactory that warrants a recall, or this RA wants to submit a motion requesting me to follow certain set of actions, or this RA thinks that whatever has happened don't warrant a recall. Whichever the case, I just want to put a final full stop to this entire saga.

Secondly, I would like to request a bit of understanding on the promptliness of my responses. I am not sure how much this will be, given that promptliness of my actions is one of the concerns that was raised against me. It just so happened the past 2-3 weeks was one of the nightmare periods for me. Soon after Zyvet's request dropped, I was recalled for operations - this relates to my RL life as being part of the defence ecosystem of my country, and being named on operations manning. Soon after was 2 really big near-misses, where one of my close friend, and a few days later, myself, were evacuated to hospital for various reasons. Basically, it has affected my mental state slightly, which was why I didn't bring myself to respond properly to the ongoing discussion.

On to the case against me. The first, and the one which is considered as the tipping point, was with regards to the citizenship applications saga which was first brought up by Zyvet. The fact is that the office, under my charge, has had oversights in terms of giving explicit rejections to some of the applications that were made. What has been going around, however, seems to have been various statements which I fully disagree with. For instance, this one from the OP:
Pallaith:
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!
If the Office had not approved or rejected the said citizen, then I believe the procedure is for the VD is supposed to continue with VD checks. I don't believe this then makes any sense, trying to push the blame to me for something post facto
And also another argument from former Deputy @bootsie, raised on Discord, was how I had personally sanctioned that we should not do another explicit rejection. This is not true, and I believe that the reverse is true - that I never properly pointed the need for an explicit rejection whatsoever, which led to this entire fiasco on its own.

The second is on the training of my Deputies. Something I have been trying real hard to complete. I don't want to defend myself in saying "oh look, I took over a really inexperienced Office", given that it has been my 8th month in service, but many of the issues brought up largely refers to my first 2-3 months in Office. And I don't know why these issues has been brought up over and over again. I would also like to clarify if the training issue falls back to the Speaker himself, given how some of my later Deputies are former Speakers themselves, and they have never raised issues with these things privately to me.

Apart from that, I will add a separate post to respond to the individual posts made for or against me. But before that, something about the telegram issue.

@Dinoium I am surprised you mentioned one that you got one 11 days ago and sent me a telegram. I don't remember receiving that one comment from you, especially over the last 2 weeks when I received many people's TGs in response to the citizenship TGs. I have absolutely no control over the sending of the APIs. I understand that it is dependant on scripts that were ran by r3n, and by my understanding issues can mainly be resolved by r3n or Elu.
 
@Dinoium I am surprised you mentioned one that you got one 11 days ago and sent me a telegram. I don't remember receiving that one comment from you, especially over the last 2 weeks when I received many people's TGs in response to the citizenship TGs. I have absolutely no control over the sending of the APIs. I understand that it is dependant on scripts that were ran by r3n, and by my understanding issues can mainly be resolved by r3n or Elu.
Just to confirm, are you saying you have been aware of the issue for some time? And if so, have you made any efforts to contact the admins with access to the script to try to resolve the issue?
 
Just to confirm, are you saying you have been aware of the issue for some time? And if so, have you made any efforts to contact the admins with access to the script to try to resolve the issue?
As in, it has happened in the past once but I was told it was a "backend issue" when the dates weren't updated on time. Dino's case of it happening 2 weeks ago, I have no idea it happened until they pointed it out
 
If the Office had not approved or rejected the said citizen, then I believe the procedure is for the VD is supposed to continue with VD checks. I don't believe this then makes any sense, trying to push the blame to me for something post facto
And also another argument from former Deputy @bootsie, raised on Discord, was how I had personally sanctioned that we should not do another explicit rejection. This is not true, and I believe that the reverse is true - that I never properly pointed the need for an explicit rejection whatsoever, which led to this entire fiasco on its own.

To clarify for the record, my husband needed me up early to escort him to a medical procedure when the issue was brought up by Zyvetskistaahn.

Against probably better judgement, my half-asleep self brought up the fact that some offices have operated on the policy of not doing the Speaker's check if the admin check failed (since there was previously no way to get around the check), which was a point to bring up, but quite unhelpful because the issue wasn't you and your staff not doing the check, but not formally rejecting the applications after the checks.

Firstly, I would like to thank Pallaith for spending their time to come up with a recall thread, and bringing their so-called arguments to the table on why I fully deserve a recall from my current position. There can never be a better opportunity to kill off the discussions surrounding my recall, and therefore, I rather get this out of the way than let this cloud any of the possible things that I will do from now till September. I therefore request, that we conclude a vote on this before the end of June. It is 3 things - either this RA finds my conduct unsatisfactory that warrants a recall, or this RA wants to submit a motion requesting me to follow certain set of actions, or this RA thinks that whatever has happened don't warrant a recall. Whichever the case, I just want to put a final full stop to this entire saga.

While I agree that I'd rather have the vote sooner rather than later since I've already made my mind up how I want to vote, I find it a bit forceful of the Speaker to want to go ahead and sweep this under the rug and go into a vote some members of the Assembly may not be ready for yet.
 
While I agree that I'd rather have the vote sooner rather than later since I've already made my mind up how I want to vote, I find it a bit forceful of the Speaker to want to go ahead and sweep this under the rug and go into a vote some members of the Assembly may not be ready for yet.
By the end of June seems a pretty generous timeline - it would be rather odd if discussions are still going on at that time.
 
By the end of June seems a pretty generous timeline - it would be rather odd if discussions are still going on at that time.
I agree, but I believe that timeline should be the Assembly's duty to decide, not the Speaker's, especially as the one being recalled.

It comes off as though he wants to force an early vote in an attempt to keep his position, which may be an unfair judgement, but with him posting about a timeline so early in his response, it is a valid concern.
 
To clarify for the record, my husband needed me up early to escort him to a medical procedure when the issue was brought up by Zyvetskistaahn.

Against probably better judgement, my half-asleep self brought up the fact that some offices have operated on the policy of not doing the Speaker's check if the admin check failed (since there was previously no way to get around the check), which was a point to bring up, but quite unhelpful because the issue wasn't you and your staff not doing the check, but not formally rejecting the applications after the checks.

While I agree that I'd rather have the vote sooner rather than later since I've already made my mind up how I want to vote, I find it a bit forceful of the Speaker to want to go ahead and sweep this under the rug and go into a vote some members of the Assembly may not be ready for yet.
On Point 1, I thank you for the clarification. I was asked this on DMs and I didn't really know how to defend myself privately, so I thought I brought this up.

On Point 2, and what you said below:
I agree, but I believe that timeline should be the Assembly's duty to decide, not the Speaker's, especially as the one being recalled.

It comes off as though he wants to force an early vote in an attempt to keep his position, which may be an unfair judgement, but with him posting about a timeline so early in his response, it is a valid concern.
I am putting this up as a suggestion for a slightly tighter schedule in discussion. I will declare that I am not going to play any role in opening, counting, or closing the votes for this particular motion, and leave the rights to my two Deputies. I am only requesting a timeline purely because I think the uncertainties will only serve to disrupt the events of the office, and if we were to drag it on and on forever then it just isn't in the region's interests. Anyways, if I really want to force a timeline I might as well resign and then run in the special. Nothing is stopping me from doing that, though I would imagine the response...can't be great
 
Last edited:
I’ve been reluctant to speak here, not because I personally feel incredibly strongly on the matter, but because I think others have made the points I want to make.

Though, I feel really strongly that I ought to give my opinion now. I was making the decision on how I plan to vote when this (inevitably) gets to a vote. I like Fregerson, I’d trust them to assist me in any number of tasks, and I have in the past. When he’s around, he’s proven that he’s capable of doing most of what I throw at him/ask him to do and for the most part, additional responsibility hasn’t been an issue. Until now.

I appreciate that the Speaker made a statement regarding his errors and agreed to find some way to fix them. That was much appreciated. While he perhaps didn’t need to specify, admitting to that real life issues outside of our meta impeded him from his duties was also nice to hear in a sense. (I should hope that level of malfeasance wasn’t accomplished by someone with lots of time on their hands.)

If the Speaker’s comments stopped there and their commitment to doing right by citizenship checks in the future were evident, then I would be inclined to vote against recalling him. My main concern in recalling Fregerson is who might succeed them. I’m not worried about a malicious actor—I worry instead who not only has the skills but the time and energy to pour into an office that is so critical to our region’s functioning. Speaking purely personally, I will vote my conscience when it comes to this, I am a firm believer that when one has to live with the decisions one makes, one ought to be comfortable with the choices. Before today, really, I was undecided as to how I would vote if and when this made it to the floor.

That being said though, I have made up my mind to vote for recall when a vote recalls. I can’t point to any one thing other than the comments made about the timeline earlier this morning (my time—EST). I concur with bootsie’s comments about the Speaker’s motivations but with a caveat—I think they as a whole are inappropriate to the situation. The Speaker can plead his case, but he won’t find me supporting elements other than contrition and a clearly laid out plan as to how he plans to move forward.

He would not, however, have my confidence.
 
Yikes. When a legitimate recall motion is brought forward, I would expect to see the following from the subject of the recall:
1. They take complete responsibility for their shortcomings and the shortcomings of the office they oversee.
2. They rectify their actions to the best of their ability.
3. They provide a clear path forward for their office.

I see some attempts to follow the above formula but these attempts have been overshadowed by the Speaker's ongoing commentary today. I have voted for Fregerson in all 3 of his elections for Speaker. I used to have confidence in his ability to execute the duties of the office but no longer do after reviewing everything above. At this point, there is nothing Fregerson can do or say to change this. If Fregerson truly cares about this office, he will do the right thing and resign immediately.
 
I am joining in support of recalling the Speaker.

I have held back from openly speaking on the recall to not compromise my position in the R4R that just concluded since it involved the Speaker and their office. With the opinion officially issued there is a bone I wish to pick.

Since becoming a citizen in February I would see small instances of criticism about the Speaker and the Speaker's Office. Most criticisms were about their speed which was tedious at times but you can pin lack of speed on a number of things. But I will admit, having it be a recurring issue is cause for concern.

The dealbreaker for me, along with the citizenships being a mess, was the R4R. The answers to the Speaker's questions were more than obvious if the Speaker would have taken the time to read and understand the laws that govern their Office. Requesting the recent R4R showed me that the Speaker either does not know the law surrounding citizenship, or they are not yet aware of what they legally can and cannot do. Serving 8 months in the Office is long enough to think that the Speaker, by this point, should have known better. This was a prime example of "shoot first, ask questions later" which is an attitude that can amount to legal trouble and more superfluous cases before the Court. That is not something the Speaker's Office deserves to be put through.
 
This is the motion. The Speaker’s office hasn’t done this formal motion language thing consistently over the years - the last recall of an official simply quoted the original post! However, I accept this is considered the standard now and people will have trouble if it’s not here, so I’ll go ahead and take a stab at it (though I do believe if anything this is the Speaker’s place to do this, obviously in this particular case being handled by a deputy).

The Regional Assembly recalls Fregerson from the office of Speaker of the Regional Assembly.
 
My opinion is that the Speaker is a pretty thankless administrative role so I wouldn't necessarily really want to recall someone for being late/making mistakes etc especially as this is entirely voluntary, unless this gets really egregious.

I mean, you may want to spend time IRL smelling the roses, going to the beach, helping at your local charity, working for whatever your religion (if you have one) or anything you want.
 
Last edited:
My opinion is that the Speaker is a pretty thankless administrative role so I wouldn't necessarily really want to recall someone for being late/making mistakes etc especially as this is entirely voluntary, unless this gets really egregious.

I mean, you may want to spend time IRL smelling the roses, going to the beach, helping at your local charity, working for whatever your religion (if you have one) or anything you want.
Sure, but at the same time, when you sign up to do jobs in this silly game, you are making a commitment. Speakers make mistakes, I can't think of any that haven't. This is about a pattern of errors and a demonstrated inability to own up to them or understand why they keep happening. Missed votes are a problem but in the grand scheme of things, they alone did not prompt this recall. With this Speaker I have complained about the missed timing on votes in every single term this Speaker has been in office. There were unfortunately much worse things than that. To the extent that the Speaker has been busy and unable to properly respond to these errors, manage votes on time, or even respond to the criticism that drove this recall, I can understand real life taking precedence. but if that becomes the primary excuse and explanation for poor job performance, we all have to decide where we draw the line on when it becomes too much and the person should just step aside. That is how this Speaker became the Speaker, after all - his predecessor got super busy, realized he wouldn't be around much or able to perform to expectations, and resigned.

I guess your threshold for recall is very high, and you are certainly within your rights to vote accordingly. This Speaker was elected three times, and is making fundamental errors based on misunderstanding Speaker 101 in our legal code. I don't think that's acceptable for someone who has been in office for 8 months. Any one of the things that has been cited is bad on its own, but taken together? Why would we ever recall anyone if you don't want to judge them too harshly for how they play a game? Why vote for someone else over them even if they screwed up and performed less than ideally? I don't agree that we should never have standards - this is a game yes but it's also a political game and this is kind of part of that too. I've tried to be as respectful and avoid it being dirty and personal, and I think I have succeeded. Recalls by their nature are confrontational and liable to make people feel bad, especially the target. I think we're very good about using this sparingly and trying to make a solid case for it rather than do them for any little grievance (though that would be perfectly legal). The culture of TNP is skeptical of recalls, and I think that's a good thing. I don't see this recall as being any different or changing that culture. I would be curious to know, for you specifically simone, when you think enough is enough. At what point would this Speaker earn a recall in your book? Do the mistakes have to add up to a higher number? Do they have to be more serious than what we mentioned? Do they have to do something else entirely that this Speaker has not yet done?

On a separate note, I was poised to motion this for a vote. However, I am willing to hear out why this may be, for some people, too drastic a step given what we've all seen so far. I will point out that in addition to making repeated posts in the Speaker's office and on Discord about the series of errors the Speaker has made, I also reached out to the Speaker directly indicating that I was considering taking this action, and was willing to hear what the Speaker felt would be an appropriate response to recent events. Like many of you, I was disappointed by the response, which was much along the same lines as the posts he has made in this recall thread. I honestly feel I have exhausted every other avenue possible short of just continuing to grumble about what's going wrong and give yet another chance and hope this time something changes. I do not think it will, and I would rather not wait until September to hope it changes in the voting. But for those of you who are more forgiving than I (even though I think I have been quite forgiving), what am I missing? What do you think could still happen that would make this unnecessary?
 
Like Simone, I have a much higher bar for recall. Especially in situations where a censure could be an effective tool. There have not been many who have been recalled from an office and have remained a part of the community. That's why I am generally reluctant to kick volunteers out of office.

Over the past few years, we have been so fortunate to have had wonderful speakers. I think it has raised our expectations for job performance. This is only natural. But at some point, it seems like what were once mere expectations are now progressing to demands. I have seen Freg being needled over trivial matters which have little impact on the overall functioning of the RA. Frankly, I would have found the criticisms discouraging, rather than encouraging. I can't help but the think that a recall says more about us than it does about Freg.
 
Yikes. When a legitimate recall motion is brought forward, I would expect to see the following from the subject of the recall:
1. They take complete responsibility for their shortcomings and the shortcomings of the office they oversee.
2. They rectify their actions to the best of their ability.
3. They provide a clear path forward for their office.

I see some attempts to follow the above formula but these attempts have been overshadowed by the Speaker's ongoing commentary today. I have voted for Fregerson in all 3 of his elections for Speaker. I used to have confidence in his ability to execute the duties of the office but no longer do after reviewing everything above. At this point, there is nothing Fregerson can do or say to change this. If Fregerson truly cares about this office, he will do the right thing and resign immediately.
My thoughts exactly. He seems like a dude with a good heart but after all these errors in office and mounting discontent amongst the assembly he is supposed to be leading he's responded to the culmination of said discontent in what seems to me to be a rather haphazard and hamfisted manner which just turns me off even more.

Let's get rid of him.
 
I'm still undecided on this issue, but I feel the comments on this thread so far has been a little one-sided, so I want to provide an alternate perspective on this whole thing.

Like Simone and GBM, the first thing I want to say is that I sometimes feel the magnitude of the Speaker's errors have been exaggerated. There are two things that are unique about the Speaker as an office. The first thing is that the Speaker's job is saddled with technicalities, especially in the citizenship process, something that has been clearly demonstrated by the recent citizenship debacle. This is a debacle that would never happen in any other region, because the technicalities in the law that allowed it to happen don't exist in any other region. From my experience as Speaker, I can say that these technicalities are something you can think about a lot yet still get wrong in the end. Because of these technicalities, the second thing is that a lot of mistakes take a long time to be discovered, usually because of one keen-eyed person, whether it's the Speaker or someone else. Again, the recent citizenship debacle is probably the best example of that. I don't how Zyvet discovered it, but if Zyvet hadn't been here, I doubt it would have been noticed at all.

We've had discussions in this region before about just how seriously we should take things in what is ultimately just a game. I believe it is a balancing act based on how much an event or an action affects the enjoyment of the game for other people. The truth is none of the mistakes that have been made ultimately had much practical impact - closing votes a few hours late doesn't really change anything, most of those affected by the citizenship debacle understood that they were rejected, and the various tech issues that cropped up earlier in his tenure, I doubt anyone would have noticed if the Speaker didn't bring it up himself.

That said, it is true that we have seen more mistakes from this Speaker than other recent officeholders. But it is also true that we are hardly at the point where the only way to go is up for the Speaker's office. There are still lots of ways for the office to go downhill, and if we want to make sure that doesn't happen, something we will have to consider is who would succeed the Speaker if he is to be recalled. I will say that there are very few citizens in this region that I can trust to improve the situation, and I am skeptical that any of them would run in a potential special election.

I did say I am still undecided on the issue, so clearly there is something pulling me towards voting for the recall. It's lackluster response we've received so far from the Speaker on both the citizenship debacle and this recall request that concerns me. I generally share the sentiment many have already expressed here that the responses have been disappointing, and very much agree that what the Speaker should do is to take full responsibility and commit to a plan to fix these mistakes. And as for the citizenship issue, although I believe it wasn't as big a mistake as some have made it out to be, it is still a mistake and I believe it deserved a better response. The response we good reflected a good deal of indecisiveness and confusion. I wouldn't have minded either the Speaker simply adding the affected citizens to the roll immediately, or taking this issue to the Court, or even proposing a change to the law, but what happened was deeply unsatisfactory, although I am sympathetic to the RL circumstances that have compounded this response.

Perhaps I'm being too generous, but given everything I've said, I am willing to give the Speaker another chance to craft a proper response and vote against the recall if I find the response satisfactory.
 
I would like to repost my remarks in full from Discord earlier today, slightly modified for the forum, as I feel they are relevant to this debate and I want to make sure more people can hear them.

I’m a volunteer too. So was everyone who was ever in this office, or a target of a recall. We need to be careful how much we minimize expectations for this stuff, because like, I don’t get paid to do this job. I have a “real” life. I have real people and things to care about. So if I mess up or I let people down, ultimately none of it actually matters so why should I care? That’s obviously not how I approach it, and it’s not how anyone here should approach it. You can basically shrug off this entire game if you start thinking that way.

I know GBM is sweet and forgiving and willing to roll with everything. I love her for that. But with all due respect, that’s far more generous than is deserved in this situation. You think it was uncalled for that I nitpicked about timing in votes? It’s admittedly a minor thing and doesn’t break the RA, but it’s a problem that happened more than once, multiple times in a row, and was pointed out. I asked for a plan to address it. I asked for acknowledgment that it was an issue and the Speaker intended to rectify it. He didn’t answer me and didn’t rectify it. In fact, his whole attitude is basically “what’s the big deal?” and “it wasn’t really my fault, or isn’t really as big a problem as you think it is.” That’s basically how he responded to me bringing up these problems. Okay sure, it’s my opinion. In my opinion the Speaker should respond to criticism and try to improve when he makes mistakes. I wouldn’t care as much if he actually tried or acknowledged that he thought this was an issue. Instead I get shrugs and the same mistakes happening again. But even then I wouldn’t recall him for missing votes. That’s not why I started this.

We have much bigger problems then timing on votes. The timing thing is just part of the bad pattern. I’m trying to show the larger picture here so let’s not harp on that and act like all the problems are equivalent to that. They aren’t. I get that some people seemingly never feel it’s appropriate to do a recall. I respectfully disagree. We have this tool and it can be used for whatever we want. The fact is, we use it sparingly and we try to use it for only really important reasons. We make a case for it. We don’t use it willy nilly. And some of this discourse kind of gives me the idea that some of you think that’s what’s happening. Please tell me then why this last chance must be given and why the other attempts to reach out on this weren’t good enough to be the “last” chance? Does Fregerson need to win another election to have enough experience to warrant this response with this level of fumbling?

Other Speakers have read the writing on the wall, they knew when they couldn't bring the energy or the time they needed to manage the region's expectations. And this office, like everything else in TNP, has grown larger and expectations have changed. This is a good thing, and if we can keep up with them, we should. The region has a higher standard, things that would fly in the past and be unremarkable aren't anymore. Fregerson's issues go beyond that though, he is not only failing to adapt to higher expectations, he is not learning from his mistakes (or even acknowledging them) and he has not developed the knowledge needed to do his job effectively. It is fine to be over your head, and recognize when you have to step back. He wouldn't be the first Speaker to do that. But he can't even do that! If nothing else, given the dissatisfaction even people on the fence have with your response, @Fregerson , you ought to respond appropriately to this situation. You can't just shrug this off and roll the dice on a recall. You really ought to resign, but if you won't do that, at least give them the answers they deserve.
 
Last edited:
I will address some of the pointers that have been raised above.

1) With regards to the shortcomings of the office, it mainly surrounds two issues - the number of willing and competent deputies that this office has; and the activity levels with regards to being prompt on votes and checks. The latter is mainly worsened by my RL matters - the recent events as I have previously raised are emergencies that I seriously never expected. And apart from that, and the problems at the start of my term back last year, I note that typically I have been responsive in replying on Discord within 12 hours, and taking forumside actions within 24 hours. And I have mentioned this during my campaign when answering Zyvet's question about activity levels - I have been trying my very best to do various procedures on the go. Apart from writing long messages like this one - I don't think replying long messages on a website would be a good idea, due to difficulties in trying to proof read them and also trying to copy paste a huge chunk from my phone notepad to the forums. That being said, while things are definitely not as usual with regards to the work of the Office, what I was trying to do was to keep business as usual as possible. Surely the Office cannot stop just to settle one audit issue - everyone would agree with me on this. And therefore, it results in the awkward situation where I reply to a whole lot of other things, but not this forum thread.
On Deputies - we had quite a number towards the end of the last term, but then Cretox became Minister of Defence, and LD went on to become a Court Justice. Deropia at first indicated their interest to come back, but they became MoWAA too. If there was a thing I learnt from the last few months - it was that I rather work with a smaller group who are more prompt in their actions, rather than have a huge list of slackers. And given the uncertainties, I didn't actively look for more Deputies currently, and Caius and Vivanco has been doing a good job in day-to-day procedures. That, in my opinion, would be enough for me to hold the fort until the uncertainty clears up - which is why I asked if it was possible to set a timeline to this entire incident. There seems to have been some form of backlash to this, however, so while I wouldn't force it (and certainly can't force it), I would appreciate if this gets out of the way as early as possible. Once out of the way, I would go back to accepting applications and actively looking for Deputies.

2) I definitely thought about resigning - as early as when Zyvet posted their post, and even when a whole bunch of people indicated their interest in my recall. What made me hold my ground was the subsequent discussions I had with some of my Deputies, as well as looking through some of the comments raised thus far. I would be clear in my belief - that resigning right now, at this stage, would be a sign of running away from the problem. If I was going to retire from TNP and NationStates, resignation would certainly be the easiest route to take, and it would be easier than to face the firing squad right now. It isn't that I don't have the energy to commit anymore to TNP and need a break - if that was the case, I wouldn't continue to take up the Deputy Minister in the MoWAA and continued my roles in the Executive Staffers. As I wrote this post, I know @Pallaith wrote a post saying that I can't even resign. While my posts have been messy, I disagree with the take that I didn't take responsibility and learn from my mistakes. My recent election campaign was a statement of how I intend to improve from the past, I made an attempt on how I intended to resolve the entire citizenship issue.
In rectifying the issue at hand? Despite the time being less than satisfactory, I definitely made a full post in the end on how the citizenship issue will be resolved. If there is one thing - probably my "what is next going forward" is messy and all over the shop. So I will make a bucket list of actions that I would put below.

3) The bucket list that everyone is interested in - so what is the steps that I will take going forward? I will repeat them once again below, just for clarity's sake.

a) The training for new Deputies would be more extensive and standards set higher. In my campaign thread just a month ago, I proposed having an induction system - a system where we would make the incoming Deputies (I used the term "Speaker's Staff" back then, but effectively regardless of the term, they will be Deputies on probation) go through some of the basic systems such as citizenship checks and opening votes. The problem lies in the implementation, which has been a challenge since I became Speaker - timezones. When I am free after school/work on weekdays, it is the middle of workday for Europeans, and some Americans are either about to start work, or haven't even wake up. On weekends, people have other things to settle, which also explains why me training them is an issue I faced. Which is why I started the Citizenship Guide thingy - which allows every new Deputy to read and understand as and when they are free. The R4R on the Land of Broken Dreams just confirms my expectations - that there was no way for a Speaker to retract the errors made by their Deputies. And therefore, me or the experienced Deputies cannot be "hands-off" in this entire process whatsoever. As such, I intend to iron this out with my Deputies, and decide for our term, how would this training system work.
The guide, however, continues to be a key part in logging down the processes of the Office. I have continued work on them, and the target of the term is to have a complete set of guides with the common mistakes added in. I noted when I first responded to Zyvet that the explicit rejection requirements wasn't really mentioned as part of training of previous Deputies - I intend to make it very clear in the current draft of the Cit Applications guide, as seen below:
1654927982986.png

b) On ensuring accountability, I will prune my Office more actively. This means that if Deputies aren't active enough with checks and votes, they will be pruned accordingly. This was my consideration in sticking with just 2 deputies - I did check in with @Treekidistan at the start and they told me of their real-life commitments. My response was that they settle the commitments with their education before we discuss whether they should come back to be part of the Office. Apart from that, I would also be coming up with a list of every member's commitments in general across the week. A roster was something I flatly rejected when I first became Speaker, so instead, I will use this "commitment chart" to show which members should be active on the forums on the day. If something that is supposed to be completed that day didn't get completed as timely as it should be, everyone is welcome to DM those members to ask, or for transparency reasons, ask on Discord or the Speaker's Office Thread. The people supposed to be active on those days will review why they weren't able to react on timely - and such incidents will be recorded at an end-of-month review.
c) End-of-month updates will also be implemented. I decided that this will a promise that I will make to make sure I continue to remain accountable on the actions of the Office. This update will include the following:
i) A report on the number of citizenship applications made that month.
ii) A review of all the "untimely" events as raised by Point b.
iii) A review of the activity of the Speakers, Deputies, and members-on-probation.
iv) A monthly audit on the citizenship rolls, as well as the applications made that month. We will check if certain applications were handled incorrectly, and whether the rolls forumside and on the excel matches.

Basically, these are the actions I promise going forward. If the citizenry thinks that these corrective actions aren't enough and continue to call for my recall/resignation, than I would reconsider my decision to not resign. Otherwise, like what I have said previously in this post, I believe strongly that resigning is just escaping responsibility, and until my real-life commitments calls for a review of my roles in TNP, I don't think I will have much activity issues.
 
Addendum to above - with a point d on the things going forward:
d) To address the issue with gameside telegrams, seeking the opinions of the main administrations in charge, I will be creating a group with my Deputies and the main administrators. Discord or Forumside, I haven't decided. Whenever telegrams come into my gameside inbox questioning on activity issues, everyone in this dm group will be informed and then we will see what is the problem. This will also be a group used whenever we run into technical difficulties. Currently it is just me messaging Siwale or Elu, which I found rather inefficient since sometimes the messages will need to be passed on to other admins and the communication is rather indirect. With such a group, the entire Speaker's Office will be kept in the loop and can answer everyone about the problems when asked.
 
I thank the Speaker for finally responding at greater length to this, and I appreciate the detail and thought you have put into not only your plans going forward, but your take on what's led up to this point. I disagree on a few areas in particular. The characterization of responding to the "audit issue" meaning business would stop is flawed. Your deputies continued to do the basic duties during your absence, which is how it's supposed to work. That basic stuff has to keep happening even when tackling larger issues. The belief that you had to pick one over the other is part of why some of us are concerned with your performance.

I think you can continue picking deputies while this all unfolds. In fact, I think you can, and should, continue to take whatever actions you need in office while this is resolved. As far as I'm concerned, it can only further clear this up for everyone, because it either further illuminates issues with performance or prevents you from further compounding problems with completing the necessary work by waiting around while we decide how to move forward. The post you just made should have been made weeks ago, and even if you couldn't post it at that length, you should have begun implementing it then and get the basic outline of what was to come, or indicated it would come soon and keep us in the loop. It just took too long to get to this point.

If you believed the outcome of the R4R would be what it was, why did you ask for it? To get that question required you to violate the law and when you violated it, you claim you expected that act to be a violation of the law. I don't understand why any of that was necessary, if you actually know how this job works and what you can and cannot do. This pat of your response is framed like a big revelation that will guide your thinking moving forward, when it should have been the default understanding of how the office works and guided your work from the beginning. This, again, underlines the concerns I and many others have about your suitability in the office.

And to clarify something, I did not say that you can't resign - I said that you couldn't own up to the fact you were in over your head and falling behind expectations. I actually appreciate that you want to get this right and feel resigning would be quitting. That is precisely what I would expect from anyone stepping up to serve in TNP government. And you have always been clear since you first sought this job that you wanted to help, and would take on the challenge and figure it out. I believed you then and I still do. Serving the community is something to be admired, and you have certainly tried to adapt to a challenging role and even now are pushing forward despite what you feel are long odds. That commitment, as long as it doesn't turn into stubbornness, is to be commended.

That doesn't mean people shouldn't still resign if things get too out of hand though - it isn't quitting to recognize your own limits or when fighting on does more harm than good. You are admittedly busy and lately have had a lot of things on your plate, especially these recent emergencies. Training deputies has been difficult too. The more often these things happen, and the more extensive the setbacks, the more you should look at whether it isn't better for you in particular, but for everyone in general, if you step aside. I did have to make some assumptions based on what I could observe and some of what you already said, and I accept if your situation can accommodate more time on NS stuff than it may have seemed at the outset. But you should also be able to honestly look at what you can do in this game and whether it is realistic that staying on is still realistic in terms of your knowledge and skill at doing the work of the Speaker's office. In other words, maybe you can be around often and long enough to do the actual job, but if you can't do it well or don't properly know how to do it, you ought to rethink it. Sometimes it seems to me you just don't have the skillset for it, but the most important person to evaluate whether that is true is yourself.

A central issue for me is that too often you offer explanations that are indistinguishable from excuses. The difference between those two things is that in one case, you agree with the problem that was presented to you and offer insight into why it occurred; while in the other, you deny the problem presented was really a problem and blame the perception of the problem on things that are not really your fault. I keep getting the sense that you know you're in hot water and in trouble, but you don't really know why and don't think it's particularly fair. I understand that you feel you did take responsibility and try to fix the mistakes, and you highlight your last campaign. That campaign came 4 months after the first re-election campaign, and we were struggling with some of the same concerns. That to me suggests that you didn't really learn from the mistakes, and the actions taken to mitigate them did not work, or didn't materialize. I'm sorry, but I can't give you the benefit of the doubt anymore.

Frankly, I am not confident anything substantial will change going forward. For several others who were already inclined to give you one last "final" chance, your most recent response will likely be sufficient for them to commit to opposing a recall. But I think you should really look at all of those things you pledged to do, not just in this thread but in the campaign, look at everything that's happened up to this point, and really take a hard look at your role in all of it. Will you actually be able to advance and accomplish these things, and not continue to stumble the same way? Do you finally understand the fundamental aspects of the complicated and crucial job you have in the region? Is this something, after 8 months, you have a handle on, or are you still trying to keep up and get control of it? I cannot be sure if you're actually being honest with yourself about this, let alone the rest of us. Those questions, which I believe are all answered "no," determine when it is time to resign.
 
I find myself in agreement with the delegate.
It is nice and all that the Speaker finally got around to partially owning up to his shortcomings and coming up with resolutions for it.
But if we look at the chain of events that got here…
Speaker is approached to own up or get called out in recall.
Speaker refuses.
Recall is proposed where Speaker is called out.
Speaker becomes exceedingly hostile and gives off big “I’m an untrained deputy who doesn’t take responsibility for their actions because I don’t know what I’m doing” vibes, despite being in this position for yanno, 8 months or something like that.
Speaker gets called out again, by more people, that the Speaker’s behavior is unacceptable.
Speaker finally gets around to it, doesn’t explain why it took this long for actual self reflection and accountability, gives a big and long winded speech with solutions that should have been given awhile ago, however even his speech is lacking actual depth and accountability.
The Speaker has basically deflected most blame and rather than owning up and then proposing solutions, ignores the first part entirely and proposes solutions.
Are these things that we will actually see happen, or will we see the Speaker revert to their same behavior and actions they’ve had for 8 months and hope someone else runs next time so we aren’t stuck with this Speaker in the next election?
I don’t really know to be honest.

I’ve been in NS awhile and after seeing how the Speaker has been handling this recall, I’m really disappointed and frustrated. How someone can hold a position for 8 months and not know the absolute basics of admitting fault without deflecting and without getting called out several times is baffling to me.

I don’t think there’s anything that the Speaker can say which will convince me otherwise, I’d rather someone else be in the position who hasn’t been squandering it for 8 months and who will actually own up when they screw up the first time, without deflections and multiple callouts for that to happen.

I encourage others to take a second look at the Speaker’s speech. Is this something someone who is getting recalled should be posting? Is this a genuine show of remorse for their actions both in mistakes made and behavior during this period in time? The Speaker already turned on the dramatics by trying to make it so they can be marked absent during their assumed to be inevitable election for their replacement.
Do we really want the Leader of the Assembly who is suppose to be the example citizens look to… to be this individual? I would surely hope not.
 
Most of it has been said above by my fellow TNPers, so I'll keep this short. I'm a person who is willing to accept people screwing up if they take responsibility and handle the situation well. However, if I'm being honest I'm not exactly impressed by Fregerson's behavior (I have nothing personal against him), and I definitely feel that if someone else was in his situation, they would have done a better job. I won't go into detail because like I said, people like Madeline Valois and Palliath have already made excellent points.

However, if I like the response from here on out, I'll be willing to give Freg a second chance. But for that, something needs to change.
 
This is a difficult situation, and recalling Freg is not something I want to do- nor should any of us be particularly happy about it. That said, I think it is time. The responses from the Speaker have not been appropriate.

I know it is humiliating to realize you can't do well at a post. I resigned as MoHA after having squandered the position for nearly a month. Kasto has made great progress in a fraction of the time since he took over the position, and I'm grateful he did. I had to recognize that I was doing more harm than good in the position. It was a bitter pill to swallow- but I'm happy HA is doing better now.

I don't think that resigning is running away or quitting. If anything, forcing the RA to go through the painful process of recalling you is running away from the responsibly you have to make the tough decisions.
 
My opinion is that the Speaker is a pretty thankless administrative role so I wouldn't necessarily really want to recall someone for being late/making mistakes etc especially as this is entirely voluntary, unless this gets really egregious.

I mean, you may want to spend time IRL smelling the roses, going to the beach, helping at your local charity, working for whatever your religion (if you have one) or anything you want.
I wrote a very long post in Discord which I will not repost here. I basically want the vote to be a very carefully and well debated decision, and considered carefully by the entire community as it is not a decision to be taken lightly, in my view.
 
Back
Top