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

[Fregerson]

I have read the comments given above, especially the ones by @Pallaith and @Madeline Valois. To me, I believe that since the water is under the bridge, all I can offer, apart from my personal reflections, is a plan on how I can round out the term properly and nicely. If that is not going to make you reconsider, than I am not exactly sure what will.

My comments on discord about not intending to supervise a possible Special was done in context of me resigning to trigger the election. At that point, as I have previously memtioned, I did consider resigning, but now that I have very clear plans on how to finish off the term, presented as above, I fully do not intend to resign regardless of any given comments. My sole task going forward is to make sure things are done properly and in order going forward, and I will stick by it. My Deputies do not have interest in taking over at this point, however, given that at least one of them have interest to run for the next Speaker elections in September, I have decided that that is an appropriate point for me to step down and pass the baton.

If this Assembly has the patience to see what I can do going forward, then they can have a look at what the Office has been working on over the past week and going forward. We have started the DM group chat on forums in a bid to make sure the technical problems reach the admins as soon as possible. We will be keeping the citizenry updated on such technical problems, and conduct periodic audit on citizenship lists. The recent problems of the masking bot on Discord have convinced us that maintaing a list of Discord handles is important, and that going forward we will publish a plan on how this will be done to preserve the integrity of the access to Citizens chats on Discord.

 

[Pallaith]

With the Speaker resolved on his present course, and our arguments effectively set, I feel there isn’t much more use in continuing to discuss this. I motion for a vote.

 

[Tim Kasto]

I second the motion for vote

 

[bootsie]

Though it not be necessary, I hereby third the motion to vote.

 

[Caius]

With the Speaker resolved on his present course, and our arguments effectively set, I feel there isn’t much more use in continuing to discuss this. I motion for a vote.

I second the motion for vote

Though it not be necessary, I hereby third the motion to vote.

The motion to vote, second and third have been noted. Voting will start in a few hours and will last for 7 days.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

I am somewhat late to expressing a view on this but I have voted in favour of a recall and thought I would explain why.

Recall is a significant step and rightly has a high bar. Officials will make mistakes, even serious ones, and it would be unworkable for there to be a recall for every one. However, this is not a recall being sought for one issue, but for many which have persisted for a lengthy period.

There have been delays in starting or ending votes. There have been errors in accepting and rejecting citizenship applications. There was the error in relation to Madeline Valois’ appeal. The votes on the Citizenship Reform Act were misrecorded in the rolls. The recent purported removal of citizenship and associated request for review. Delay in resolving and responding to queries about these issues.

Some of these issues arose because of mistakes by deputies but responsibility must ultimately rest with the Speaker. Many of them are to do with technicalities but dealing with technicalities and procedure is the essence of the Speaker‘s role and some of the points which appear to have caused the Speaker difficulty are points which have been long resolved by the Court.

I considered proposing a recall myself when I noticed the widespread errors in the citizenship process. I did not because I thought the Speaker should have the benefit of the doubt and would be able to promptly resolve it themselves. That there was not a prompt resolution, despite the Speaker's indications shortly after the problem being raised, despite the principals involved being clear and despite there being deputies who the Speaker could have had step in, is deeply concerning. I am also concerned at some of the response to this proposal by the Speaker, which seems to me to treat the issues raised as not being genuine ones and this simply as a hurdle to get over rather than a sincere expression of doubts over the Speaker's performance.

I very much appreciate that real life concerns must come ahead of in-game ones. But, it seems to me, that where that means an official cannot adequately discharge their duties, they should make way for someone else to do so. The Speaker has not been able to meet their duties, either themselves or through their deputies, and, for me, the time has come to remove them.

 

[Simone]

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.

And, for the record, as I noted in Discord, if @Fregerson had voted Nay, and I had voted Nay, the motion would not have carried.