Cabinet Review

Transfered from S2 on Novmber 28th, 2005

Byardkuria Posted: Nov 1 2005, 02:55 PM  


Put on my gasoline boots . . .


Group: Court Justices
Posts: 566
Member No.: 1,319
Joined: 5-March 05



Esteemed members of the Cabinet -

I am formally requesting review of the decision of GoalVA and Tresville to rescind the Registered Voter Application of Fedele, on the following grounds -

1. The initial basis of GoalVA's withdrawal was that the application had been accepted without prior permission of Tresville, Prime Minister of the North Pacific, or Baribeau, Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs of the North Pacific. Acceptance was made by GoalVa during a period in which Baribeau was absent from the forum. However, on his return, Baribeau posted the following -


QUOTE (Baribeau @ 1805 CST, 10-30-05)
The following nations have been added to the RV rolls (much to my dismay):

Twster
Fedele
Romanoffia
Sirixis
Blueport
Delacroivia

Note: Delacroivia's submitted UN nation is not in the UN



in the registered voter thread located here.

It is my belief that this constitutes endorsement of the accepted application by the elected Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs, and, as such, the initial cause for withdrawal is without merit. We do recognize that Baribeau resigned his position on the same day in which he posted the above; however, the time stamp of that resignation (located here.) is fully forty-five minutes after the above acceptance, and, therefore, at the time acceptance was posted, Baribeau was still fully empowered to process Registered Voter applications under Article II, Section 2 and Article III, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the North Pacific.


2. I believe that the summary withdrawal of Registered Voter Status from Fedele is unconstitutional, violating Article I, Paragraph 10, to wit:


QUOTE 
10. Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.



Research has not indicated any prior case in which a Registered Voter has been accepted by both the Deputy Minister and Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs, and had that acceptance withdrawn solely by their fiat, resulting in loss of Registered Voter status. Additionally, research has failed to indicate a case by which any registered voter has lost such status for reasons other than a.) voluntary withdrawal or b.) inactivity. While it is recognized that there is considerable controversy regarding activites of the player controlling Fedele outside the North Pacific, it is my belief that a proper course of action would have been to place the application in a pending status awaiting resolution of all facets of the argument. It is my belief that, by acceptance of the application by no fewer than two persons legally empowered to do so, Fedele is now entitled to protection of that status under the aforementioned Constitutional passage, and, in lieu of a trial or formal inquest, withdrawal of RV status is in violation of Fedele's civil rights as a North Pacific member nation and Registered Voter.

In this manner I petition the Cabinet of the North Pacific,

- Byardkuria

Edit - typographical

This post has been edited by Byardkuria on Nov 4 2005, 03:05 PM


--------------------

K.
Order of Queen Tabitha I, Defender of the Realm, Preserver of the Nation, Lord High Chancellor of Byardkuria

   
Byardkuria Posted: Nov 4 2005, 03:06 PM  


Put on my gasoline boots . . .


Group: Court Justices
Posts: 566
Member No.: 1,319
Joined: 5-March 05



I think I may have been submerged under the RV app posts.

So, any word?


--------------------

K.
Order of Queen Tabitha I, Defender of the Realm, Preserver of the Nation, Lord High Chancellor of Byardkuria
   
Darth_Mathius Posted: Nov 4 2005, 11:23 PM  


Attorney General


Group: Ministry of Justice
Posts: 390
Member No.: 1,417
Joined: 4-June 05



Byardkuria-

It is my understanding that before this is actioned there needs to be a second.

~DM 
    
Byardkuria Posted: Nov 5 2005, 12:04 AM  


Put on my gasoline boots . . .


Group: Court Justices
Posts: 566
Member No.: 1,319
Joined: 5-March 05



Correct - I was hoping to see one before now, though.


--------------------

K.
Order of Queen Tabitha I, Defender of the Realm, Preserver of the Nation, Lord High Chancellor of Byardkuria
   
WishyWashyWonder Posted: Nov 5 2005, 03:27 AM  


^ Means: Good Fortune


Group: Ministry of Communications
Posts: 405
Member No.: 1,637
Joined: 18-October 05

Warn: (20%)

I WishyWashyWonder Second this action.






[Edit for more formal wording]

This post has been edited by WishyWashyWonder on Nov 5 2005, 03:30 AM


--------------------

"It is always wise to look ahead, but difficult to look further than you can see." -- Winston Churchill



The Rogue Nation of WishyWashyWonder
   
Darth_Mathius Posted: Nov 5 2005, 09:18 AM  


Attorney General


Group: Ministry of Justice
Posts: 390
Member No.: 1,417
Joined: 4-June 05



Thank you WishyWashyWonder.

This Matter will be brought to the attention of the Cabinet at the conveining of their next meeting.

~DM

[EDITED: Split from Review topic as this is for the Cabinet to review]

This post has been edited by Darth_Mathius on Nov 5 2005, 10:46 PM 
   
Darth_Mathius Posted: Nov 14 2005, 09:00 AM  


Attorney General


Group: Ministry of Justice
Posts: 390
Member No.: 1,417
Joined: 4-June 05



The Cabinet met and discussed this issue in depth, it has therefore been decided that the previous decision made to rescind the registered voter status of Fedele was unsafe.

The original decision was carried out by the then Deputy Minister of MoIIA GoalVA in the long-term absence of the Minister, therefore was within his bounds to accept or reject application.

The Cabinet voted unanimously to overturn this decision and would advise the MoIIA and Moderators to restore fedele’s registered voter mask.

Darth Mathius
Attorney General
On Behalf of the Cabinet of the North Pacific
    
Grosseschnauzer Posted: Nov 20 2005, 03:29 PM  


Chief Justice, Court of TNP


Group: Court Justices
Posts: 1,061
Member No.: 1,216
Joined: 26-December 04



It is necessary for me to point out that, because the Cabinet voted to overturn the Ministerial action, the matter should have been submitted to a referendum of the registered voters to approve or reject that action under the Cabinet Review provisions of the Constitution.

Since the new Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs effectively mooted the review request by granting the applications after the elections, it would have been more appropriate for the request for review to be held as moot. That would have avoided the necessity for a referendum.

As it stands, however, the manner by which the Cabinet has addressed the action requires a referendum, unless it rescinds its action and simply votes to declares the request for review to be moot.


--------------------

Grosseschnauzer
In TNP as The Democratic Federation of Neu Grosseschnauzer
Chief Justice, Court of the North Pacific
Member, The TNP Security Council
former Minister of Justice, TNP

In the NS as
The Democratic Federation of Grosseschnauzer
UN Delegate International Democratic Union
Order Of Gryphons
Member, UN Old Guard
Sponsor of record, UN Resolution 90 (Tsunami Warning System)
   
Poltsamaa Posted: Nov 20 2005, 11:03 PM  


We're doomed....doomed!!


Group: Prime Minister
Posts: 784
Member No.: 1,378
Joined: 7-May 05



Actually, as GoalVA (Deputy Minister of IIA) approved Fedele's application to become a registerd voter and the removal of this status shortly afterwards was not done following the constitutional procedure you mention, Grosseschnauzer!! The removal of Fedele's RV status was illegal and the vote by the Cabinet to reinstate it overrode that illegal process!!

The same applies to the reisntatement of Fulhead Land's RV status which was also done outside the procedures you cite!!

Just tidying up the illegal and unconstitutional decisions of the previous government!!

I will also be looking at amending that clause through the Regional Assembly as tying in RV reviews with other legislative changes is unacceptable!! There is no need for a referendum over an RV application unless the cabinet review vote is tied!!

The precedent of having RV applications reviewed by the RVs in which no evidence is taken into account is not democracy, its mob rule and government sanctioned witch hunt!! Things this region should steer clear from!!

This post has been edited by Poltsamaa on Nov 20 2005, 11:13 PM


--------------------

Polts for Admin....tough but fair!!
If you don't think I'm being fair, then tough!!

1000 Jacobeans!!
   
GoalVA Posted: Nov 20 2005, 11:06 PM  


Minister of External Affairs


Group: Ministry of External Affairs
Posts: 3,028
Member No.: 1,247
Joined: 12-January 05



I absolutely agree.

We also must remember that referendum is a timely and oft heavy-handed approach when applied to dealing with individual citizens.

As executors we are here to ensure that we follow the constitution and serve the interests of the region, one of those things would be to prevent a lynch mob.



This post has been edited by GoalVA on Nov 20 2005, 11:09 PM


--------------------

See the world, meet new people: Join the Diplomatic Corps today!

"Something given has no value. When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force my friends is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived."


QUOTE (deikura)

No, i'm not, bloody buggery by Bath's bollocks...


  
 
Off-topic: Is there any particular reason the cabinet discussion area is transparent to the populace, and non-cabinet members can post here?

I believe that any such a motion would have to be pressed by Fedele. There is little point in digging graves, especially since Fedele has recieved RV status with provisions that ensure security.
 
Off-topic: Is there any particular reason the cabinet discussion area is transparent to the populace, and non-cabinet members can post here?
This forum is open to the public. However, the actual "Cabinet Meeting Room" is not - only Ministers and Admins have access there.
 
The cabinet deals with issues as they arise rather than having official meetings on IRC as they were cumbersome and poorly attended!! The system now in place works well and as such there are no meeting transcripts!!

Under the previous cabinet there was only one transcript, briefly published if I recall correctly!!
 
I'm not interested in what the previous Cabinet did. I was asking about the current one.

How reassuring that the region has had no issues important enough for the Cabinet to discuss in two months.

Do any members of the Cabinet think a more proactive rather than reactive model for Cabinet discussions is desireable or even feasible given the current regional activity levels?
 
We have a Cabinet Meeting room on the forums. We address issues in there as they arise. IRC Cabinet Meetings have, in all my time here anyway, been just as Polts said, cumbersome and poorly attended. While they are a good idea in theory, the current setup is much more realistic and, in the end, realistic.
 
I'm not interested in what the previous Cabinet did. I was asking about the current one.

How reassuring that the region has had no issues important enough for the Cabinet to discuss in two months.

Do any members of the Cabinet think a more proactive rather than reactive model for Cabinet discussions is desireable or even feasible given the current regional activity levels?
You are also not interested in what I posted, it seems!! Thanks Heft, for reiterating what I said!!

The cabinet meets regularly via the Cabinet Meeting Room to discuss issues as they arise!! I cannot think of anything more proactive than that as it gives cabvinet ministers a forum to post their thoughts for the rest of the cabinet to read and discuss!!
 
I don't recall mentioning IRC. I simply asked if the Cabinet meets officially. I don't have access to these Cabinet forum, so I have no way of knowing what, if anything, the Cabinet is discussing.

Dealing with problems as they arise, regardless of where you do it, is reactive. It would be proactive to show some leadership and actually initiate a regional agenda rather than simply sit back and react to issues as they arise.

Just one man's opinion.
 
In the interests of transparency would it be possible to make some/all of these cabinet discussions publically viewable, perhaps to RV's?

During my Delegacy there was such a forum on s2 which was viewable by all. This would be the equivalent of publishing meeting transcripts.
 
I don't recall mentioning IRC. I simply asked if the Cabinet meets officially. I don't have access to these Cabinet forum, so I have no way of knowing what, if anything, the Cabinet is discussing.

Dealing with problems as they arise, regardless of where you do it, is reactive. It would be proactive to show some leadership and actually initiate a regional agenda rather than simply sit back and react to issues as they arise.

Just one man's opinion.
I also stated members of cabinet use the meeting room to float ideas for the region for discussion by the cabinet, which is proactive!!

Cathyy:
In the interests of transparency would it be possible to make some/all of these cabinet discussions publically viewable, perhaps to RV's?

During my Delegacy there was such a forum on s2 which was viewable by all. This would be the equivalent of publishing meeting transcripts.

I have no problem with the treads being made publicly viewable once the issue has been discussed by the cabinet provided that the contents do not pose a risk to the region's security and/or the security of other regions!!

The weekly report details the summaries of what the cabinet has done and discussed for that week!!
 
Perhaps, since the cabinet meeting rooms are not viewable to most people, it would be in order to publish a list of the topics under discussion, in lieu of cabinet meeting transcripts?

Edit: Cathyy and Polt's posts above crossed mine, and addressed the issue I raised.
 
Perhaps, since the cabinet meeting rooms are not viewable to most people, it would be in order to publish a list of the topics under discussion, in lieu of cabinet meeting transcripts?

Edit: Cathyy and Polt's posts above crossed mine, and addressed the issue I raised.
That is a possibility, I'll speak to WWW and see if we can work something out!! We tend to mention the topics being discussed in the weekly reports but if a more formal means of listing agenda items is required then I have no problem with that!!

Fedele:
Wait... I'm confused...


Is it possible to address an issue before it arises?

No, once a new issue is raised in Cabinet it is reactive to discuss and address it!! The idea itself may be proactive, but the cabinet's response to it is reactive!!

I think it is fair to say that the majority of legislative change proposals have been made by members of cabinet, which is, in my opinion, an indication of a proactive cabinet!!
 
While actual IRC cabinet meetings are nice things, I have to agree that they tend to be totally impractical in the attendance department, especially since that so many of the cabinet are in totally off time zones in relation to one another.

Cathyy does bring up an issue that needs to be addressed. The cabinet metting room items should be public, but, in the interest of regional security, I agree with Poltsy that they should be made public only after security issues are addressed. Sure, it's a longer process, and we do have the option of IRC in an absolute and immediate crisis, but the meeting room being on the message board allows for more time for cabinet members to respond in a more careful and thought-out manner. It also allows for off the record transactions to be totally off the record, something that can slip by when editing IRC chats causing context crises. :duh:
 
Back
Top