Impeachment

[Democratic Donkeys]

As is my right as a member of the RA:

Any Regional Assembly Member may bring charges against a Cabinet-level position if they believe the officeholder has violated this Constitution or partaken in other gross misconduct. The Nation must provide enough evidence to a Grand Jury to warrant a trial.

I move to press formal charges and impeach the current Minister of Arts and Entertainment for not properly executing their office.

Below is the current Minister's oath of office, delivered on February 11, 2006 at the start of her term:

I, IndieGirl, do hereby solemnly swear that during my duly elected term as Minister of Arts & Entertainment of the North Pacific, I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of Minister of Arts & Entertainment of the North Pacific, with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.

It is my belief that the Minister has violated her oath with her continued absence, which constitutes nonfeasance. She has made an appearance today but otherwise has been generally inactive and remiss in her duties as a Cabinet Minister. Her duties are defined as:

Minister of Arts and Entertainment.
A - The Minister shall be responsible for moderating the Out-of-Character, Role-Playing and Games forums at the Regional off-site forums.
B - The Minister shall initiate and oversee activities and topics for the general entertainment of The North Pacific's member Nations.

Because of her absence she has not performed either of the explicit duties outlined above; the only duties for which she is responsible.

I made my opinion known during the last election cycle that I believed she would not be able to hold the office and perform the duties she would be obligated constitutionally to perform. She, and the region at large ignored my criticisms because of her status here, now it is time to be held accountable for her action, or lack thereof.


Submitted for the Court's consideration May 1, 2006.

 

[Hersfold]

PHEW! I thought it was me...

It should be noted that IG does appear to be active on the forum in terms of logging in - she did log in today (May 1st). However, I cannot attest to her posting activity, except in the Cabinet forums, where she has not posted for several weeks.

At this point in the Minister's term, however, I would not press charges simply because the Minister is about to be removed from office anyway.

The United Federation of Hersfold
Regional Assembly Member
Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs

 

[Democratic Donkeys]

PHEW! I thought it was me...

Guilty conscience? Should I scrutinize your Ministry next?

It should be noted that IG does appear to be active on the forum in terms of logging in - she did log in today (May 1st). However, I cannot attest to her posting activity, except in the Cabinet forums, where she has not posted for several weeks.

Yes she did log in today, and 4 days ago if my memory is right. Before that she was absent for a significant portion of time. Which is my issue and why I decided to raise the issue of impeachment.

At this point in the Minister's term, however, I would not press charges simply because the Minister is about to be removed from office anyway.

Thank you for your opinion Hersfold, but I would still like to proceed. This is pretty cut and dry from my point of view and could easily be wrapped up before elections are over. (That is if some Court Justices show up)

 

[Hersfold]

Guilty conscience? Should I scrutinize your Ministry next?

Well, you know, the recruitment incident, the election dates cock-up... uh, I mean, no, not guilty at all...

Thank you for your opinion Hersfold, but I would still like to proceed. This is pretty cut and dry from my point of view and could easily be wrapped up before elections are over. (That is if some Court Justices show up)

Ok. Up to you.

 

[wizardofoz01]

I realize this is the Court's forum, and therefore I ask for understanding from Byard if I post anything out of line.

I understand DD's concern, but at the same time Hers' comments indicate to me that this issue may cause ramifications: namely, the issue of what actually constitutes nonfeasance. Is this purely just a log-in record? Or are we going to start scrutinizing posts by Ministers. That kind of debate is where (in my opinion) it is brought out of the Court and into the RA.

That's all.

 

[Poltsamaa]

Why have the impeachment option for nonfeasance?! I agree with what DD is doing but the reasons for not puruing it make the who concept a bit of a farse!!

Essentially, we have a clause in our legal code/Constitution that states that impeachment is an option for inactive members of Cabinet!! Yet, when someone is inactive they are rightly given some time to become active again!! In a three month term, someone who is active early (1st month give or take a week!!) then becomes inactive!! After a week or two of inactivity people start to ask questions and even raise the issue of impeachment!! This is 6 weeks into a 12 week term!! Generally, the decision is to give the Minister a week or two to become active again which means 2/3rds of the term has been "served" before a serious impeachment process is undertaken at which point the argument we have seen here (it's so close to the end of the term lets leave it and let the new Minister take over soon!!) and we never actually impeach the inactive Minister nor punish them in any way!!

Now, I'm not saying that giving people a chance to return to activity is a bad thing at all!! I'm just floating the idea that perhaps, with the shortness of Ministerial terms and the time lag involved in processing an inpeachment based on inactivity, that such a process is not workable when applied to "real" case scenarios in the region!!

Maybe it would be much simpler if we had the Cabinet declare the inactive Minister "officially inactive" and allow the Deputy to step up for the remainder of the term?! Which is essentially what happens anyway!! Difference being that impeachment would not be an option for inactivity "offenses", however along similar avenues a decision of the court could deem the inactive Minister ineligible for re-election for a set number of terms if their inactivity is deemed to be chronic or to have caused the region unnecessary harm!! The decision could be delivered even while the nation in question is still inactive and absent from proceedings with the penalty only to come into effect once they return to activity!! Att hat point they may present their case to the court to have the decision overturned (ie. if their absence was RL related etc!!)!!

I think this would deal with inactive Ministers in real-time and not leave the regional government in limbo both through an inactive part of their team not being replaced but also the ensuing legal wrangling over impeachment that inevitably leads nowhere!!

Anyway...just thinking aloud!!

 

[Haor Chall]

Or we could just give their job to Tresville.






Polt's idea sounds quite good actually, it would be make things much easier and simpler when dealing with inactive ministers.

 

[Poltsamaa]

 

[Romanoffia (Guest)]

Nonfeasance doesn't imply malfeasance. If you are driving down the road and there is no reason to change direction or put your foot on the brake, it doesn't constitution not-driving.

R

 

[Byardkuria]

The Court takes notice of the filing by Democratic Donkeys.

 

[Democratic Donkeys]

Thank you Justice Byardkuria.


As for the issue of the lateness of this being brought to the Court, it does not matter. I am merely raising the issue and attempting to start a trend of Ministers being held accountable for violating the Constitution/Oath.

Recently we have seen some issues come under public scrutiny about certain forum members violating the constitution. At this point in time the only reason these issues have arisen is for purely political purposes. I intend to start an independent, non-partisan watchdog group to make sure Ministers are following the Constitution starting this next term. So that next election term we won't have these issues arising, because I will file motions for every instance of anything unconstitutional that comes to my attention.

I like your ideas Poltsamaa and I hope you'll stick around and propose legislation! I could also use some help and I know how you like picking nits!

Or we could just give their job to Tresville.

One of my concerns...

Nonfeasance doesn't imply malfeasance. If you are driving down the road and there is no reason to change direction or put your foot on the brake, it doesn't constitution not-driving.

R

I'm sorry Roman, I don't know anything about cars. :-/

Also that is quite an awful argument by analogy. I wasn't implying malfeasance, merely nonfeasance. My argument applied to your analogy would mean the person would not even be in the car! Anyways, this forum looks like it's doing pretty good. Me and the rest of the administration/moderation are gonna take a vacation, see all of you in a week or two.