Freedom of Information Request

Abstain

Abstain

TNPer
Under Law 29 of TNP Legal Code any registered citizens and/or governments residing in The North Pacific have the right to request information from the Government through the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive.

As such I am requesting to know if the following accounts posted anywhere on the forum within the time period listed next to each one. This request is being made to ensure that the Speaker is following through with his duties and removing members from the RA when they no longer meet requirements. As I know there are areas of the forum I cannot see and that all these accounts have access to at least some of them there is the possibility that I am wrong and these nations never failed to meet RA membership criteria.

I am not asking to know where they posts occurred or what was contained, merely if they exist.

The accounts in question are:

Eluvatar: any posts made from the 14th of August 2011 until the 29th of August 2011

Pasargad: any posts made from the 15th of August 2011 until the 30th of August 2011

Vilnoia1: any posts made from the 16th of August 2011 until the 1st of September 2011

Utonaga: any posts made from the 19th of August 2011 until 4th of September 2011
 
Vilnoia1 have made several post on August 31. Link

Both Eluvatar and Pasargad have been contact after they were deemed to be inactive for 15 days and have come back within reasonable time after the message was sent. They were not removed as a result.

Utonaga was still considered to be active on the 31st which is the last day I'm in office. I have try to reach him, but so far without success.

The problem though is that I am not sure how much action I am allow to take with regards to membership as it effect the list of people allow to vote in the election and my term had already expired. This is delicate problem because of the closeness to the election and the fact that several members have response quickly after the message, but I believe I have done my best with the situation I am facing.
 
The link you provided takes me to a post made by Elu on the 30th in the Amendment to Law 22 Preliminary Discussion topic.

As for contacting people the law requires they shall be removed by the Speaker after 15 days of inactivity, nothing is mentioned about them returning in a reasonable amount of time and getting to stay a member.

As for your term expiring it has not quite been 4 months yet. The official results of the last election were announced on the 18th of May which is when you took the oath of office and assumed the office of speaker.
 
My mistake, I was viewing another member post. His last post was on the 16th as you state.

I'm unsure though whether how you wish me to proceed. As three of these four members are currently active by the guideline of the constitution, I don't think it is needed or even sane to removed them from membership now as guideline is set to remove inactive member.

As for contacting these member, I think it is polite to notify them first in case they have reasonable cause for being absent before actually kicking them out. You might feel it is unnecessary, but I learn from criticism against me to understand when to apply the law and when to use common sense.

1. The election cycle for the 4-month terms of The Delegate, The Vice Delegate, and The Speaker of the Assembly, shall begin on the first day of the months of January, May, and September.
Click to expand...

The election had already begun (or should have) according to the law. This is why I had stop taking any major action as Speakers and I have stop all RA admission since the 30th of August and I have apply the same standard to the membership review, legislative agenda, and others duties of Speaker.

I believe this is what usually done in the RA during general election, especially when it may influence voting number?
 
Your resignation is noted. However, I'm disappointed and insulted that you view this as a special treatment from me in anyway. It was never my intention to grant anyone a previlage through this simple action.
 
I'm sorry, I don't think you singled me out for special treatment, but the law clearly states:

TNP Law 28: Article III:
2. Assembly members who fail to indicate their activity on the forum by posting for over 15 days shall be removed from membership automatically by the Speaker unless a notice of absence was submitted to the Speaker before the absence takes place.
Click to expand...

No insult was intended.
 
Say now, if those members can be granted a special exception to stay in the RA when they were suppose to be kicked out, can I be granted a special exception to run for delegate even though, under the current TNP law, I can't? I'm only a few weeks away for being eligible, come on, its the same as smudging the law a bit to keep RA members in, its not going to hurt anyone.
 
It's a difficult situation and one I may have not act as lawfully as some of you may like. It's hard to please everyone when the system does not define how much action I'm allow to take when it's close to election, but I believe that I have act within the best of my ability to ensure that both the law of the North Pacific and the fairness of the election is preserve.

I would like to apologize to the region on these problematic events. It is my hope that the region will understand that during the past 4 months as speaker; my action is always done with the respect of the law and with the region best interest at heart
 
Limi:
As such I am requesting to know if the following accounts posted anywhere on the forum within the time period listed next to each one.
Click to expand...
Might we get a Court clarification on all this or is this yet another thread left to wither and die?
Click to expand...
From Fel's response, to answer your question, apparently not.

Unless you were wanting us to rule the actions of the government illegal or not, (which I realize was was what you meant, just being literal with the first bit), that isn't something I think we can do without a hearing and such to hear arguments. Which may be frustrating to some but I've also heard the view tossed around we either stick to the letter of the law, or we rewrite it so its not idiotic or get rid of it.

Quite honestly, as I've said many many times, the laws/rules of this region are a mess, and I assure you I'm just as frustrated by current events as anyone else. I feel like a n00b again, I cannot begin to understand the logic of this region's system. I haven't been confused or lost by a region's system in this game for ages, nor faced anything less user friendly.

EDIT: Sorry, fixed up the bits that made no sense. I'm extremely tired, been volunteering at the rodeo for the last 10 hours. I was under the impression I was in our section, and using awful grammar for some reason. :P
 
I do believe Fel has already admitted to bending/breaking the laws, shouldn't the Courts be jumping all over themselves like they currently are in the JAL case?
 
I admit to failure in the case of Eluvatar and Pasargad. Although I think it is ridiculous to remove an active member who are interested in working for the region right now, but if the court dictates me to then I will comply.

However, for Vilnoia1, and Utonaga, it is my opinion that they are still a full RA member according to the law on the 1st of September which is the date that the election should have begun.

As I'm not allow to accept any RA member during election, I think it's strange that I would be dictate to remove any member during the election.
 
The law that demands an automatic removal of RA member after a period of time without post was already this way long before I proposed any change to it and even before I become RA member. I only propose to shorten the time from 30 days to 15 days which is my attempt to increase responsibility to the region in each RA members.

And for what it's worth, the RA even add the section that allow notice to be submitted to the Speaker first if you are going away for a long absence.
 
6. No one shall be admitted or re-admitted to the Assembly when an election or special election is in progress. Admission shall be effective once the election results are announced.


According to the law governing Registration and Membership
Felesia I believe and would state that you are not allowed to accept any RA applications during election cycles so i would recommend that can you accept these application but do not allow them to vote in the election but they can start there eligibility to run in future elections.
 
So ... just to be clear, the conclusion of this thread is that we have at least two RA delegates voting who ought to have been removed from the list before elections began? Despite the fact that a great many other delegates were removed for inactivity?

Or did I miss something?

I don't like the idea of removing members during the election either, but given the small size of the current delegation, it is unreasonable to suggest that this oversight could tangibly affect the election results? And this oversight happened during the watch of someone who is currently a candidate for delegate?

Although I (sincerely) take Felasia at his word that this was an accidental oversight, it certainly creates the appearance of impropriety. Could this provide legal grounds to challenge the results of the election?

If my application for RA membership had been processed in a timely fashion, allowing me the privilege of being a candidate, I might consider it. (What is the appropriate emoticon for "half-joking"?)
 
Well, since Pasargad is running for Vice-delegate and he is one of those people in question, yes, this could very well cause a very large problem with the elections.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Well, since Pasargad is running for Vice-delegate and he is one of those people in question, yes, this could very well cause a very large problem with the elections.
Click to expand...
So, the unopposed Vice-Delegate candidate was left on the list by the Speaker, who is currently running for Delegate.

What a mess.

On the surface, this appears a lot more serious than posting a jocular oath. :duh:

I'm starting to think that the best course of action would be to wait until the JAL trial concludes and then push the reset button on the whole thing.
 
Fell Pmed me regarding my inactivity and i pmed him and gave the reason for my inactivity asked him whether i should should reapply for RA first he said I should then asked me not to reapply for membership ,then i put forward my candidacy,i will not back down from candidacy and will seek to run for vice delegate if it comes to court decision i will abide by any future court ruling but for the sake of TNP i will not resign at this stage .because my resignation at this stage will nullify the election since there is no vice delegate candidate.
 
Well we still have three days, by law, to sort this thing out before the elections start in earnest. The proper Court officially should be focusing there attention to this matter above all else until a definitive answer is provided.
 
i saw the election topic ,if in next 3 days there is a candidate for vice delegate i will withdraw my candidacy and reapply for RA.
otherwise i will run for Vice delegate
 
I have request judicial opinion whether I'm allowed to make change to RA membership during an election. As I have stated before that this is my mistake for trying to apply some common sense to the law.

I will make an appropriate change to the list if I'm allowed to.
 
I think that if we don't elect a Vice Delegate the Security Council can do it for us, but that is not a desirable outcome.
 
The Constitution only specifies special elections as the result of inactivity of the elected official, actually. Although a special election would make a bit more sense in this case. Perhaps there could be an informal election which we could ask the Security Council to ratify...
 
Pasargad:
Fell Pmed me regarding my inactivity and i pmed him and gave the reason for my inactivity asked him whether i should should reapply for RA first he said I should then asked me not to reapply for membership ,then i put forward my candidacy,i will not back down from candidacy and will seek to run for vice delegate if it comes to court decision i will abide by any future court ruling but for the sake of TNP i will not resign at this stage .because my resignation at this stage will nullify the election since there is no vice delegate candidate.
Click to expand...
At this point, for the sake of the legitimacy of the TNP and our legal code, the BEST thing you could do is nullify the election.
 
Greater Peterstan:
Pasargad:
Fell Pmed me regarding my inactivity and i pmed him and gave the reason for my inactivity asked him whether i should should reapply for RA first he said I should then asked me not to reapply for membership ,then i put forward my candidacy,i will not back down from candidacy and will seek to run for vice delegate if it comes to court decision i will abide by any future court ruling but for the sake of TNP i will not resign at this stage .because my resignation at this stage will nullify the election since there is no vice delegate candidate.
Click to expand...
At this point, for the sake of the legitimacy of the TNP and our legal code, the BEST thing you could do is nullify the election.
Click to expand...
And how would that be legal?
 
Is there really nobody with the seniority and the will to step into the position of VD?

My WA isn't here, so I can't do it. Someone has to...
 
The only reason we don't have a candidate is because of the 15 day law. The SC can appoint any SC member to be Vice Delegate in the absence of an elected one. We have 3 official SC members right now: Grosseschnauzer, Pasargad, and Moany Old Gits.
 
...
So Pasargad could be appointed the position of VD because he is in the SC but cannot run for the position because he has not been an RA member for long enough.
 
The only reason we don't have a candidate is because of the 15 day law.
Click to expand...

We would have plenty of candidates if people actually cared enough to participate when it is not during election.
 
I don't see a lot of complain when it was proposed... or maybe because people was too inactive to care then?
 
A mean old man:
...
So Pasargad could be appointed the position of VD because he is in the SC but cannot run for the position because he has not been an RA member for long enough.
Click to expand...
Exactly!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top