Motion to Exempt Great Bights Mum from RA membership requirement for SC membership

Eluvatar

Eluvatar

TNPer
-
-
Pronouns
he/him/his
TNP Nation
Zemnaya Svoboda
Discord
Eluvatar#8517
Article V Section 1 Clause 3:
3. Assembly members may apply to join the Council if they meet the minimum Influence and endorsement levels prescribed by law. Other trusted members of The North Pacific who meet the minimum influence and endorsement levels prescribed by law may also apply to join the Council if the Regional Assembly grants an exemption to the Regional Assembly membership requirement by a two-thirds supermajority vote.
Click to expand...

As Great Bights Mum apparently cannot be restored to the Regional Assembly for another 2 weeks, but has been a good Security Council member in the past and is certainly trustworthy, I move that the Regional Assembly exempt Great Bights Mum from the SC requirement for RA membership.
 
Why must she wait two weeks for ra membership? Regardless, I will second this motion.

Edit: actually her application says she only has 78 endorsements. Don't you need at last half the delegates count?
 
mcmasterdonia:
Why must she wait two weeks for ra membership? Regardless, I will second this motion.

Edit: actually her application says she only has 78 endorsements. Don't you need at last half the delegates count?
Click to expand...
In its wisdom, the RA chose in 2010 to make that "either at least (1) 50 endorsements, or (2) fifty per cent of the serving Delegate's endorsement count."

You can view the current (updates every 5 minutes) minimum and maximum levels here.
 
The word "vote" doesn't appear in the motion. What I moved was to have the substantive proposition (exemption) go to a vote. Just second it, and then there won't be a reason for a delay to start the vote.
 
then why not vote to exempt the sitting delegate from RA membership also so he can also become eligible candidate for next election cycle ?
 
Pasargad:
then why not vote to exempt the sitting delegate from RA membership also so he can also become eligible candidate for next election cycle ?
Click to expand...
There is no such procedure in the constitution.
 
I support GBM's appointment to the SC, but is this constitutional? Does she meet the requirements? Is she already an RA members/Citizen under the Constitution/Laws of TNP?

I say this with utmost respect to GBM and having known her for several years, but rules are rules (I'm saying this to make a point). You can't claim one set of rules for one persona and yet another for a different person. That is, unless this is the real government and power elite and not the citizens and the RA.

Again, I support GBM for the SC, but not at the expense of the Constitution and the Legal Code.

Violating the rules set only proves my point.
 
Aye, I'm sure GBM would be an asset to that SC, but I still can't rationalize a breech in your constitution to rush someone to that body. Again, is the security of this region in jeopardy?
 
Constitution Article V Section 1:
3. Assembly members may apply to join the Council if they meet the minimum Influence and endorsement levels prescribed by law. Other trusted members of The North Pacific who meet the minimum influence and endorsement levels prescribed by law may also apply to join the Council if the Regional Assembly grants an exemption to the Regional Assembly membership requirement by a two-thirds supermajority vote.
Click to expand...

Roman and Todd, Article V of the Constitution specifically provides that the R.A. may, by a two-thirds vote, exempt an otherwise qualified nation from the requirement that they be a member of the R.A. to sit on the Security Council. It's been there ever since the S.C. was created by a Constitutional amendment. Prior to her recent period of inactivity with the R.A., she had been an elected member of the S.C.

There is no constitutional issue here, the R.A. decides this matter, and I wish you'd look at the Constitution before claiming something is unconstitutional, when it is not.

Edited to add quoted clause from the Constitution
 
I can understand that in the event of a coup. But under peace times, do we really need to rush people through the system? Far be it for me to completely understand, being the new guy on the block over here and still getting used to your laws, but I fail to see the sense of urgency this vote seems to be calling for.
 
There is nothing about this authority being limited to wartime. It in fact was intended for those longstanding and trusted members of our region who are willing to serve on the S.C., and who did not necessarily want to deal with the day-to-day politics of the R.A. The provision wasn't designed for wartime to begin with.
GBM happens to have the greatest level of influence in TNP (and the last time I saw a ranking, she was second throughout NS.) She is a former Delegate and she has served as both a global mod and when we needed her to, as an admin of the forums.
The timing is due to GBM's decision to become active again and I cannot think of anyone more deserving of being given the first-ever exemption from the R.A. membership requirement.
 
It was designed so people could serve in the security council without being part of the hustle and bustle of legislating yes.

As I have said before and it seems will be saying many times again: the Security Council is not an authority, it is an obligation.
 
I understand the technical legality of the motion. However, I do not see the necessity for it in this instance. Both Gross and Elu have articulated the reason for this clause:

Elu:
It was designed so people could serve in the security council without being part of the hustle and bustle of legislating yes.
Click to expand...

It in fact was intended for those longstanding and trusted members of our region who are willing to serve on the S.C., and who did not necessarily want to deal with the day-to-day politics of the R.A.
Click to expand...

However, in Great Bight's Mum's case, this does not apply. She has applied to join the Regional Assembly, and will be a sitting member in two weeks.

Therefore the only reason I can see to rush her into the Security Council is if we face a security threat so dire and imminent that it would be a disaster for GBM to wait for the normal rules that we all have to abide by to apply to her as well.

I see no reason for such a move, and in particular I see no reason for Grosse's unseemly haste in seeking to rush to a vote without time for proper debate.

What threat is so dire that normal channels should not apply?
 
I agree. This isn't a vote (yet) to exempt her.

You've all said this is legal to do - yes, that's wonderful.

However, as Assemblymen McCloud and flemingovia pointed out, there is no justification to rush this.

Please directly explain why she needs to have this rushed instead of waiting two weeks.

I did not even see anything from her even indicating she wants to push this through. If she doesn't mind (presumably) to wait until the 21st, why push it when she's fine with the current timetable?
 
I don't mind waiting. It would be nice if I didn't have to, but if the RA finds voting on the matter too much of an imposition, then let it lie.
 
Why don't instead of just exempting GBM, we change the rules to allow members to be admitted to the regional assembly during a vote? I think it was Speaker Limi who suggested this.

We could keep track of who is admitted and simply prevent them from voting on current bills and elections. It would give them that extra amount of time in the assembly to stand in elections (the thirty day requirement) and allow former security council members to be admitted quicker?
 
The reason why there is no admission in the middle of a vote is because some newly admitted members proceed to vote even when they aren't supposed to. It became necessary to free remaskings in mid-votes.
This recent frenzy of votes has been unusual; but with a little planning, there can be open windows for admission between votes. There's also a misconception that there can't be admissions during elections or that the R.A. can't vote on legislation; and that has been misconstrued a lot lately. The law is this -- an election cycle is composed of nominations, a pause, then elections; and only during elections are remaskings held back to prevent confusion as to voting. There is nothing in the Constitution, the Legal Code, or in R.A. procedure preventing votes during elections.
The other unusual element is the special election for Speaker; it's in the midst of all of this but it is on an accelerated schedule, by law, to be completed in a period shorter than 14 days; actually more like 11 days.
With both an acting Speaker, a Speaker Pro Tempore, an Election Commissioner and a Special Election Commissioner all involved in scheduling, what is really called for is a bit of coordination.
If you thing a workable change is possible, then make a specific proposal and give us all a chance to dissect it to see if it can work, whether it will reduce the overlap in a fair way and still be practice from the administrative side.
Generalities aren't much help.
 
Generalities aren't much help? Isn't that typically the way that a discussion of ideas takes place? That way ideas are bounced of each other until a concrete proposal can be found. Conservatism and adherence to the current system and status quo at all costs, does not help either.

Instead of generalizations, why not a clear reason as to why GBM needs to be fast tracked into the security council? No disrespect to GBM intended.
 
mcmasterdonia:
Generalities aren't much help? Isn't that typically the way that a discussion of ideas takes place? That way ideas are bounced of each other until a concrete proposal can be found. Conservatism and adherence to the current system and status quo at all costs, does not help either.

Instead of generalizations, why not a clear reason as to why GBM needs to be fast tracked into the security council? No disrespect to GBM intended.
Click to expand...
:agree:

Even GBM said she doesn't mind waiting. So why are other people pushing for her to have it accelerated? Someone please answer this question.
 
Re-read what GBM said a little more carefully.

The exemption provision is not tied to ear-time or any other circumstantial requirement other than the desire to not go into the day-to-day politics of the R.A.

There is no other condition for granting the exemption. There's nothing in the Constitution, nor in Law 30 imposing such a requirement. I'd like to know why you think there is one.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Re-read what GBM said a little more carefully.

The exemption provision is not tied to ear-time or any other circumstantial requirement other than the desire to not go into the day-to-day politics of the R.A.

There is no other condition for granting the exemption. There's nothing in the Constitution, nor in Law 30 imposing such a requirement. I'd like to know why you think there is one.
Click to expand...
I never said such, everyone is asking for an exemption, some of us are asking why the rush when nothing is going on to JUSTIFY one.

I understand if like, half the SC CTE'd, to get an exemption, but since everything there is taken care of, why still rush it ?
 
:agree:
Answer a question with a question, and we have moved nowhere Grosse. None the less, we shall see. GBM is clearly worthy of being on the security council, given her past work, regional and world wide influence. I second that this go to a vote in the regional assembly.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Re-read what GBM said a little more carefully.

The exemption provision is not tied to ear-time or any other circumstantial requirement other than the desire to not go into the day-to-day politics of the R.A.

There is no other condition for granting the exemption. There's nothing in the Constitution, nor in Law 30 imposing such a requirement. I'd like to know why you think there is one.
Click to expand...
But what Grosse does not address is that GBM does not have "the desire not to go into the daily politics of the R.A." She has applied to join the RA, and will be admitted soon. On her admission she can immediately join the Security Council on the same basis as the rest of us.

Given that this will go to a vote in the RA, that will probably happen just as fast as this attempt to fast-track her.

I am still bewildered as to why this is thought necessary. Elu and Grosse have argued the case why it can be done. They have not told us why it needs to be done.
 
mcmasterdonia:
:agree:
Answer a question with a question, and we have moved nowhere Grosse. None the less, we shall see. GBM is clearly worthy of being on the security council, given her past work, regional and world wide influence. I second that this go to a vote in the regional assembly.
Click to expand...
There hasn't been a motion to put this to a vote at all.
 
Grosse moved it to a bot but if that dosent count consider this the motion or second to a motion for this to go to a vote.
 
I'll have the vote and stuff up later today. I'm at work now but my time is limited on the computer during the day.

If you need to reach me, I'll be on #thenorthpacific, though responses will be slow.
 
I do think the exemption may become needed in future as well particularly given how frequently people are removed from the RA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top