Removals from the Regional Assembly

[Flemingovia]

Dear Speaker:

The following members of the Regional Assembly should be removed immediately for missing two consecutive votes:

Govindia: Missed votes on the Flemingovian Constitution and the revote on Blue Wolf’s Recall.

Greene2010: Missed votes on the Flemingovian Constitution and the revote on Blue Wolf’s Recall.

Aleksotopia: Missed votes on the Flemingovian Constitution and the revote on Blue Wolf’s Recall.

Kinetic: Missed votes on the Flemingovian Constitution and the revote on Blue Wolf’s Recall.

Refusexc: Missed votes on the Flemingovian Constitution and the revote on Blue Wolf’s Recall.

Earth: Missed vote on Flemingovian Constitution and posted an invalid vote on Blue Wolf’s recall, which under RA procedures counts as having missed the vote.


These were consecutive votes. The constitution vote opened on 22nd March and the recall was opened on 30th March, with no other votes in between.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

First, Govindia as acting Speaker has been following the custom of the Speaker not voting unless his vote makes a difference in the outcome or to reach quorum. Limi slightly revised that policy due to the Court's recent decision, but that did not affect the custom.

As to any other removals due to voting, many of these voting periods recently overlapped and therefore did not meet the definitional requirement that the two voting periods had to be separated by at least three days. When that change was adopted, it was specifically included to prevent overlapping voting periods from causing removals.

We also have the need to document voting in the elections in this overlapping situation, so I am overruling Flemingovia on this matter. If Govindia decides as Acting Speaker that they deserve removals, then he'll have that opportunity to make that decision.

Edited to note:
On 29 March, rufusexc posted a notice of an announced absence from the R.A. between 1 and 14 April see post in the Registration area

I will also note that there may be other members, recently admitted, who may have also missed two votes as well not included in the list raised by flemingovia. Again, for the time being, I will have to leave those for the Acting Speaker.

 

[Abstain]

4. As used in this Section.

A. "Two consecutive votes" are defined as two votes on any items that are conducted at different time intervals of at least 3 days between the start of each vote, but are voted one after another. Votes on two or more items at the same time are not defined as two consecutive votes.

The law clearly states it is 3 days between the start of the votes in question.

The Flemingovian Constitutional Proposal Vote was started 3/22 at 9:23 PM GMT; it ended 3/29 at 9:30 PM GMT as indicated in the opening post of the vote.

The Privileged Re-Vote for Recall of Delegate was started 3/30 at 3:21 PM GMT; it ended 4/6 at 3:30 PM GMT as indicated in the opening post of the vote.

As you can see these votes did not have any period of overlap and the start of them was more than 3 days apart.

In addition, while it has been custom for the Speaker to not vote this practice was adopted prior to the requirement of not missing two consecutive votes and just because a person is serving as Speaker does not excuse them from this requirement. For reference I quote Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution:

2. Holding other office in the Government does not eliminate Assembly-members from the rights and obligations of Assembly-members.

 

[Flemingovia]

I think you are wrong on this one. The Legal code is pretty clear on the matter of what the interval of three days is between. See below@

3. Assembly members who have missed two consecutive votes on any Regional Assembly items shall be removed from membership automatically by the Speaker, unless a notice of absence was submitted to the Speaker before two consecutive votes occur.

4. As used in this Section.

A. "Two consecutive votes" are defined as two votes on any items that are conducted at different time intervals of at least 3 days between the start of each vote, but are voted one after another. Votes on two or more items at the same time are not defined as two consecutive votes.

The flemingovian constitution vote opened on 22nd March and closed by Grosseschnauzer at 2:14pm on March 30th.
The Blue Wolf Recall vote opened at 3:21pm on March 30th (more than 3 days after the opening of the Flemingovian Constitution vote)


There was no overlap between those two votes, and they began more than three days apart. They count as two consecutive votes.

 

[Flemingovia]

Ah. Limi's post and mine overlapped. We both make essentially the same point, except he marks the end of the constitution vote from the time it was due to be closed, I mark it from the time it was actually closed. By any marker, there was no overlap.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I have to leave those questions for the Acting Speaker, since there is one and as Speaker Pro Tempore my authority is set by what Gov gave me as instructions since he did give them or posted statements of what had to be opened or counted in different threads. I opened the votes, completed the updating of the RA member list he had started, and counted the votes than were closed last week. There's one last vote that has to be closed momentarily, and given that all of the votes legally cast supported that measure, and that there is a quorum regardless of who is or isn't counted; the outcome of that vote would be the same, and the result isn't affected.
This is different than the situation a few weeks ago when there was no Speaker or acting Speaker, and as under Rule 2 the SPT was acting as Speaker due to that being a vacancy pending a special election and that there was no one appointed as a Deputy. In this situation, the argument was made that since Limi made Gov deputy speaker before he resigned, Gov had the chair when the vacancy was created; it doesn't matter right now whether I agree with that interpretation or not.
Until Gov is absent for two weeks, or resigns, he remains acting Speaker; and since he posted in the RA area of the forum yesterday, I believe my authority continues to be more limited at this time.

Based upon the spreadhsheet to which Eluvatar and I have access, the following additional members may also now be in violation of the two vote provision; I'm not saying they are, just that these need to be reviewed as well with the completion of the vote on the Omnibus legislation.

Mycan (admitted 3/23/2012), UncleJugHead (admitted 3/23/2012), Anime Freak (admitted 3/24/2012), Todd McCloud (admitted 3/27/2012; his absention on the omnibus bill was void under the prevailing law at that time.)

 

[Govindia]

Limi, Grosse, Flem, and Elu, please speak to me on IRC.

That is, if someone can please either join #thenorthpacific or unban me from #tnp since this would be easier to sort things out that way. I will then post the log here.

 

[Romanoffia]

You know, the two consecutive vote thing is rather silly. Since you cannot vote 'abstain' anymore and some may choose not to vote out of protest because they cannot abstain, they get dropped from the RA for not voting their conscience? Think about it.

I have an idea to solve this and the waiting period for RA membership all in one wholesale solution, but that's the subject for another thread...

 

[Govindia]

You know, the two consecutive vote thing is rather silly. Since you cannot vote 'abstain' anymore and some may choose not to vote out of protest because they cannot abstain, they get dropped from the RA for not voting their conscience? Think about it.

I have an idea to solve this and the waiting period for RA membership all in one wholesale solution, but that's the subject for another thread...

The abstain rule has been lifted, Roman.

Ok to make things clearer, what are the issues here exactly?

I will state for the record that the notion that I missed votes is incorrect. It is custom for Speakers to only vote when there needs to be a quorum still filled or if there is essentially a tie. As neither has yet been needed, I will continue to honour tradition here and abide by that.

Who gets removed and who stays?

Grosse, can you or Elu share this spreadsheet thing with me? I had no idea this was also being used.

 

[Romanoffia]

I'm not complaining - I agree with you 100% in principle.

 

[Abstain]

Ok to make things clearer, what are the issues here exactly?

The issue at hand is that there are members of the RA who missed 2 consecutive votes with more than 3 days between their start. The votes in question are the Flemingovian Constitutional Proposal and the Revote on Recalling BW. The members who did not vote at all are Govindia, Greene2010, Aleksotopia, and Kinetic. Earth missed the first vote, but voted present in the second.

I will state for the record that the notion that I missed votes is incorrect. It is custom for Speakers to only vote when there needs to be a quorum still filled or if there is essentially a tie. As neither has yet been needed, I will continue to honour tradition here and abide by that.

You did not cast a vote on either item listed above. Simply because you are speaker does not mean you are excused from the requirement that you not miss two consecutive votes to maintain RA membership, as stated in the excerpt from the constitution I cited in my earlier post.

 

[Gulliver]

I will state for the record that the notion that I missed votes is incorrect. It is custom for Speakers to only vote when there needs to be a quorum still filled or if there is essentially a tie. As neither has yet been needed, I will continue to honour tradition here and abide by that.

Written law and court rulings on them supersedes informal traditions.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

This seems to be a case of selected use of laws, its very common in TNP. Some people enforce the laws by the letter while others ignore the laws and only use them when they fit their specific purposes and goals. It is this sort of behavior that leads to a break down in order and a lack of confidence in the government as a whole. I believe I would be negligible to let this slide, after all, I wouldn't want Grosse to put in another recall, now would I?

Govindia, you will update the RA roster immediately and double check for any other violations in RA membership. If anyone has a problem with the laws, I suggest they take immediate action to change them.

 

[Govindia]

Ok to make things clearer, what are the issues here exactly?

The issue at hand is that there are members of the RA who missed 2 consecutive votes with more than 3 days between their start. The votes in question are the Flemingovian Constitutional Proposal and the Revote on Recalling BW. The members who did not vote at all are Govindia, Greene2010, Aleksotopia, and Kinetic. Earth missed the first vote, but voted present in the second.

I will state for the record that the notion that I missed votes is incorrect. It is custom for Speakers to only vote when there needs to be a quorum still filled or if there is essentially a tie. As neither has yet been needed, I will continue to honour tradition here and abide by that.

You did not cast a vote on either item listed above. Simply because you are speaker does not mean you are excused from the requirement that you not miss two consecutive votes to maintain RA membership, as stated in the excerpt from the constitution I cited in my earlier post.

You never casted a vote in any of the votes made while done as Speaker Limi.

And BW, you are under no authority to issue orders to me. You can't even be transparent, explain your extended absence, or who your appointments are and why you made them.

The Speaker is to only vote to break a tie. Speakers have stayed out of votes to keep things fair and impartial.

Earth's vote, while it does not count, does indicate she was present for a vote so she is ok for the moment.

Grosse, please show me the spreadsheet as you mentioned above so I can see what informaiton you have.

 

[Abstain]

Gov, there was one vote opened during my time as Speaker and that was the vote on flem's constitution. Had there been another vote opened I would have cast a vote to maintain membership, which is the whole reason I wrote this policy. Every vote I closed as Speaker had a vote cast by me in it.

What you are not understanding is that you are legally required to not miss 2 consecutive votes which are opened at least 3 days apart in order to keep RA membership, regardless of any other position in the region you hold. I'll quote this again:

2. Holding other office in the Government does not eliminate Assembly-members from the rights and obligations of Assembly-members.

It doesn't matter how things have been traditionally been done as traditionally the clause for removal due to missed votes hasn't existed. You are not exempt from the clause simply because you are Speaker.

 

[Flemingovia]

There has often been the suspicion that in TNP laws are waived or ignored when your face fits, and rigorously applied when your face does not fit. I would hate this to be one of those occasions.

In the case of Greene2010. Aleksotopia, Kinetic. Refusexc the issue is clear. They should be removed from the RA without question.

In the case of Govindia and Earth the rules in place at the time of those votes meant that under the letter of the law both should be removed from the Regional Assembly. Limitless Events has quite clearly given chapter and verse on this.

There is another matter, which is the probity of Govindia making the decision on his own RA membership, and the correctness of his voting behaviour as speaker. I refer you to my campaign thread for Chief Justice, when Govindia himself wrote;

How qualified do you think you are to make a fair, and impartial ruling on any case, and are you willing to recuse yourself and appoint a temporary hearing officer in your stead if there is a conflict of interest?

etc. he made at least two follow up posts essentially making the same point. Govindia believes that you cannot make an impartial decision on an issue where you have personal involvement or history.

Surely Govindia's sense of fair play means that he will immediately step back from personally making this decision concerning his own RA membership?

 

[Govindia]

Grosse, AMOM, Grimalkin, and Limi, even New Kervoskia have not voted when they were speaker, and the court ruling didn't change that.

It just changed the voting options. I don't see you guys harping on them when they were speaker for missing two consecutive votes. It is hypocritical for you all to act this way when you didn't for others.

I see that you are only doing this because the person who is Speaker is me.

 

[Flemingovia]

06:20*** flemingovia joined #thenorthpacific
Regional Assembly governmental matters. If you want to talk about how Gov is still a bad person or whatever, visit #tnp
Topic set by Govindia!~Govindia@cpe-66-75-21-164.san.res.rr.com on Thu Apr 5 14:56:07 UTC+0100 2012
06:20flemingoviaYou called, Govindia?
06:20--- flemingovia is back
06:57flemingoviaare you there?
07:00Govindiayes
07:00Govindiai am
07:01Govindiaflemingovia I am here
07:01flemingoviaYou asked me to come on IRC.
07:01flemingoviaWhat is it you wanted?
07:05GovindiaTo talk about the RA Removal thing. I see Eluvatar and the others aren't here.
07:06GovindiaI have abstained from voting as has other speakers have done in the past to maintain impartiality and neutrality.
07:06GovindiaGrosse only voted recently to just help maintain quorum
07:06flemingoviaYou have not abstained.
07:07flemingoviaYou have not voted. There is a difference.
07:09flemingoviaunder the rules in place at the time, the "the speaker abstains" custom is not legal.
07:11GovindiaPast speakers have not voted on votes
07:11GovindiaAMOM, Grosse, Grimalkin even, to name a few.
07:11flemingoviaIrrelevant.
07:11GovindiaThey didn't vote and I didn't see you or anyone else harping on them about it.
07:11flemingoviaThe ruling on anstentions changed the playing field.
07:11Govindianot really, just changed the voting options.
07:12flemingoviaBesides which, past precedent cannot overrule the letter of the law. Even if we have been getting it wrong in the past it does not mean that the law is somehow magicked away.
07:13flemingoviaThe laws are clear the government officials are not exempt from the inactivity clauses.
07:14GovindiaAs far as I know, people are harping on me because I am the Speaker, not otherwise.
07:14flemingoviai do not understand what you mean by that.
07:16GovindiaI never saw any of you harping on previous speakers for not voting
07:16Govindiaonly doing it to me.
07:17flemingoviaTo be honest, i never noticed before recently.
07:18flemingoviaBut under the letter of the law, both you and Earth should be removed from the RA, until the law is changed.
07:18flemingoviaOr speakers start voting.
07:19flemingoviaIf "abstain" votes are allowed, speakers may, by custom, abstain. But they need to record a valid vote.
07:24GovindiaAs I said, ealrier speakers had a policy of not voting. I simply continued that custom.
07:24GovindiaI do not see any real reason to oppose what I did except for people opposing me for personal reasons.
07:24flemingoviahowever, do you feel you ought to be ruling on this? I Thought you were keen on people not getting involved in cases where they had a personal involvement or stake.
07:25GovindiaThat is why I am asking Grosse to speak to me about this.
07:25GovindiaI thought he would be around but I haven't heard from him.
07:26+++ Govindia has given voice to flemingovia
07:26flemingoviaThe letter of the law is quite clear (for once in TNP). If you choose not to apply it, that is up to you.

07:31GovindiaWell I am wanting to continue custom, pending consultation with the SPT.
07:31GovindiaI then will introduce a bill to clarify the Speaker's role proper.
07:33flemingoviaTo convince people that your actions are legal you will need to come up with a better rationale than "I am continuing custom", TNP Does not have a system of common law. custom cannot overrule the written laws of the region.
07:34Govindiawhat would you suggest?
07:36flemingoviaTNP law is an absurdity, and every attempt to patch it up just creates more anomalies. But in this instance those who missed two votes should be removed from the RA and a law introduced, as you say, to clarify the Speaker's position.
07:37flemingoviaLaw in TNP has to be blind. If some are made exceptions, for reasons of "custom" or favouritism, then the whole system is open to question.
07:41Govindiai mean what would you suggest I do re: my situation?
07:42flemingoviaREmove yourself from the Regional Assembly.
07:47flemingoviaTo do otherwise means that every decision to remove someone from the RA is compromised by the knowledge that you are not applying the same standards to yourself.
07:50GovindiaI will need to speak to Grosse. Again, in your entire time in the RA, why did you never notice other speakers never voted either?
07:50Govindiasimilarly you are applying double standards in this case sir.
07:53flemingovia"Why did I never notice"..... Because I never noticed. There is no double standards. If I had noticed the wording of the law in a previous speaker's term I would have brought it up then.
07:54flemingoviaNot everything is about you personally, you know.
07:59flemingoviaI have no doubt that Grosse will be able to come up with a plausible justification to keep you on as speaker, whatever the law says. Therefore you might do best to keep out of the discussions and let Grosse sort it out.
07:59flemingoviaAnyway, I need to go to work.
07:59flemingoviaI will post this on the forum, as you said.

 

[Haor Chall]

Well this is pretty funny... I think it shows the 2 consecutive votes rule is stupid and need revising.


It also is fairly typical of TNP that those who talk loudest about following the law, obeying the constitution, etc are those who so quickly ignore the laws the moment they are an inconvience to them or those whose "face fits" as Flem said.


The law is straightforward and clear in this istance and any "customs" of the Speaker are irrelevant.

 

[Flemingovia]

It IS a foolish law, but it is still the law.

However, I fully expect a convuluted and rambling justification will soon be posted by one of our guardians of the constitution explaining how the letter of the law does not really apply in this case. in fact I have a £5 bet riding on the matter.

 

[Abstain]

Grosse, AMOM, Grimalkin, and Limi, even New Kervoskia have not voted when they were speaker, and the court ruling didn't change that.

It just changed the voting options. I don't see you guys harping on them when they were speaker for missing two consecutive votes. It is hypocritical for you all to act this way when you didn't for others.

I see that you are only doing this because the person who is Speaker is me.

I'm not doing this because you are you or you are Speaker, please don't go running around saying this is just because of a personal grudge because it's not.

I'm doing this because as long as TNP wants to have these silly, over the top, ridiculous laws I will make sure they get enforced.

 

[Govindia]

Grosse, AMOM, Grimalkin, and Limi, even New Kervoskia have not voted when they were speaker, and the court ruling didn't change that.

It just changed the voting options. I don't see you guys harping on them when they were speaker for missing two consecutive votes. It is hypocritical for you all to act this way when you didn't for others.

I see that you are only doing this because the person who is Speaker is me.

I'm not doing this because you are you or you are Speaker, please don't go running around saying this is just because of a personal grudge because it's not.

I'm doing this because as long as TNP wants to have these silly, over the top, ridiculous laws I will make sure they get enforced.

no one else seemed to harp on past speakers except when they were inactive, so why now? it is a double standard.

 

[Flemingovia]

As I explained on irc, speaking personally I simply did not notice until recently. But history is irrelevant. The question is, as speaker are you going to apply the law as clearly written or not?

 

[Govindia]

As I explained on irc, speaking personally I simply did not notice until recently. But history is irrelevant. The question is, as speaker are you going to apply the law as clearly written or not?

I am awaiting consultation with Grosse.

Be aware that for whomever the next speaker will be, I expect you and everyone else to be vigilant too, and to actually introduce legislation clarifying the Speaker's role.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

Govindia, you might think the Delegate has no right to oversee you, but you'd be wrong. I am responsible for making sure the government acts in an effective and just manner and for ensuring compliance with the law. You will do your job and you will do it correctly or I will exercise every power granted to me as lawful delegate to ensure it myself. The simple matter is that there is a list of RA members who are to be removed for various violations, and your name is on that list. Technically, you should be replaced immediately but I am giving you the chance to do that on your own accord, with grace. If I have to go through the Courts, or get a Recall, or just browse through the Constitution and find a law which allows me to do it personally (and I'm quite sure I will find one) I will take such actions.

It's up to you but frankly you're not in the right here by letter of the law and everyone but you can see it. Your move.

 

[Govindia]

Govindia, you might think the Delegate has no right to oversee you, but you'd be wrong. I am responsible for making sure the government acts in an effective and just manner and for ensuring compliance with the law. You will do your job and you will do it correctly or I will exercise every power granted to me as lawful delegate to ensure it myself. The simple matter is that there is a list of RA members who are to be removed for various violations, and your name is on that list. Technically, you should be replaced immediately but I am giving you the chance to do that on your own accord, with grace. If I have to go through the Courts, or get a Recall, or just browse through the Constitution and find a law which allows me to do it personally (and I'm quite sure I will find one) I will take such actions.

It's up to you but frankly you're not in the right here by letter of the law and everyone but you can see it. Your move.

Mr. Delegate, if you are going to speak to me, speak to me in a respectful manner.

You talk about compliance and just manner, yet you did not even provide an explanation for your unexplained absence, as you owe this region one. Nor do you support the interests of public transparency by formally announcing your goals in the delegacy and who your cabinet would be. Do not lecture me on this ever until you actually follow through on these two things.

Furthermore, I never saw you go after previous speakers with such fervour until now. Maybe because it's personal bias? Hmm? No other speakers were attacked for not voting except when they went inactive.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

Previous Speakers didn't let their membership lapse. Now stop stalling.

 

[Abstain]

If the Speaker is unwilling to remove those from the RA who are to be removed as required by law then I would assume the SPT is empowered to do so under RA Rule 2 as the speaker would be considered absent.

1. “Absent or unavailable for more than 24 hours” means that the Speaker has not logged onto the forums, or posted in a Regional Assembly thread within the preceding 24 hours; or that some anticipated act by the Speaker within the Regional Assembly is due to be taken, and has not been taken.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

4. The Speaker or assigned deputy will be responsible to maintain and post an updated list of Assembly members.

Combined with Rule 2 of the RA Procedures that Limitless just posted above, the Speaker Pro Tempore, Grosseschnauzer, may update the RA list and I ask for him to do so now.

It should be noted that removal from the RA does not remove the Speaker from his position, as RA membership is, surprisingly, not a requirement to hold the position, only to run in elections.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

Craziness. Gov, why not just re-apply to the RA?

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

From my reading of the Constitution, the only way to declare a vacancy in the office of Speaker, or in this case Acting Speaker, is:

10. If any elected official should fail to check into their account for two weeks without prior notice, the dual consent of either the Speaker, the Delegate, or the Chief Justice will commence the special election of a replacement. This replacement will fulfill the remainder of the term.

Either that or a recall. A recall makes little sense in that a new Speaker is being elected in the special election, and therefore, Govindia's status as acting Speaker will end one way or the other once that special election is concluded. Then there is the fact that the regular election cycle for the Speaker will start in 16 days. Rather impractical, either way.

As to who should be removed from the R.A., I will have to go back and double check the spreadsheets, because I am of the opinion that both the former Speaker, and the acting Speaker have misapplied the Court's recent ruling on Rule 1. I specifically inquired of Grimalkin on this in the thread in the Court area, and all the Court did was rule that abstentions had to be used to determine the result of any vote other than elections (link):

Abstentions are only defined as not counting as votes in TNP Law 26 with regards to elections and nothing else. There is no such distinction regarding abstentions with relation to everything else the Regional Assembly covers in the Constitution or TNP Law 26. Without such a distinction, the Court was forced to rule that abstentions still count against a required majority.

While this may appear to some to be the same as a "no" vote, there is a distinction, and that would allow a voting R.A. member to signify their presence in a matter on which they do not wish to vote for or against. My position would be that any removals under the two vote rule would have to be adjusted to take that reading of the Court's opinion into account. And it would affect some alleged removals.

On the question of the Speaker's right not to vote unless it affects the result of a matter; my view has not changed. It is closer to Govindia's position that Limi's position, which I believe was based on a misinterpretation of the Court's recent decision on Rule 1 of the Assembly. It has been the custom and practice of every single Speaker since the office was created until that recent decision, not to necessarily vote, or to merely state "present." Under my view of what the Court ruled based upon my specific inquiry to the Chief Justice, that practice should not have been affected since the Speaker could have just stated "present."

However, because of the confusion that was created by well-intentioned but incorrect rulings in the chair of the R.A. on that point, I think the fairest approach is to acknowledge that the Speaker and the acting Speaker could have voted "abstain" or "present" but did not do so because of the erroneous interpretation.

If you want to take it to the Court, I would be glad to ask the Attorney General, if we can find him before the next one takes office. Otherwise someone else will have to do so; or propose a rule if the desire is to codify it.

 

[Abstain]

I'm not asking for the office to be declared vacant or Gov to be removed from his position as Acting Speaker. I'm asking for those who did not vote at all in the two votes listed in flem's opening post be removed from the RA.

Maintaining RA membership to maintain a position in the government is only required for officials the delegate appoints so for everyone else elected or appointed RA membership is only needed to get elected or reelected.

The reason I quoted RA Rule 2 is that inaction by Gov on this matter means that an anticipated act by the Speaker (the removal of those who have missed 2 consecutive votes as required by law) has not been taken and is grounds to declare the Speaker absent. This absence would then allow the Speaker Pro Tempore to step up and preform these actions.

 

[Flemingovia]

I cannot understand why this simple act of maintainance is causing such a fuss. It Is a basic function of the speaker to keep the membership list up to date by removing inactive members.

The only reason for the heel-dragging is that Govindia sees his own name on that list.

This is rank hypocrisy on his part. In my chief justice thread he made a big fuss about recusal for reason of personal interest, and possibly helped to cost me that election. Now when he is personally in that position, he just says that he will "consult" Grosse.

Either govindia applies the rules as written, or he steps aside and lets Grosse make the decision. I recommend the latter, because grosse is a master at selective application of law, and as I have said will post a long and convoluted rationale why the rules do not apply in this case.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

It seems there are certain people in this region who feel that they are so "privileged" that the laws no longer apply to them when its disadvantageous to do so. This particular instance only reenforces that viewpoint. Frankly its a disgrace to the region for such things to occur and no amount of justification will make the basic facts go away.

 

[Govindia]

Previous Speakers didn't let their membership lapse. Now stop stalling.

You need to stop stalling and address the lack of transparency and openness before you go after others sir.

I am not refusing to remove any members at all. I was waiting for a opinion on the matter from Grosse.

Furthermore, you do not have any valid reason to call for MY removal when I continued the practises of past speakers You never went after them for not casting votes in the RA. Stop being a hypocrite.

As Grosse has ruled on the matter regarding my vote status and membership, it stands. No one else has targeted other Speakers for it, so stop being hypocrites about it.

As to the other people getting removed, I am working on Grosse to get the list sorted since he has the information on this spreadsheet.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

As Grosse has ruled on the matter regarding my vote status and membership, it stands. No one else has targeted other Speakers for it, so stop being hypocrites about it.

So, he is where all authority is vested?

I think we need to calm this down a little bit, nobody is (or should be) targeting or attacking anybody. A degree of civility would be most welcome. Attacking one another in such a way, doesn't really improve the situation.

Plus Gov, It would have been so much easier had you just decided to re-apply to join the regional assembly, as BW did when he was removed.

 

[Govindia]

As Grosse has ruled on the matter regarding my vote status and membership, it stands. No one else has targeted other Speakers for it, so stop being hypocrites about it.

So, he is where all authority is vested?

I think we need to calm this down a little bit, nobody is (or should be) targeting or attacking anybody. A degree of civility would be most welcome. Attacking one another in such a way, doesn't really improve the situation.

Plus Gov, It would have been so much easier had you just decided to re-apply to join the regional assembly, as BW did when he was removed.

I did not see any need to get me removed when I just followed what other Speakers had done without argument or opposition. It feels like a double standard is now only being applied to me which I feel is not right.

 

[Flemingovia]

As Grosse has ruled on the matter regarding my vote status and membership, it stands.

Well, I have been in TNP for eight years and even I think this is a first. We have had plenty of Rogue delegates who have put themselves above our constitution and laws, and have defied them. this is the first time we have had a Rogue Speaker.

 

[Flemingovia]

As Grosse has ruled on the matter regarding my vote status and membership, it stands. No one else has targeted other Speakers for it, so stop being hypocrites about it.

Plus Gov, It would have been so much easier had you just decided to re-apply to join the regional assembly, as BW did when he was removed.

Quoted for Truth.

It is quite something when Blue Wolf is shown to have the most respect for our laws and constitution.

who'd have thunk it?

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I have expressed an opinion, my opinion; it is not a ruling as far as I am concerned. I don't agree that I need to act as Speaker Pro Tempore at this time, and I explained what my view is (that both Limi and Gov has misinterpreted the situation that arose with the recent Court decision.)

I also expressed my opinion that had Limi and Gov properly read the limited scope of that Court decision as I quoted Grimalkin, then rulings from the then-Speaker Limi and now current Acting Speaker Govindia would not have occurred. In other words, people, there were wrong judgments made IMHO, and I don't agree with the assessments other have placed on the matter. The worse that can happen is to allow all then-members of the R.A. at the time of each vote who had wanted to vote "present" or "abstain" to do so for a short window of opportunity; and then, if there's still some of them who would not have chosen to vote on two consecutive matters (other than the various special elections since they could abstain under the court ruling), then they get removed.

That's just my $.02 worth. We know who did and did not vote under the guidance that was given. As far as I can tell, no actual results would be affected, just whether or not the people who wanted to not vote "for" or "against" wanted to vote "abstain" or "present." In my opinion, that is the only way to cure the breach of the protection of the Bill of Rights as to the equal treatment of the right to vote.

Now if it is determined that I am legally in the chair of the R.A. as SPT, then the above (and my earlier post) would constitute how I would handle the matter. However, I am not convinced that I have the legal authority to do so at this time.

To repeat, the Court specifically said through the Chief Justice that abstentions had to be taken into account in determining the result of votes other than elections. This was not followed, instead people were deprived of that option completely. The way the various votes actually went (two matters failed, the third passed unanimously) means that any abstentions would not have affected the results, and therefore the only issue is whether members should have had the opportunity to signify their presence for purposes of activity under the two-vote rule. That's it.

So, give those who are not recorded as having voted, a chance to record as being "present" (AMOM and Earth both attempted to do so and maybe one other during the actual votes) and then any of those who still don't respond and who are then shown to have missed two consecutive votes, theose should be removed.

The problem is that votes were conducted under erroneous rules. That has to be fixed before you can resolve this.

Hopefully, I've stated this in enough different ways that it can be understood by one means of explanation or another.