Motion to Recall the Delegate

It seems he wrote all the laws these days. :P

Well, as Haor Chall point out, we're getting ahead of ourselves anyway. First Elu needs to not log on, then the Speaker needs to start emergency elections, then someone needs to challenge directly to the Court. Then, and only then, can we rule on it...well unless someone asked for clarification now, that is.
 
flemingovia:
you see, that is the problem right there. "Prior notice" is not defined. You say ""telling one guy you might not be around for a few days in an off-hand conversation" does not count as Prior notice. Twice you say that you do not "think" this.

But a justice is not supposed to make up law on the fly. My question is, what legal basis you have for that definition of prior notice? The fact is the legal code offers no guidance on this.

I maintain that informing a member of the Council of Five (not just "one guy." You make it sound as if he just picked a person off the street) counts as giving prior notice.

Perhaps Grosse ought to enlighten us. I think he wrote that original clause.
Click to expand...
In the absence of a strict definition, the Court has to apply its own judgement to the situation - using existing law and previous precedent where applicable. Not sure why you think that is a problem.

Clearly there are differences of opinion, but I suggest now is probably not the appropriate time to get into that debate.

And, no disrespect to Grosse, but at this point his opinion would simply be his own opinion, nothing more.
 
Campaigning for the office of Delegate has basically already started, when it's not even clear what the situation will be yet. I find this a little concerning, and I want to be absolutely sure that Eluvatar is not the legal delegate, before we get even further ahead of ourselves, than some already are.
 
mcmasterdonia:
Campaigning for the office of Delegate has basically already started, when it's not even clear what the situation will be yet. I find this a little concerning, and I want to be absolutely sure that Eluvatar is not the legal delegate, before we get even further ahead of ourselves, than some already are.
Click to expand...
Exactly. If it gets to the Courts, it gets to the Courts. I'd be suprised if that happens myself, but until we reach that point (if we do), there isn't really anything more to say.
 
mcmasterdonia:
I don't know.

I mean, it's a possibility he is still going to return. I'm not sure how bad his area has been affected by the storm though, so that might be an issue to consider.
Click to expand...
If he's living in the useless State of Florida, Hurricane Sandy his hitting the Northeastern part of the US, not the Southeast.
 
Govindia:
mcmasterdonia:
I don't know.

I mean, it's a possibility he is still going to return. I'm not sure how bad his area has been affected by the storm though, so that might be an issue to consider.
Click to expand...
If he's living in the useless State of Florida, Hurricane Sandy his hitting the Northeastern part of the US, not the Southeast.
Click to expand...
Maine bro, Maine
 
Eluvatar has logged into the forums, but has yet to post anywhere. Also he's not logged into his nation which was last active 13 days ago.

Mandatory elections are now off the table but Elu can still, quite obviously, be recalled.
 
Govindia:
mcmasterdonia:
I don't know.

I mean, it's a possibility he is still going to return. I'm not sure how bad his area has been affected by the storm though, so that might be an issue to consider.
Click to expand...
If he's living in the useless State of Florida, Hurricane Sandy his hitting the Northeastern part of the US, not the Southeast.
Click to expand...
He's in the North-East
 
Govindia:
mcmasterdonia:
I don't know.

I mean, it's a possibility he is still going to return. I'm not sure how bad his area has been affected by the storm though, so that might be an issue to consider.
Click to expand...
If he's living in the useless State of Florida, Hurricane Sandy his hitting the Northeastern part of the US, not the Southeast.
Click to expand...
Okay, first off Eluvatar doesn't live in Florida or anywhere in the south-east. Secondly, it's really necessary to take snide remarks at random states that are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand? Yeah, no.

Not sure if anyone else noticed this but Eluvatar's nick was kicked off IRC last night, which is basically -always- online, so I'd say it'd be a rather likely hypothesis that he might have no power.
 
Oh, this is going to get mighty interesting. Mighty interesting. And entertaining too!

Addendum on Edit:

Technically speaking, Elu isn't in technical or legal default of the Delegacy.

Second, his location was hit hard by the recent storm.

Third, there are no real threats to the region that can promulgate a recall unless recalls can be called just for the hell of it.

Fourth, I agree with Flem that the recall card is all to easily played by using it when there is no legal basis.
 
Romanoffia:
Oh, this is going to get mighty interesting. Mighty interesting. And entertaining too!

Addendum on Edit:

Technically speaking, Elu isn't in technical or legal default of the Delegacy.
Click to expand...
Nobody said he was.

Romanoffia:
Second, his location was hit hard by the recent storm.
Click to expand...
Is this going to be the excuse now? The storm didn't hit 13 days ago. Eluvatar's absence preceded the storm by many days, we don't know that the storm is responsible for his continued absence, and even if it is that doesn't in any way excuse his prior absence or his inactivity even before he fell completely absent.

Romanoffia:
Third, there are no real threats to the region that can promulgate a recall unless recalls can be called just for the hell of it.
Click to expand...
Seriously? The threat to the region is that the Delegate has been absent for 13 days. I'd prefer not to wait for an actual coup to try to address this.

Romanoffia:
Fourth, I agree with Flem that the recall card is all to easily played by using it when there is no legal basis.
Click to expand...
There is always a legal basis for recall, in that there doesn't need to be a legal basis for recall. The Delegate didn't have to break any laws to be recalled. The Delegate has been extremely negligent by being absent for almost two weeks, leaving The North Pacific vulnerable to security threats and leaving the executive government at a total standstill.

ADDENDUM: I have edited the OP to reflect the current situation.
 
I don't believe Eluvatar runs on a computer when he is offline, his IRC nick uses the same servers as FriarTuck to run using a program most likely like this/
 
I have a pretty good idea from prior instances what major city he is in or near, and I'm sure I am not the only one who does.

I don't know the exact specifics, but I do know he seems to have a regular pattern of RL obligations that necessitates absences of this sort every so often. This was the case in the time since he was first made an admin prior to his service as Delegate, and as a matter of my personal observation, it is hard to know beforehand when this comes up, but it does. The only fault I see is that he should have been a bit clearer as to the amount of time, and making sure we had a idea of how long. Even if for security reasons he didn't want to be specific, some guidance would be better at this point.

In this instance, unless he was traveling elsewhere, he would have been in an area that had high wind warnings issued and was an area that was impacted by the superstorm. Even many in Canada have been or are being affected by the superstorm.

For the record, I did not draft the current language; I believe Elu is the draftsman of the current Constitution and Legal Code; all I did was critique both, and that was to minimize as much as possible the problems the original drafts of both would have presented.

As to the amount of time prior to a motion for recall due to absence, I believe the language quoted earlier gives exact guidance -- two weeks. A motion to recall is premature prior to that time.

And as to "political opportunism," I would suggest that those who might benefit from such a motion may or may not be the movant or a seconder to the motion.

And I do have a problem with sitting justices stating a specific public position on a matter that they know could come before the Court prior to a case be argued and submitted for a decision. Blue Wolf repeatedly does this ever since he was specially elected to the Court. The problem with trying to cite me as an example is that I haven't been on the Court in a long time, but I still have had a longer tenure on the Court than Blue Wolf does, so if other ask my opinion, which still happens, I'm not prejudicing any court proceeding as a sitting justice when I do express one. That's the difference.

In any event, I am prepared to move to table (as in indefinitely postpone) this motion should it not be withdrawn or held in abeyance until two full weeks have passed.
 
[Speaker hat on] Two weeks will have passed tomorrow, when this is going to a vote.

PS: Table means to put this to a vote in my country ;)
 
Imo, the recall motion and the abandoning of his post are two separate issues. The law seems to make the need for a recall motion for such grounds unnecessary but if the situation is nebulous, and in my opinion it is, we could recall Eluvatar and just get it over with.

But, according to many above, Elu has logged into the forum so the abandonment clock has restarted.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
In any event, I am prepared to move to table (as in indefinitely postpone) this motion should it not be withdrawn or held in abeyance until two full weeks have passed.
Click to expand...
You can move for that if you'd like, but according to RA Procedure (see here) if a recall motion is made and seconded it proceeds to a vote within two days. That doesn't say anything about a motion to table.
 
I am a little confused.

The 14 day automatic removal, doesn't mean a recall can't be voted on before that time. Which I think is what Grosse is saying...
 
[Speaker hat on] No further motions to do anything with this bill will take place, this recall will proceed to a vote as earlier schedule and a vote will open on the 1st of November. There is no reason this cannot proceed and no grounds for your motion, Grosse.
 
Gross is being typical Gross and sticking with the old formula of "if I make it long enough and incomprehensible enough, no one will read it and I can get away with anything". :P

I don't believe its actually based on any law, however.
 
This is what is currently shown for Eluvatar's forum account:
Last Activity Today, 4:23 PM
Member Avatar
Average Posts Per Day 2.2
Member's Local Time Oct 31 2012, 03:29 AM
Online? Offline
Click to expand...
Today would be the 30th GMT since I set the forum on GMT for convenience's sake.

Given that Elu has logged in the two week window would have to be measured now from this most recent log in.

8. A "vacancy" in an office occurs when the holder of it resigns, is removed, or abandons it . An office is abandoned when its holder does not log onto the regional forums for two weeks without prior notice. Vacancies are filled through a special election unless a it cannot be completed prior to the beginning of the appropriate scheduled election cycle. Pending an election, however, a vacancy may be temporarily filled as provided by the Constitution, this Legal Code, or a rule adopted by the appropriate body.
Click to expand...

Since Elu has logged in, it does not matter at the moment whether there was prior notice or not, or when the last earlier log in was, he logged in yesterday.

I therefore move that this motion to recall be tabled (in the American sense of laying aside and postponing all further consideration indefinitely.)
 
I don't see why. He hasn't logged onto his NS nation, which is 13 days inactive. He's yet to post on the forums, only show up, and he's yet to speak with anyone about anything regarding TNP.

As they say, the lights are on, but no one is home.

Edit: Oh, I think what GBM means by "table" and Gross means by "table" are two different things. Nevermind and carry on.
 
I can only assume Grosse is trying to deliberately confuse the issue. The 14 day absence provision results in the office being automatically made vacant - a recall is never required under that provision, it is a totally seperate thing.

The RA is perfectly entitled to motion for the recall of any official for any reasons the RA considers appropriate. And the argument put forward in the OP is a perfectly valid reason for a recall vote to be held.
 
Great Bights Mum:
Second the motion to table.
Click to expand...
To inquire, are you using the British/Australian or American usage of "table" - i.e.: are you seconding the motion to put this to a vote (british) or seconding the motion for it to be removed? (american)
 
Sooo... the motion has been seconded to go to vote... and seconded to be tabled...

Aside from the mutual contradiction causing the universe to implode, what happens...?
 
Haor Chall:
I can only assume Grosse is trying to deliberately confuse the issue. The 14 day absence provision results in the office being automatically made vacant - a recall is never required under that provision, it is a totally seperate thing.

The RA is perfectly entitled to motion for the recall of any official for any reasons the RA considers appropriate. And the argument put forward in the OP is a perfectly valid reason for a recall vote to be held.
Click to expand...
I think Haor Chall is correct in this. Elu's log in only covers the automatic vacancy. A recall may be called at any time and for any reason, or even for no reason at all.
 
Haor Chall:
Sooo... the motion has been seconded to go to vote... and seconded to be tabled...

Aside from the mutual contradiction causing the universe to implode, what happens...?
Click to expand...
The motion to table (if allowed by the speaker) should be voted on first. if that fails, then the main motion is voted on. Probably after Thanksgiving.
 
flemingovia:
Haor Chall:
Sooo... the motion has been seconded to go to vote... and seconded to be tabled...

Aside from the mutual contradiction causing the universe to implode, what happens...?
Click to expand...
Tthen the main motion is voted on. Probably after Thanksgiving.
Click to expand...
So we could.. potentially not have an able Executive Branch for more than a month? :tb1:

....this logic.. where is it?


Or we can just have a Recall vote and those who want to dismiss the vote can simply vote "Nay
Click to expand...

This would seem like the best solution.
 
flemingovia:
Haor Chall:
Sooo... the motion has been seconded to go to vote... and seconded to be tabled...

Aside from the mutual contradiction causing the universe to implode, what happens...?
Click to expand...
The motion to table (if allowed by the speaker) should be voted on first. if that fails, then the main motion is voted on. Probably after Thanksgiving.
Click to expand...
I'm going to post Rule 4 of RA Procedure here in its entirety since a few people evidently didn't follow the link:

Removing and/or Replacing Executive Officers
1. A legal motion may be filed to remove an executive officer.
2. Such a motion may name a replacement.
3. If seconded, such a motion will move to a vote within two days.
4. The vote on this motion will be open for five days.
Click to expand...
We could assume that the omission of language related to motions to table was an oversight, or we could assume the Regional Assembly didn't want urgent recalls hung up in endless red tape and stalling tactics. Whatever we assume the letter of RA Procedure is pretty clear: Once a motion to recall is made and seconded, it proceeds to a vote within two days and will be at vote for five days with no mention whatsoever of motions to table. Blue Wolf is right (a phrase you won't often hear me utter): If you oppose this motion, vote against it. The North Pacific doesn't have time for weeks of Grosse's stalling tactics.
 
No motion to table will be taking place, no such action exists in the RA procedures and neither is the reason cited for such a motion valid. The time which the delegate has been away has no bearing on a recall, the Regional Assembly is free to recall anyone it feels deserves it. This has been moved to a vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top