Motion to recall the Speaker

[Grosseschnauzer]

I hereby move for the immediate recall of the Speaker of the Regional Assembly for violating the rights of nations of The North Pacific, in that his conduct have violated the following clauses of The Bill of Rights.

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.

10. Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.

11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.

The Speaker has chosen on more than one occasion to suppress the right of free speech, voting, and thereby, disregarded the provisions of the Bill of Rights. There being no actual emergency, he committed these acts contrary to Clause 11's limitation of power to vary from the governing documents of The North Pacific.

I therefore move for an immediate vote to recall the Speaker from office.

 

[Govindia]

Uh no he hasn't.

It's been clear cut policy and tradition to keep your thoughts on a bill in a separate thread outside the voting one. Even when I was Speaker I enforced this and you didn't complain.

 

[Belschaft]

The speakers current policy is quite certainly excessive, inane and unnecessary, but I believe this is a step to far. It would be far better if he simply moderated his position to something reasonable.

 

[Todd McCloud]

Nah.

 

[Haor Chall]

I move for this motion to be tabled.

 

[Cove]

Second the motion to table.

 

[Chasmanthe]

I second the motion to recall.


Addendum on edit: and I request this proceed to a vote of the RA as soon as is practicable.

 

[Abbey]

...seriously? Just...what? King's position is that you vote in the voting thread and you discuss in the discussion thread. I do not see why this is a violation of rights - the right to free speech does not mean that you can do whatever the hell you like. If people wouldn't insist on making comments in the voting thread, which is for voting then he wouldn't -have- to institute such a rule.

The Bill of Rights isn't a way of doing what you want, it's meant to give fundamental protections...the right to discuss in a voting thread is not one of them. 100% against this recall.

 

[Flemingovia]

It is certainly silly bugger season in TNP at the moment. And this takes the biscuit.

The speaker is doing his job, and doing it better than most. This is pure spite, and I hope the Regional Assembly recognises it as such and treats it accordingly.

 

[Reginald Carmichael]

I voice support for the motion to table this.

 

[Chasmanthe]

It's unfair to attribute some motions to pure spite (that have a legal justification for them posted) and not others (that have no legal justification for them posted)

 

[St George]

So because the Speaker doesn't allow lobbying in a voting thread, as opposed to discussion threads (you know, where commentary is meant to go) we're going to recall him?

Nah.

 

[punk d]

Not in favor of this motion but do favor the speaker following standard protocol for these motions.

 

[Govindia]

...seriously? Just...what? King's position is that you vote in the voting thread and you discuss in the discussion thread. I do not see why this is a violation of rights - the right to free speech does not mean that you can do whatever the hell you like. If people wouldn't insist on making comments in the voting thread, which is for voting then he wouldn't -have- to institute such a rule.

The Bill of Rights isn't a way of doing what you want, it's meant to give fundamental protections...the right to discuss in a voting thread is not one of them. 100% against this recall.

 

[Scandigrad]

Oh please.

 

[Todd McCloud]

What has four legs and has nothing to do with the TNP constitution? Tabled.

 

[Hileville]

No absolutely not.

 

[Biyah]

No.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

Let's put this to vote so we can put to bed, once and for all, the question of what the most useless recall vote in TNP history is.

 

[peoples empire]

I do not believe a recall is necessary in this instance.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

My second attempt to vote comply exact with the rules announced at the opening of that vote, even my first vote complied with the rule at first stated for that vote, and both have been struck because the Speaker believes it is attempting to pursuade anyone.
There's nothing in either attempt that was directed to anyone one else, just my emphatic belief that that recall motion is totally wrong and inappropriate.

That is an exercise of the right of free speech and trying to tell any member of the R.A. how to speak is a direct violation of the first clause of the Bill of Rights.

I can only surmise that the Speaker is trying to suppress my vote on that matter in order to influence the outcome of that vote to his liking.

Either he counts my vote as cast, or submit to a recall motion at every oppurtunity to the end of his term.

I'm not the one who violated the Bill of Rights; he is. And if he cannot rescind his contempt for the freedom of speech then he should be removed, no if and or buts.

 

[Cormac]

Let me be clear: I'm totally opposed to this recall. If Grosse wants to troll the Regional Assembly because he's not getting his way, he shouldn't be surprised when the Speaker stops him since it's the Speaker's job to maintain order in the RA.

That said, and for the millionth time, RA Procedure does not allow for a motion to table on recall motions. So while I oppose the recall motion I also oppose the motion to table because there can't be a motion to table.

 

[Haor Chall]

That said, and for the millionth time, RA Procedure does not allow for a motion to table on recall motions. So while I oppose the recall motion I also oppose the motion to table because there can't be a motion to table.

Yeah - sorry - in all honesty, my request to table was tongue in cheek. But this recall is stupid, and Grosse is also being stupid - so it seemed appropriate.

Having said that, I was going to come back and make a serious point. Whilst the recall is beyond daft, and I really don't see the Speaker has violated the Bill of Rights, I would say that the new voting rules are a little overly prescriptive and, sorry Kings, but I do think the Speaker has taken it a bit too far.

However, whilst discussion of the rules is undoubtedly in order, because they are a bit anal, this approach was only ever going to backfire. Grosse - Looking at your last few posts here and in the other thread I'm slightly concerned about your judgement on this, I think you might want to pause for breath a moment and take a step back on this one.

 

[Venico]

Thoroughly against and find this motion without sound reason.

 

[Tim]

Against.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

The speakers current policy is quite certainly excessive, inane and unnecessary, but I believe this is a step to far. It would be far better if he simply moderated his position to something reasonable.

with this completely, and tried to convince the Speaker of such yesterday.

I am completely against this motion.

 

[Romanoffia]

I support this motion to recall.

 

[Kingborough]

The Speaker has chosen on more than one occasion to suppress the right of free speech, voting, and thereby, disregarded the provisions of the Bill of Rights. There being no actual emergency, he committed these acts contrary to Clause 11's limitation of power to vary from the governing documents of The North Pacific.

I therefore move for an immediate vote to recall the Speaker from office.

I have not overturned or suspended or disregarded the legal code or the constitution. It is the constitution which grants me the powers to make rules.

6. The Speaker will administer the rules of the Regional Assembly. Where no rules exist, the Speaker may use their discretion.

Discretion being "freedom to act or judge on one's own" according to Google Dictionary. Therefore I am acting perfectly within its rules.

My second attempt to vote comply exact with the rules announced at the opening of that vote, even my first vote complied with the rule at first stated for that vote, and both have been struck because the Speaker believes it is attempting to pursuade anyone.

It should be common sense that I don't have to make a rule about huge brightly coloured text. I shouldn't have to have a rule on every little thing, it should just be pure common sense not to vote in giant purple letters.

There's nothing in either attempt that was directed to anyone one else, just my emphatic belief that that recall motion is totally wrong and inappropriate.

Fine, you don't like the recall. Go say so in the discussion thread, you do not need to vote in massive purple lettering to get that point across and it just makes you look immature.

That is an exercise of the right of free speech and trying to tell any member of the R.A. how to speak is a direct violation of the first clause of the Bill of Rights.

I am not in anyway telling you how to speak, you can speak how you want - in the appropriate place. Graphiti is illegal, yet it is a form of expression, writing etc often even used in political protest. Is arresting graphiti artists suppression of the freedom?

I can only surmise that the Speaker is trying to suppress my vote on that matter in order to influence the outcome of that vote to his liking.

Either he counts my vote as cast, or submit to a recall motion at every oppurtunity to the end of his term.

In summary if I don't count you highly immaturely cast huge purple nay, then you will spam the Regional Assembly with recalls every few weeks for the next two months?

I'm not the one who violated the Bill of Rights; he is. And if he cannot rescind his contempt for the freedom of speech then he should be removed, no if and or buts.

This isn't about the freedom of speech, which I have not violated. This is about you're personal contempt for me and authority. It disturbs me in one thread you can be "standing up for freedom" and in another on the same topic you are accusing the Speaker of the Regional Assembly, who also happens to be part of the army responsible for protecting your region, of assisting the elected Vice Delegate in couping the region by discounting your vote? [Evidence]

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Kingborough I think your rules on coloured text, and the size of the text, and not allowing punctuation, frankly take it too far. I urge you to reconsider them.

 

[Kingborough]

Punctuation is fine. THIS!!! is not. It should be common sense that you don't vote in huge coloured letters.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I don't see how it is an issue at all to be frank. It doesn't make it any harder for you to tell how he or she has voted. It doesn't disrupt the thread, like unnecessary conversation. All it does is highlight the vote more...

 

[Flemingovia]

Surely one point is, at least, the authority of the speaker. There is nothing in our laws about punctuation, colour etc, and nothing about lobbying in voting threads. King,as speaker, laid out the rules he would be conducting votes under.

Grosse kicked against the traces and chose to flout the authority of the speaker. King would have been remiss to let that go.

By the way, I think drawing attention to your vote with colour or size does count as lobbying in a voting thread.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I will not withdraw the motion; the Speaker seems to feel that this is his kingdom, and that he is not accountable to the members of the R.A.

That process of accountability is through recall motions. I hold that the Speaker abused his powers and has done so on more than one occasion, and as long as these abuses continue and are not addressed, I will continue to raise objection and seek votes by the R.A. to bring this Speaker into line.

In protest of his coloring size and punctuation rules, as of this moment all my posts will be in purple, in whatever font or size that suits my fancy. I might even adopt the style of Poltsamaa!!! who used triple punctuation marks everywhere; which means, if he should return and rejoin the R.A., he'd be in immediate violation of this Speaker's inane rules that abridge freedom of speech.

You started this Kingborough and it will continue until to fix the damage you've done. Don't forget I've been in TNP since 2004, so I am a very patient person.


In the meantime since there has been a second to the motion to recall, I believe I have the right under the rules to have the motion put to a vote.

 

[Flemingovia]

So childish. Honestly, I despair when this is the paddy thrown by a senior member of tnp.

 

[St George]

Either he counts my vote as cast, or submit to a recall motion at every oppurtunity to the end of his term.

You started this Kingborough and it will continue until to fix the damage you've done.

This is pathetic. Not content with doing nothing when you were AG, you're going to waste this Assembly's time with pointless recall after pointless recall. It's ridiculous, and if TNP allowed Bills of Attainder I'd be drafting one for you right.

What you're doing is tantamount to blackmail, and it's completely disgraceful for a senior member of the region to do.

 

[Kingborough]

I will not withdraw the motion; the Speaker seems to feel that this is his kingdom, and that he is not accountable to the members of the R.A.

That process of accountability is through recall motions. I hold that the Speaker abused his powers and has done so on more than one occasion, and as long as these abuses continue and are not addressed, I will continue to raise objection and seek votes by the R.A. to bring this Speaker into line.

In protest of his coloring size and punctuation rules, as of this moment all my posts will be in purple, in whatever font or size that suits my fancy. I might even adopt the style of Poltsamaa!!! who used triple punctuation marks everywhere; which means, if he should return and rejoin the R.A., he'd be in immediate violation of this Speaker's inane rules that abridge freedom of speech.

You started this Kingborough and it will continue until to fix the damage you've done. Don't forget I've been in TNP since 2004, so I am a very patient person.


In the meantime since there has been a second to the motion to recall, I believe I have the right under the rules to have the motion put to a vote.

This is not about using colour or punctuation elsewhere. This is about using it in voting threads to try and attract attention to your vote or antagonize.

 

[Hileville]

So childish. Honestly, I despair when this is the paddy thrown by a senior member of tnp.

Not just a senior member but the root admin of our forums as well.

This motion is ridiculous and I am absolutely disgusted by your behavior here, Grosse.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

He's our current root admin, not the root admin.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

I cannot recall another time in our history when the recall or threat of recall was the preferred action for every disagreement. I think Kingborough has been an excellent Speaker, and has been very efficient at his mostly thankless job. I believe it is within the Speaker's authority to make rules on voting. I do find the most recent set a little too nit-picky, but I support the Speaker's right to make the rule. It isn't hard to follow. But if Schnauzers or anyone else thinks the rule is unconstitutional, then it should be a matter for the Court to decide first. A recall is assuredly premature.

 

[Mahaj]

...seriously? Just...what? King's position is that you vote in the voting thread and you discuss in the discussion thread. I do not see why this is a violation of rights - the right to free speech does not mean that you can do whatever the hell you like. If people wouldn't insist on making comments in the voting thread, which is for voting then he wouldn't -have- to institute such a rule.

The Bill of Rights isn't a way of doing what you want, it's meant to give fundamental protections...the right to discuss in a voting thread is not one of them. 100% against this recall.

when saying "I vote Aye" is a violation of the rules, perhaps the rules need changing.