Council Elections

Is he actually "out of the position", if he loses his WA status. I think he needs to be recalled for that to be true. >_>

I believe the Constitution identifies him as "unable to serve", but the Constitution makes no mention of whether being "unable to serve" can be temporary or not.

I would imagine that availability to serve is not a requirement which can be satisfied by "I'll get there soon". He is, or he isn't.

There is some precedent from the recent incident with Tim. Even though he lost his WA status, he was assumed by the (apparent) majority of the region to have remained as the Vice Delegate, and a motion to recall was brought to have him removed.

Of course, this was never brought up in Court; it was just a convenient consensus. Also, the constitutional provision Uni mentions does not appear to apply to Tim's case, though it may potentially apply to this one depending on how one defines "removed" and "unable to serve":

8. If the Delegate is removed or unable to serve, the Vice Delegate will assume the duties of the Delegate. If the Vice Delegate is also unable to serve, the first available person in the line of succession will assume the duties of the Delegate.

Click to expand...

well okay, it don't matter now!