RA Procedure Rule 4 Amendment

Cormac

Cormac

TNPer
TNP Nation
Cormactopia III
Discord
Cormac#0804
Rule 4 of RA Procedure shall be amended to read as follows:

Removing and/or Replacing Executive Officers Government Officials
1. A legal motion petition may be filed to remove an executive officer a government official.
2. Such a motion petition may name a replacement if the government official in question is an executive officer tasked with a mandatory ministry.
3. If seconded such a petition is publicly signed by ten percent of the Regional Assembly's members, such a motion the petition will move to a vote within two days. The number of signatures needed will be determined from the number of Regional Assembly members at the time of the petition's initial publication.
4. The vote on this motion petition will be open for five days.
5. Such a petition will expire after seven days if it has not received the required number of signatures.
Click to expand...

Following recent attempts to recall the Speaker that were opposed by a vast majority of RA members, some suggested that it should be more difficult to get a recall motion to a vote without imposing a burden that would make recalls impossible. This amendment makes an attempt to strike that balance. Specifically:

1. It clarifies that this is RA Procedure for removing any government official, not just executive officers.
2. It requires 10% of RA members to sign a petition for recall before it can go to a vote, rather than allowing it to proceed to a vote after merely being seconded -- which could be a huge and counterproductive waste of the RA's time.
3. It sets recall petitions that don't receive enough signatures to automatically expire after a week, to avoid someone coming along a month later and pushing a no longer relevant recall forward with their signature.

Suggestions for revision are welcome.
 
Add a definition of members which more clearly specifies "members at the time of the petition's initial publication", same as our voting rules are, and I'm fine with it.
 
Also I apologise for supporting Kingborough's recall... I regret it, but it seemed like the right thing to do at the time. Not all the members of the assembly see things the same way.

I apologise to the entire North Pacific if my actions have caused the public opinion to be so heavily swayed in favour of making the government officials LESS accountable by making it significantly harder to get the ball rolling on removing them.
 
Chasmanthe:
Also I apologise for supporting Kingborough's recall... I regret it, but it seemed like the right thing to do at the time. Not all the members of the assembly see things the same way.

I apologise to the entire North Pacific if my actions have caused the public opinion to be so heavily swayed in favour of making the government officials LESS accountable by making it significantly harder to get the ball rolling on removing them.
Click to expand...
I was planning to go along with this anyways. Even if the recall had not been motioned upon and seconded, this is a pressing issue that can become a recurring problem.

Personally, I like it better than the other suggested solutions. Do you have a suggestion that would be better?
 
Yes, there was a suggested solution made a few weeks ago: Each member is only allowed to propose one recall motion per four-month period.
 
To be honest, TNP already has a huge culture against passing legitimate recalls and I would have to oppose this idea. As it stands we only just got Eluvatar out of office in what could have ended in a serious disaster for the region if it hadn't passed and Elu didn't return, and that was one of the most overwhelming cases for a recall yet - and it passed by one or two votes. I think this would only encourage that attitude TNP has against legitimate recalls.

I do see some need for it, but I think the cons outweigh the pros in this case.
 
Chasmanthe, I didn't even realize you had seconded that recall. This isn't about the merits of any particular recall, really, so much as ensuring that recall is possible but not abused. I did cite Kingborough's recall as an example but I'm sure there are others.

The reason I favor this solution is that it makes sense. A recall needs 2/3 support in order to pass the Regional Assembly; if it can't even get 10% support, it's definitely not going to pass the RA and would thus be a waste of the RA's time. As things currently stand, someone could decide they just want to propose a recall of Mcmasterdonia just to cause trouble and if they could find a second troublemaker the recall would go to a vote. Recall should be more difficult than that.
 
Chasmanthe:
Yes, there was a suggested solution made a few weeks ago: Each member is only allowed to propose one recall motion per four-month period.
Click to expand...
An individual limitation wouldn't really do anything. Any of us (even Durk) could find a handful of people willing to submit additional recall motions without much difficulty, if only by arguing that it would provide something interesting to do.
 
There's a serious problem about allowing a recall to designate the successor as part of the motion when it applies to any position outside of the executive or to any elected office.

It needs to be fixed.
 
Grosseschnauzer got to it before I could. The Legal Code only empowers the RA to replace Ministers of mandatory ministries: the MoD, the MoFA, the MoC, and a MoIIA type figure.

Legal Code Section 6.3:
Section 6.4: Mandatory Ministries

22. There will be an Executive Officer charged with the North Pacific's foreign affairs. They will ensure the continued operation of any embassies of the North Pacific.
23. There will be an Executive Officer charged with welcoming. They will be tasked with ensuring that nations founded in the North Pacific are appropriately greeted, that newcomers to the regional forum and to regional internet relay chats shall be welcomed and helped with any questions, and with the maintenance of regional FAQs.
24. There will be an Executive Officer charged with military affairs. They will carry out such legal missions as are authorized by the Delegate, expressly or categorically.
25. There will be an Executive Officer charged with governmental communications. They will report on events in the region.
26. An Executive Officer may sustain multiple roles defined by this Act.
27. The Regional Assembly may elect an Executive Officer should one of the roles defined by this act remain vacant for seven days or in connection with the Regional Assembly removing the Executive Officer charged with that role.
Click to expand...

To replace any other officers as part of a recall, we would also have to change the law.
 
Gaspo:
Chasmanthe:
Yes, there was a suggested solution made a few weeks ago: Each member is only allowed to propose one recall motion per four-month period.
Click to expand...
An individual limitation wouldn't really do anything. Any of us (even Durk) could find a handful of people willing to submit additional recall motions without much difficulty, if only by arguing that it would provide something interesting to do.
Click to expand...
That is not happening and it has not happened. Actually it's pretty difficult to get someone to support a recall motion! If you look at all the recent recall proposals, which you may or may not be aware of:

Recall of Tim proposed by Abbey Anumia, seconded by Alicia DiLaurentis, withdrawn
Recall of Kingborough proposed by Grosseschnauzer, seconded by Chasmanthe, failed 1 to 35
Recall of Eluvatar proposed by Cormac Stark, seconded by Govindia, passed 31 to 14
Recall of Grosseschnauzer proposed by Flemingovia, seconded by Blue Wolf II, failed 8 to 22
Recall of Eluvatar proposed by Romanoffia
Recall of Tim proposed by Govindia
Recall of Unibot proposed by Cormac Stark
Recall of Kiwi proposed by Flemingovia
Recall of FALCONKATS proposed by Blue Wolf II

There are of course more but that's as far as I've gone back to July 2012.
 
If that's the case, why is there a need for an arbitrary limitation? If it is a process that's not abused, and there's no evidence to indicate that it is likely to be abused, a clause limiting recalls per member of this body is completely unnecessary.

As to the issue raised by Grosse, I was going to comment on that, as well. There's a concept in survey design called a double-barrel question, where two elements are asked and it affects your data because people might agree with one part or the other, but will answer differently if forced to give one answer to both questions. The same is true here - I would gladly vote for a recall of, say, Biyah, given cause, but there's no way in hell I'd do that if that same vote mandated Biyah's replacement with JAL. You have to separate the two issues so that the removal and the new appointment are both independent expressions of the RA's true will, in order to preserve the integrity of the process.
 
I don't like clause 2. I know that is currently a clause in Rule 4 but as per my recent review of the Legal Code and more specifically the election laws this would contradict with the below.

Legal Code (Vacancy):
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...
 
The problem with clause 2 was an oversight on my part. I hope I've now addressed it adequately.

Personally, I don't like the idea of the Regional Assembly replacing recalled government officials at all. However, in light of Section 6.4, #27 of the Legal Code...

27. The Regional Assembly may elect an Executive Officer should one of the roles defined by this act remain vacant for seven days or in connection with the Regional Assembly removing the Executive Officer charged with that role.
Click to expand...
...I don't see any way around giving the Regional Assembly the power to do this in the case of mandatory executive ministries in the RA procedure that governs recalls. The Legal Code would first need to be changed. However, given that I don't particularly care for the recall-and-replace practice at all I certainly agree that it shouldn't be expanded to other offices.
 
I'd prefet 20%.

When I made the motion to recall Grosse a while back, I thought it would have had much greater support than it actually received. I think 20% is a good standard to have this type of vote prior to going to the full body.

It really removes the see a post, gang up on the alleged offender, and vote him/her out of office. But, TNP hasn't actually voted like that previously in these recalls so I think the issue is not the mob mentality it's voting on recalls that clearly do not have support amongst the RA.

If that is the aim of this change, I'd suggest a higher standard than 10%.
 
Interesting. My original idea was 20% but I thought most would see that as too high and went with 10% instead. What are others' thoughts on 20% as opposed to 10%?
 
Cormac Stark:
The problem with clause 2 was an oversight on my part. I hope I've now addressed it adequately.

Personally, I don't like the idea of the Regional Assembly replacing recalled government officials at all. However, in light of Section 6.4, #27 of the Legal Code...

27. The Regional Assembly may elect an Executive Officer should one of the roles defined by this act remain vacant for seven days or in connection with the Regional Assembly removing the Executive Officer charged with that role.
Click to expand...
...I don't see any way around giving the Regional Assembly the power to do this in the case of mandatory executive ministries in the RA procedure that governs recalls. The Legal Code would first need to be changed. However, given that I don't particularly care for the recall-and-replace practice at all I certainly agree that it shouldn't be expanded to other offices.
Click to expand...
Ah no. The mandatory ministries is separate from all other positions. The Mandatory Ministries clause allows the Assembly to appoint someone to a Cabinet position. The clause in Rule 4 allows the Assembly to recall and replace someone in the same motion throwing out elections all together for the offices of Speaker, Delegate, Vice Delegate, and Justices.
 
Hileville:
Ah no. The mandatory ministries is separate from all other positions. The Mandatory Ministries clause allows the Assembly to appoint someone to a Cabinet position. The clause in Rule 4 allows the Assembly to recall and replace someone in the same motion throwing out elections all together for the offices of Speaker, Delegate, Vice Delegate, and Justices.
Click to expand...
Well, the current Rule 4 is procedure only for recalling executive officers -- so I don't think it allows the RA to recall and replace the Speaker or Justices. It may allow the RA to recall and replace the Delegate and Vice Delegate, though, which I agree is a problem. My amendment clears up that problem by clarifying that the RA can only recall and replace executive officers tasked with mandatory ministries.
 
Chasmanthe:
Gaspo:
Chasmanthe:
Yes, there was a suggested solution made a few weeks ago: Each member is only allowed to propose one recall motion per four-month period.
Click to expand...
An individual limitation wouldn't really do anything. Any of us (even Durk) could find a handful of people willing to submit additional recall motions without much difficulty, if only by arguing that it would provide something interesting to do.
Click to expand...
That is not happening and it has not happened. Actually it's pretty difficult to get someone to support a recall motion! If you look at all the recent recall proposals, which you may or may not be aware of:

Recall of Tim proposed by Abbey Anumia, seconded by Alicia DiLaurentis, withdrawn
Recall of Kingborough proposed by Grosseschnauzer, seconded by Chasmanthe, failed 1 to 35
Recall of Eluvatar proposed by Cormac Stark, seconded by Govindia, passed 31 to 14
Recall of Grosseschnauzer proposed by Flemingovia, seconded by Blue Wolf II, failed 8 to 22
Recall of Eluvatar proposed by Romanoffia
Recall of Tim proposed by Govindia
Recall of Unibot proposed by Cormac Stark
Recall of Kiwi proposed by Flemingovia
Recall of FALCONKATS proposed by Blue Wolf II

There are of course more but that's as far as I've gone back to July 2012.
Click to expand...
Sorry for repeating myself like this but how many of the below examples do you suggest altering the law to prevent?

Note that only 3 of them went to a vote which means only 2 of them, presumably, were a waste of the assembly's time?

How much scrutiny is the assembly realistically going to give our executive officers if their powers to effect change are curtailed?
 
Speaker hat:

I will give this a further week, until 12th December, and then call for a second and a vote. Looking at the debate, I think a week ought to be enough to get this into shape.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top