Motion to Recall Pasargad

Crushing Our Enemies:
Much as I usually hate red tape, this issue doesn't seem particularly urgent. Unless someone can convince me that there's a reason it shouldn't wait a week or two, I'd be interested in seeing the result of the SC vote before I decide whether to support or oppose a motion to recall.
Click to expand...
:agree:
 
i wrote this in the other thread which has since been archived

Ok - I see the SC works a wee bit different than the Guardians of TWP. In TWP, if any guardian sees a potential threat and TG's that threat they certainly do so under the 'official' guise of TWP. If you receive a TG from Eli, it will certainly look different than if you see it from me, much less the chocolately loving goodness of Darkesia.

Threatening nations with bans would be no threat in TWP, but merely a statement of fact, for any nation heading close to the cap. We've got a number of residents who are habitual offenders and once they've replied we usually can reign them in without a ban. That's why I couldn't see where Pasargad was in error in this or the previous matter. I looked at the other thread and saw Elu's TG's were much more flowery and felt better after reading them, but the point was still the same - please stop collecting endorsements.

However, this is not TWP and I think I understand better the protocol in TNP. It appears that from SC members that have commented the SC needs to vote on a nation prior to sending a threatening TG ban, and if so then I can see where Pasargad overstepped his authority.

I'm going to abstain from any vote on this one as I think my outside perspective really biases me from this. What I will say is that a vote by the SC on this matter including a resolution from the majority would be helpful prior to the RA voting on the matter.
Click to expand...

Still planning to abstain in this particular vote if/when it comes to a vote.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Much as I usually hate red tape, this issue doesn't seem particularly urgent. Unless someone can convince me that there's a reason it shouldn't wait a week or two, I'd be interested in seeing the result of the SC vote before I decide whether to support or oppose a motion to recall.
Click to expand...

Considering how much this has been discussed in the RA, I don't see why more time has to be spent waiting. Oh well. Let the SC come to it's decision and we will see from there.

Thank you Blue Wolf for updating us.
 
Blue Wolf II:
A 2/3rd majority of SC members must vote in order for any recall recommendation to be valid, of that 2/3rds an additional 2/3rds of the votes must be "aye" for the recommendation to pass, and the Council member being put up for recall may vote, which is sort of an oversight, if you ask me.
Click to expand...

Law:
14. A majority of the Council may vote to determine that the continued membership in the Council of a member poses a security risk to The North Pacific and request approval from the Regional Assembly to remove the member from the Council.
Click to expand...

So no that's not entirely correct. I also see no reference to a 2/3 quorum...
 
4.The termination of a member from the Security Council.
a. The Assembly may terminate an exemption of a particular Council member from Regional Assembly membership for being a Security Risk by a two-thirds supermajority vote.
b. The minimum period of discussion is two days and the minimum voting period is three days. A two-thirds supermajority vote cast is required.
Click to expand...

Ah, that's what I get for skimming. XD
 
Blue Wolf:
We are, however we are still waiting for Schnauzer and Enif to vote.
Click to expand...

k4Ss1.jpg
 
Grimalkin:
Since Grosse will now be on leave for however long, how will that impact the SC vote?
Click to expand...
I assume there's a given voting period and I think we can also assume that Enif won't vote either. So pretty much we're going to sit and wait for however long the voting period takes to expire.
 
I'm not really too sympathetic on a further 12 hours of heel dragging on this matter. It was brought up in early to mid December.
 
Blue Wolf II:
and I most likely will within the next 12 hours.
Click to expand...

That was 30 hours ago at the time of this post. I think the patience of the Regional Assembly with the Security Council has worn thin. As such, seeing a motion to vote and a second, a vote will be opened on this matter today.
 
The Security Council vote has closed. The vote has failed with a final tally of one aye (Eluvatar), three nays (Former English Colony, Great Bights Mum, and Pasargad), and three abstains (Romanoffia, Blackshear, and Blue Wolf II) with two members (Grosseschnauzer and Enif) not voting.

The RA may still recall Pasargad themselves, the vote just won't have the SC's official backing.
 
Blue Wolf II:
The Security Council vote has closed. The vote has failed with a final tally of one aye (Eluvatar), three nays (Former English Colony, Great Bights Mum, and Pasargad), and three abstains (Romanoffia, Blackshear, and Blue Wolf II) with two members (Grosseschnauzer and Enif) not voting.

The RA may still recall Pasargad themselves, the vote just won't have the SC's official backing.
Click to expand...
So just to be clear, we waited for over a month for five out of the Security Council's nine members to either abstain or not vote?

I can't speak for the rest of the Regional Assembly but I will be far less inclined to wait for the Security Council's input the next time something like this comes up. And I am voting in favor of recalling Pasargad not only for overstepping his authority as a Security Council member but to reduce our number of unelected bureaucrats with far too much power who seem to see no urgency whatsoever in being accountable to the Regional Assembly.
 
Cormac - I think that's a reason to keep Pasargad in. He certainly was proactive in this situation. I'd much rather a situation where we need to ask someone to cool it versus having a number of people who simply do not act or are extremely slow to act.

But, in Grosse's case there appears to be some health issues that probably impacted his time over the last month or so.
 
The SC had a number of issues to discuss with regard to the incident. I had lots of questions that needed answers and it was a decision that I quite frankly agonized over.

On one hand there was Newmist's rights as a member of TNP. On the other was an SC member who believed Newmist to be a threat to regional security. Did Pas overstep his authority? Did Newmist suffer on account of it? I think the fact that Newmist continued to gather endorsements for weeks after receiving Pas's message indicates to me that Newmist was still exercising his rights. Is making an nation feel intimidated a serious enough infringement on its rights to warrant a recall?

In the end I decided that while Pas handled the situation poorly, he acted out of a concern for regional security. I believe that if the region ever comes under threat, Pas will be an asset to our security.
 
This is not the first time that he's stepped over the line, and it will not be the last. I certainly do think that using one's position and authority to intimidate a citizen who has committed no infraction does indeed warrant a recall.
 
Grimalkin:
This is not the first time that he's stepped over the line, and it will not be the last. I certainly do think that using one's position and authority to intimidate a citizen who has committed no infraction does indeed warrant a recall.
Click to expand...
That is a judgement call, and one I truly did not take lightly. TNP wants the SC to police endotarters. The region expects us to be on top of it, and put a stop to any possible takeover attempts. On the whole, SC members get nervous when nations tart up the region. It cannot be denied that sometimes tarters are up to no good. From way, way back, the impulse has usually been "ban 'em."

Part of my role, both as delegate and SC member has been engaging endotarters in a dialogue to help them understand how things work around here. It has saved dozens of nations from the likelihood of being ejected or banned. Other TNP delegates and SC members have done the same thing. Some of us are more patient than others. Pas' communications with tarters was quite heavy-handed. However, it was not effective. Over the next few weeks Newmist's endo count continued to rise until he was a few endorsements short of surpassing the VD. At that point, Pas wasn't the only one recommending a ban.

I had to consider, what harm did Newmist suffer? Was he actually ejected or banned for tarting? How intimidated was he? He did not actually stop tarting until my second or third TG when I spelled out for him exactly what was going down. This was weeks after Pas' message. Maybe I intimidated him?

You see, I have an issue with the notion of "committed no infraction." When does an endotarter commit an infraction? Since we handle situations on a case-by-case basis, it is always a judgement call. I suppose we could just sit back and wait for a tarter to pass up the VD, then slap a ban on him. I guess that's what goes on in other GCRs. I just think it is preferable for the SC or delegate to try to TG tarters before it gets to that point.

But the bottom line for me was that Pas' sole intent was to protect the delegacy. Once Newmist declined to respond to Elu's initial TG, I think Pas was truly concerned for the safety of the region. For me, that dedication outweighs a couple of overzealous and possibly premature TGs to tarters. You cannot deny he is a SC member for whom security is job #1.
 
Cormac Stark:
I can't speak for the rest of the Regional Assembly but I will be far less inclined to wait for the Security Council's input the next time something like this comes up. And I am voting in favor of recalling Pasargad not only for overstepping his authority as a Security Council member but to reduce our number of unelected bureaucrats with far too much power who seem to see no urgency whatsoever in being accountable to the Regional Assembly.
Click to expand...
so SC members have too much power?
can you name some of these so called powers?
isn't it strange that RA who is also not elected by TNP nations holds the power to remove longest serving member of SC of TNP is that democratic?,many of RA members are holding office in another regions of the nation states which also makes me wonder when members of government and army of other regions are voting in favor of my removal .i very much like a law introduced so that before becoming members of RA applicants should disclose their positions past and present in other regions .that will clearly be beneficial to TNP and its residents and forum members.why shouldn't members of RA be accountable to TNP residents ?who elected them to represent TNP that is the question?
it is clear that any group of 10-20 individuals can easily manipulate TNP RA ,so SC is there to preserve TNP for all its resident not onlyfor RA members and their IRC chat club.
 
Pasargad:
So SC members have too much power?
Can you name some of these so called powers?
Isn't it strange that the RA, who is also not elected by TNP nations, holds the power to remove longest serving member of the SC of TNP? Is that democratic? Many of the RA members are holding office in other regions of NationStates, which also makes me wonder which members of government and armies of other regions are voting in favor of my removal. I would very much like a law to be introduced so that before becoming members of the RA, applicants would disclose their positions, past and present, in other regions. That will clearly be beneficial to TNP and its residents and forum members. Why shouldn't members of RA be accountable to TNP residents? Who elected them to represent TNP, that is the question?
It is clear that any group of 10-20 individuals can easily manipulate the TNP RA, so the SC is there to preserve TNP for all its residents not only for RA members and their IRC chat club.
Click to expand...

Okay, now that your post has been fixed so I can read it, I will respond to some of the points.
Pasargad:
Isn't it strange that the RA, who is also not elected by TNP nations, holds the power to remove longest serving member of the SC of TNP? Is that democratic?
Click to expand...
It is in the constitution that the RA has the ability to recall any member of government, including the SC. Given that the SC is not elected and has no term limits, it is reasonable to have some method of getting them out of office if the RA feels a bad job is being done. It is most certainly democratic to have such an ability granted to the RA.
Pasargad:
Many of the RA members are holding office in other regions of NationStates, which also makes me wonder which members of government and armies of other regions are voting in favor of my removal. I would very much like a law to be introduced so that before becoming members of the RA, applicants would disclose their positions, past and present, in other regions. That will clearly be beneficial to TNP and its residents and forum members. Why shouldn't members of RA be accountable to TNP residents? Who elected them to represent TNP, that is the question?
Click to expand...
The RA is drawn from people who want to be active in TNP. They swear an oath to TNP. But aside from that, what bearing does any of this have on *your* actions?
Pasargad:
It is clear that any group of 10-20 individuals can easily manipulate the TNP RA, so the SC is there to preserve TNP for all its residents not only for RA members and their IRC chat club.
Click to expand...
So... it may very well be true that a group could influence the voting in TNP. But TNP made a *choice* to be open to others and their participation in the region. And if you don't like it, then you have to be willing to work within the laws of TNP and try to change things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top