Second Proposal to recall Pasargad from his position on the Council

I can see enough in that for a ticking off. The main issue seems to be his use of the word "official" in the TG. A recall is a pretty major step, particularly for one who has been on the SC for so long.

If, as BW has said, this issue has been live for over a month, but the SC has not even until just now opened a thread to discuss this:

Blue Wolf:
Nope, there wasn't even a topic started in the SC forum about recalling Pasargrad.
Click to expand...

Then it seems as though the SC has not been terribly proactive in maintaining its own discipline. To jump straight to recall seems severe, and I wonder what else is going on here in Security Council politics?
 
Blue Wolf II:
He abused his authority with the Security Council twice now, threatening nations with bans in our name but without our consent. This would be the primary root of the question, we should allow someone who threatens others in the Security Council's name but without consulting with us first to be a part of the Council?
Click to expand...
Finally some sanity in this thread. That is the question. I would feel better if Pasargad gave some clear reasoning about why he thought it was logical to not consult the SC about his actions and to unilaterally threaten a nation with banning. This was also before he had exceeded the Vd's endorsements.
 
Kiwi:
This certainly isn't a conspiracy by any means. Elu originally posted the recall if I recall correctly and as chair of the SC BW is doing his job in following it up.
Click to expand...
i c wat u did thar
 
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.
 
if this thread is being archived, can my post above be moved to the original recall motion thread?
 
I don't see why this thread would be archived, Punk D. Newmist has proposed a recall, that motion has been seconded. By TNP law this proposal must now go to vote.
 
I do not intend to bring two near-identical recall motions to a vote. I think one is quite enough to resolve this issue. At the moment, I am inclined to progress this one, since it refers to the most recent incident.
 
Bill of Rights:
5. All Nations of The North Pacific have the right to be protected against the abuse of powers by any official of a government authority of the region. Any Nation of The North Pacific has the right to request the recall of any official of a government authority of the region in accordance with the Constitution, that is deemed to have participated in such acts.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine.
 
flemingovia:
I can see enough in that for a ticking off. The main issue seems to be his use of the word "official" in the TG. A recall is a pretty major step, particularly for one who has been on the SC for so long.

If, as BW has said, this issue has been live for over a month, but the SC has not even until just now opened a thread to discuss this:

Blue Wolf:
Nope, there wasn't even a topic started in the SC forum about recalling Pasargrad.
Click to expand...

Then it seems as though the SC has not been terribly proactive in maintaining its own discipline. To jump straight to recall seems severe, and I wonder what else is going on here in Security Council politics?
Click to expand...
Flem, there's a problem when an SC member threatens another member without the proper sanctioning of the rest of the Council. It is a scary moment for people when you have someone telling you that you will be ejected in 72 hours... it is a VERY serious matter that is nothing to scoff at. I highly doubt that politics play a massive role in this matter and I believe that it is being emphasized.

At this moment, my concern seems to have gone unanswered overall by Pasargad. Blue Wolf countered Pasargad's claim and as a result, I remain unconvinced by Pasargad's comments. While I was considering abstaining from the vote earlier, certain matters have risen:

1. Pasargad admitted he sent the telegram to Newmist.
2. The disregarding by Pasargad in his Response thread about how GBM also sent telegrams AFTER Pasargad and further action by the Security Council to reduce Newmist's endorsements.
3.. Recent actions and charged comments by Pasargad that have me concerned about the conduction of said member.

Such obscuring of the truth leaves me with much concern about Pasargad acting as a Security Council member. As the vote draws near, I will be watching this matter very closely as new information appears.
 
Dear Newmist,

I am very sorry about the TG I sent you. I completely misunderstood your intentions in the gathering of endorsements. I never meant to infringe upon your rights as a resident of TNP. I hope you can look past this incident and enjoy a long and fulfilling stay here. Please accept my apologies.

Pasargad
 
Seeing a motion and a second, a vote has been opened on this matter, and may be found HERE. This thread is being moved to the Meeting Chambers, the place where motions are debated.
 
the honorable speaker has chosen not to mention in the recall vote topic that SC has failed to support the motion for recall , i would like to register my protest .and state on record that withholding facts is never a good decision.
 
Withholding facts? I included a link to the debate thread in the voting thread, as is the norm. I'm not going to get into the habit of selectively including facts that support one side or the other. The voting thread is for voting, and my function in it is simply to open it, close it, and count the votes, NOT to attempt to influence the results.
 
Mentioning the multiple motions was necessary to explain the process of the vote, and clarify which motion was at vote; both essential things to performing my official duty in opening the vote. A related action by another governmental institution in a completely separate branch is, quite simply, not.
 
You're entitled to your opinion about what ought to be in the OP of a voting thread, and when you are Speaker, you can write anything you like. However, I will contest your claim that I am "suppressing facts" - if I had removed BW's post from the debate thread, that would be suppression. I could even see a case where if I left out the link to the thread about the similar motion (not the one at vote) how that might be construed as suppression. However, it is not the duty of the Speaker to inform RA members about the issue, simply to present it for a vote. If they are interested in hearing one side of the issue or another, they can go to the debate thread, which I have handily linked for them.
 
according to TNP law the recall of SC member is done when
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 super majority vote.
Click to expand...
it is clearly mentioned that SC member can only be recalled if he is considered a Security Risk
and clearly according to TNP LAW is is the role of SC to inform RA of a security threat to region
5. Advising the region of a security threat.
a. The Council may advise the Delegate and the Speaker of the Assembly concerning existing or potential security threats to the Region. The nation will be declared a security risk by a majority of votes
Click to expand...
so according to TNP law it is the duty of SC to inform RA regarding a nation being a security risk and since recall of a SC members should be based on the member being a security risk so when SC rejects a recall motion in this case it not a decision by another government institution but an important fact that should be considered in recall vote of SC member .
 
The RA is not voting on whether to terminate your membership in the Regional Assembly, Pasargad. The RA is voting on whether or not to recall you from the Security Council. As such, the relevant law is not found in the Security Council procedures but in the Constitution:
Constitution:
3. The Regional Assembly may remove a government official from office by a two-thirds majority vote.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top