Inquiry on the denial of recall motion to vote

punk d

punk d

TNPer
-
-
Silly String denied the motion to recall of Gaspo for a number of reasons, but one reason struck me wherein she stated that the motion was certain to fail.

Will the current Speaker and his deputies be making judgments on future recall motions and decide whether or not to bring them to the floor based upon if they believe a motion is passable or not?

If the answer is yes, what tools will be used to make such determinations?
 
You know, its funny you mentioned it, because I asked the Court about this once. Here was the ruling:

It's very long:
Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Blue Wolf II on the Speakers Powers​

The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by Blue Wolf II.

The Court took into consideration the Relevant Section of the Constitution of the North Pacific:

Constitution:
6. The Speaker will administer the rules of the Regional Assembly. Where no rules exist, the Speaker may use their discretion.
Click to expand...

The Court opines the following:

The court has before it the seemingly simple question of whether the Speaker is within his rights to end debate on proposal unilaterally, potentially barring motions to vote, without giving cause. The Court confines its opinion on this matter to the facts of this case in particular, in which the proposal which was closed was highly controversial and prompted not-insignificant Moderation actions. The court will, however, clarify its understanding and opinion of the Speaker's discretion with regard to closing discussions, so that future Speakers will have some guidance going forward.

Looking first to the case at hand, we find a thread seeking to amend the Bill of Rights to legalize extrajudicial action against a particular citizen. This proposal would not have passed Constitutional muster, and would have been in direct conflict with the very document it sought to amend. It could never have become law. As such, it is reasonable to say that the discussion in question lacked merit, viability, and legality. This finding will have bearing on our final ruling.

The Constitution grants discretion to the Speaker as follows:
Constitution:
6. The Speaker will administer the rules of the Regional Assembly. Where no rules exist, the Speaker may use their discretion.
Click to expand...
The Constitution, Legal Code, and RA Rules are all completely devoid of any additional reference to the Speaker's discretionary powers. Nor are there any rules outlining how the Regional Assembly's business is to be conducted, which have bearing on this matter. As such, the Constitution's grant of discretion to the Speaker in administering the Regional Assembly is the only binding law on this issue.

The question is raised, however, as to whether or not the actions taken using this discretionary power violate the Bill of Rights. This Court believes that they do not. Nations do possess a right to freedom of speech, and the government may not impede that right, but this restriction must be balanced against the demands of a civilized society, which encourages equal treatment of all its citizens. Regardless of the personal feelings of any Regional Assembly member, the proposal in question was a targeted attempt to discriminate against a member of the region. In fact, the proposal would have violated several elements of the Bill of Rights and Legal Code. Furthermore, the target of this proposal had repeatedly asked for the harassment he felt he was experiencing to cease. Under these circumstances, the Speaker's actions are not a violation of the Bill of Rights for one simple reason:
Bill of Rights:
. . . The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.
Click to expand...
The Speaker's actions were permitted under his discretion, and using his judgment he acted in the best interests of the region. If any Nation feels that the actions of a government official are in violation of these laws, the proper recourse is a recall proceeding, not a Court proceeding. Particularly not in circumstances such as these.

With that decided, the Court would take this opportunity to comment more broadly on the powers of the Speaker. Under the aforementioned Constitutional clause, the Speaker is granted broad discretion, where no rules exist, to administer the Regional Assembly as he or she sees fit. Under the Bill of Rights segment also mentioned previously, the Court believes that all government officials are obligated by law to act in good faith in discharging their duties. The Court believes that the Speaker does possess the right to unilaterally table proposals, if their continued debate is not reasonably in the best interests of the region. The Constitution grants this discretion, and the Bill of Rights in effect obligates the Speaker to exercise said discretion if he or she feels it is appropriate. If the Nations of The North Pacific disagree, the procedure for Recall is quite clear, and as has been demonstrated over the past few months, is quite accessible. Legal review of the Speaker's discretionary decisions is not, generally speaking, necessary.
Click to expand...
 
This issue has also been brought up during the debate of the proposed new RA procedures, which address it by including a way for a percentage of the RA to force a vote on a motion.
 
That would be in keeping with parliamentary procedure. The members of a legislative body can override the ruling of the presiding officer.
 
My question is directly targeted at the Deputy Speaker's comments related to the likelihood of the motion passing or not. I do understand the discretion aspect of the office based upon the ruling BW cited, but if looking at recent recalls, many of those were disapproved by wide margins.

Is the Speaker's office making a change in policy so that a particular threshold must be met before the Speaker's office (above the normal motion protocol) will move future recalls to a vote?
 
punk d:
Will the current Speaker and his deputies be making judgments on future recall motions and decide whether or not to bring them to the floor based upon if they believe a motion is passable or not?
Click to expand...
I cannot speak for the Speaker.

For myself, though: I would have allowed this recall to proceed had it either been likely to succeed or not been scheduled such that it would end very shortly before the end of an election cycle, with the election of a new person to that position.

But the speaker's office has the power to end debate unilaterally - this is established by precedent.
 
Silly String, you missed the 2nd question which is at the heart of the matter.

You can understand that if someone says the sky is red, it doesn't necessarily make it so. You have said that you believe this recall was not likely to pass. That's fine, you're entitled to that belief, but what is that belief based on? And as I said further:

My question is directly targeted at the Deputy Speaker's comments related to the likelihood of the motion passing or not. I do understand the discretion aspect of the office based upon the ruling BW cited, but if looking at recent recalls, many of those were disapproved by wide margins.

Is the Speaker's office making a change in policy so that a particular threshold must be met before the Speaker's office (above the normal motion protocol) will move future recalls to a vote?
Click to expand...
 
Punk, give it a rest. Clearly, the likelihood of the motion to pass was not the deciding factor in SillyString's decision to close debate on the motion, and does not portend gross abuses of power in the future. I agree with her decision, and everything she's said in this thread.

For the record, I'm not really back yet. I'll be online for a couple days, but will not resume my duties until the end of my scheduled leave of absence.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Punk, give it a rest. Clearly, the likelihood of the motion to pass was not the deciding factor in SillyString's decision to close debate on the motion, and does not portend gross abuses of power in the future. I agree with her decision, and everything she's said in this thread.

For the record, I'm not really back yet. I'll be online for a couple days, but will not resume my duties until the end of my scheduled leave of absence.
Click to expand...
Give it a rest? You know asking a question is not a crime of the utmost proportion, is it? I mean you've asked a number of questions after decisions made by the court. Should my reply to you be 'give it a rest'? I seem to recall that a recall was started against me and failed miserably - which your office did not use its intuition to derail said recall - because some folks were not happy with the response I gave to your question.

And yet, in this instance where I question the actions of your office, the first words you choose are 'give it a rest'.

Where I come from, we call that hypocrisy.

This is a legit question.

Silly String says 'intuition' but in no other recall motion was her or your 'intuition' used to stop those votes from happening. If this is not a true statement, please correct me. She also stated 'no' in response to a change of policy that you all will be using intuition in the future. BW cited a ruling wherein the court gave the Speaker broad powers in tabling motions. Your office, during your tenure has sought to streamline and make things more efficient and I'd say, transparent.

This decision runs afoul of that track record and aim in my opinion. Hence, why I questioned the decision, which is something I believe I have a right to do and I find both of your responses wanting.

And I feel the RA deserves better. But you've answered the question and there it is. Unlike some, I won't be rolling out recalls because I disagree with a decision. I'm just disappointed in the basis of this decision.
 
punk d:
Silly String says 'intuition' but in no other recall motion was her or your 'intuition' used to stop those votes from happening. If this is not a true statement, please correct me.
Click to expand...
If you read my post again, notice that I'm saying the likelihood of the proposal to fail was not the reason it was denied. She had another reason, which she stated clearly, and that's the one that matters. The fact that the proposal has 0 chance of passing is just decoration.

The policy is that this office will close debate on a proposal when it is in the best interest of the region to do so. SillyString has fulfilled that policy admirably.
 
COE,

The person who is not reading posts is you. I don't hesitate in saying that because if you read my first post, you'll see that I said:

Silly String denied the motion to recall of Gaspo for a number of reasons, but one reason struck me wherein she stated that the motion was certain to fail.
Click to expand...

Silly String mentioned other reasons for denying the recall vote, we agree. I'm not missing that in her post or yours in this thread.

The particular reason, of many, that struck me as odd is the one I'm questioning here. The other reasons she cited, notsomuch, like the fact that the recall vote would end in close proximity to the end of the Judicial election cycle. That makes sense.

But, one of the most important tools we, as RA members, have at our disposal to ensure that our elected officials are accountable to us is recall. If your office is going to justify, even in part, not taking a recall motion to vote because of intuition that's not an approach I can support.
And by support I don't me recalling you or your deputies, I mean in subsequent elections supporting Speakers who will take a different approach.

That's my opinion, others may have no problem with Silly String's decision, but I have asked here to get clarification. She provided it and I'm glad she was direct in her response. I appreciate that. Just doesn't mean I agree with it.
 
Huh?

Her exact statement:

After considerable thought, this motion is denied. The vote on it would close a mere day or two prior to the end of elections, and is moreover certain to fail. I decline to waste the RA's time.
Click to expand...

It would seem that in the first sentence she declines the motion. In the second sentence appear to be the reasons for denying the motion. The third appears to be the principle supporting her reasons for denying the motion.

Look, her words are plain as day. Part of her reasoning was that she does not believe this will pass. That's her words. You can't change her words because you don't like what they imply...or don't like what they actually are saying.

And you can't say it's not part of her reasoning when she in fact states that it was.
 
I would suggest that SillyString made her judgement based upon the lack of any debate or interest in the proposal, that it received no seconding motions, and the fact that no actual reasons for the recall were provided.

Putting the motion to vote would have been a massive waste of everyone's time. Better to reinforce the principle that nonsense can and will be dealt with appropriately.
 
Belschaft:
I would suggest that SillyString made her judgement based upon the lack of any debate or interest in the proposal, that it received no seconding motions, and the fact that no actual reasons for the recall were provided.

Putting the motion to vote would have been a massive waste of everyone's time. Better to reinforce the principle that nonsense can and will be dealt with appropriately.
Click to expand...
You can suggest all you wish, but desperate post-facto attempts at justification will not wash. The fact is that SS gave her reasons for the shutting down of this debate. Let's look at what SS actually said:

and is moreover certain to fail
Click to expand...

Maybe. Maybe not. The point is that that is for the RA to decide, not a Government Official to make that call on behalf of the Assembly. It is like saying "we all know Obama is going to win, so let's not bother holding an election."

If this precedent is allowed to stand, then it is a bad day for the RA.

The vote on it would close a mere day or two prior to the end of elections,
Click to expand...

On the face of it, that is a more convincing reason to deny the motion. However, a motion to recall is not just to remove a poor or negligent official. It is also the RA's method of permanently censuring an official, in a way that can be remembered and brought up should that individual run for office in the region again. It therefore has a symbolic importance far beyond the simple removal from office.

SS' ruling means that our officials can do what they wish towards the end of their term - because motions to recall will be denied.

I also suspect (but cannot prove) that this denial has more to do with who is being recalled than the justice or otherwise of the motion. I suspect (but cannot prove) that if the official in question had been, say, Govindia then the motion would have been allowed no matter how close the time was to the elections.

The fact is this. Gaspo's conduct as Attorney General was negligent, and single-handedly led to the collapse of an important trial on the most grave charges. This should not go unquestioned by the Regional Assembly.

I second the motion to recall. Simply on principle, it should be the Assembly rather than an appointed Deputy Speaker with no electoral mandate who decides these matters.
 
Belschaft:
I would suggest that SillyString made her judgement based upon the lack of any debate or interest in the proposal, that it received no seconding motions, and the fact that no actual reasons for the recall were provided.
Click to expand...
These did indeed factor into what I am happy to refer to as intuition - along with the fact that the region is historically extremely unwilling to recall officials, the fact that Gaspo is the first AG in quite some time to actually carry a case through to a conviction, and other things which are less tangible, more intuitive, and harder to put down in words.

Punk: Your indication that you would be comfortable with me closing the vote simply due to the timing corresponding with elections for the office would have me taking more liberties - not fewer. If I thought this recall had a snowball's chance in hell of passing the RA, I would have allowed it to go forward despite the absurdity of its scheduling.
 
Apologies for double posting.

SS' ruling means that our officials can do what they wish towards the end of their term - because motions to recall will be denied.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

I also suspect (but cannot prove) that this denial has more to do with who is being recalled than the justice or otherwise of the motion. I suspect (but cannot prove) that if the official in question had been, say, Govindia then the motion would have been allowed no matter how close the time was to the elections.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

I second the motion to recall. Simply on principle, it should be the Assembly rather than an appointed Deputy Speaker with no electoral mandate who decides these matters.
Click to expand...

Following a vote on r3n's amendments to the RA rules, which are certain to succeed, 1/10th of the RA will be free to insist that a vote be held if they feel it necessary. The fact of the matter is that right now, the Speaker's office has the power to unilaterally end discussion on a topic - a power you yourself set some of the precedent for.
 
I am not drunk currently, but the following statement will make me wish that I was to use it as an excuse.

I agree with Flem.

On more serious terms, I particularly resonated with the argument regarding last-minute recalls. Yes, it's true that if the RA doesn't like an official near elections, the more physically efficient thing to do is not reelect them... but that's no reason to deny a recall. One can lose an election with grace, but a recall is something that will last much longer and shine much brighter, and I would be much more satisfied with it. For that reason I'm not accepting the election excuse.

Also, while I won't be as extreme as Punk in saying that intuitive doomed-to-fail-ness doesn't have its purposes, because it does, I don't think the argument in this particular case was viable. There was a significant amount of reasonable anger in the air, and I think Deputy Speaker Asta-String misinterpreted the ability to use that reason. It's excusable, but I'd like to give my point of view that denying a motion to vote on "Kill All Puppies and Make Jon Stewart King of Alabama" is different than the recall of a turmoil-surrounded government official, even one as visibly popular as Gaspo. Do you get what I'm saying here? The evidence of reason was there in this case, and for that reason I think the "doomed to fail" excuse was abused.

Not that I blame SillyString at all. It's just how I would act differently.

Also, sorry for the lack of synonyms in this post... normally I try not to use the word "reason" five times for good English composition, but screw that.
 
flemingovia:
Belschaft:
I would suggest that SillyString made her judgement based upon the lack of any debate or interest in the proposal, that it received no seconding motions, and the fact that no actual reasons for the recall were provided.

Putting the motion to vote would have been a massive waste of everyone's time. Better to reinforce the principle that nonsense can and will be dealt with appropriately.
Click to expand...
You can suggest all you wish, but desperate post-facto attempts at justification will not wash. The fact is that SS gave her reasons for the shutting down of this debate. Let's look at what SS actually said:

and is moreover certain to fail
Click to expand...

Maybe. Maybe not. The point is that that is for the RA to decide, not a Government Official to make that call on behalf of the Assembly. It is like saying "we all know Obama is going to win, so let's not bother holding an election."

If this precedent is allowed to stand, then it is a bad day for the RA.

The vote on it would close a mere day or two prior to the end of elections,
Click to expand...

On the face of it, that is a more convincing reason to deny the motion. However, a motion to recall is not just to remove a poor or negligent official. It is also the RA's method of permanently censuring an official, in a way that can be remembered and brought up should that individual run for office in the region again. It therefore has a symbolic importance far beyond the simple removal from office.

SS' ruling means that our officials can do what they wish towards the end of their term - because motions to recall will be denied.

I also suspect (but cannot prove) that this denial has more to do with who is being recalled than the justice or otherwise of the motion. I suspect (but cannot prove) that if the official in question had been, say, Govindia then the motion would have been allowed no matter how close the time was to the elections.

The fact is this. Gaspo's conduct as Attorney General was negligent, and single-handedly led to the collapse of an important trial on the most grave charges. This should not go unquestioned by the Regional Assembly.

I second the motion to recall. Simply on principle, it should be the Assembly rather than an appointed Deputy Speaker with no electoral mandate who decides these matters.
Click to expand...
I also support this interpretation on principle!
 
You know, I find it rather ironic that Flem is the one demanding this be discussed and go to a vote since he was the Speaker whose actions prompted the ruling I cited at the beginning of this thread. You know, the one that declares the Speaker can pretty much end any discussion or vote if they feel it's in the best interests of TNP.
 
Look at the thread and you will see that it is far from just being me urging the deputy speaker from this course of action.

In this case the voice of God is the voice of the people, not the other way round.

Plus, of course, the difference is that back then you had a god for Speaker, who by definition could not err. Now you have an errant human being who needs mistakes to be pointed out.
 
punk d:
Give it a rest? You know asking a question is not a crime of the utmost proportion, is it? I mean you've asked a number of questions after decisions made by the court. Should my reply to you be 'give it a rest'? I seem to recall that a recall was started against me and failed miserably - which your office did not use its intuition to derail said recall - because some folks were not happy with the response I gave to your question.

And yet, in this instance where I question the actions of your office, the first words you choose are 'give it a rest'.

Where I come from, we call that hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
:yes:

Rule #1 of this Speaker's term: If he don't like it, it don't fly.

I have always felt it inappropriate the level to which the Speaker has risen to denigrate lines of reasoning or legislation that he does not personally agree with.
 
Uh.... "if he don't like it, it don't fly"?

First of all, out of every punk "my way or the highway" expression you could have used, you chose that one? Shape up, DD.

Second, since when? I've heard a lot, but I'm not sure when the authority started coming in. Could you elaborate?
 
This is only the third time that I am aware of that the Speaker has denied something either going to vote or being discussed. The most blatant time was under Flem when he ended a proposal discussion and denied a motion to vote because people were being "fuckwits".

I think, by extension, this proposal makes a lot of sense, since election will be all but over by the time the recall vote can even be finished. The first time something like this happened is a lot like this time, in fact, it's nearly identical. Flem put me up for recall at the end of my term as Delegate and Jamie refused to put the motion up to vote because nominations were already underway.

I'm not really sure why Flem either embraced or ignored the transgressions of the two times before but is flipping out about it now. In fact, I don't know why anyone is flipping out about it, its a pointless and silly waste of time to start a recall while elections are on-going.
 
Blue Wolf II:
You know, I find it rather ironic that Flem is the one demanding this be discussed and go to a vote since he was the Speaker whose actions prompted the ruling I cited at the beginning of this thread. You know, the one that declares the Speaker can pretty much end any discussion or vote if they feel it's in the best interests of TNP.
Click to expand...
I feel like no one really read that ruling who is posting in this thread.
 
Funkadelia:
Blue Wolf II:
You know, I find it rather ironic that Flem is the one demanding this be discussed and go to a vote since he was the Speaker whose actions prompted the ruling I cited at the beginning of this thread. You know, the one that declares the Speaker can pretty much end any discussion or vote if they feel it's in the best interests of TNP.
Click to expand...
I feel like no one really read that ruling who is posting in this thread.
Click to expand...
Allow me to clarify that real quick: It seems like no one who is opposing the measure Silly String took actually read the ruling. Point is, everyone's answer is right there, told to us by the elected interpreters of the law. Does it really get any clearer than that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top