recall of Gaspo as Attorney General

Flemingovia

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
Following the denial of Tyler's attempt to recall Gaspo, I feel the Regional Assembly needs the right to debate this matter rather than have the debate closed down. Therefore I am bringing before the Regional Assembly a more seriously worded motion to recall.

I propose the REcall of Gaspo as Attorney General for the following reasons:

1. The office of Attorney General is one of the most important in our region, and a lot of responsibility and expectation is placed on the Attorney General. Gaspo last posted in the forum ten days ago. He has not posted in his own office since (I think) 3rd June and has not posted in the courthouse since (I think) 17th June.

2. Gaspo's negligence in office led to the collapse of the TNP v Tim Trial, a hugely significant trial on the gravest of charges.

These matters should not pass without the Regional Assembly having the opportunity to pass judgement on them.

Therefore I propose this motion. I call for a seconder.
 
SillyString has informed me, on IRC, that I am forbidden at the moment from calling for a seconder for my motion (despite the fact that Bel cited a lack of a seconder as an indicator of a lack of support for Tyler's earlier motion. Go figure).

As you know, I am always scrupulous in my obedience to the constitutions, rules, procedures, judgments, decrees, adjudications, decisions, directives, edicts, findings, laws, orders, precepts, pronouncements, resolutions, rules, ukases and verdicts of my masters.

I therefore withdraw my call for a seconder, and beg forgiveness for my presumption.

SillyString also informs me that there is no way this can pass before Gaspo is out of office.

Therefore to expedite matters, I move to vote.
 
That doesn't actually expedite anything - the next opening for a vote is July 21st, and elections close on the 23rd.

It's not that you're forbidden from calling for a second, it's that a second is meaningless at this stage - seconding is only valid during the two days following the closure of Formal Debate.

The motion to move to Formal Debate is denied, as there has been insufficient time for the RA to discuss or debate the recall proposal - which you yourself called for in the first sentence.
 
So... I cannot move it in time unless I move it to formal debate now. And I cannot move it to formal debate now, because that does not leave time for informal debate.

For me, whether the debate is formal or informal is immaterial, so long as the RA gets the chance to discuss this issue.

I do not understand why the next "opening for vote" is on 21st June - unless it is to allow R3N's proposals to be voted on ahead of this.

Given that his proposals are not time-sensitive, but this motion clearly is, I would request that his proposals be voted on in a later time slot, allowing this to come to vote before the elections.

Simples.
 
So... I cannot move it in time unless I move it to formal debate now. And I cannot move it to formal debate now, because that does not leave time for informal debate.
Click to expand...

No - it cannot be moved in time, regardless. I misspoke in Tyler's thread - a recall vote cannot conclude prior to the closure of elections.

For me, whether the debate is formal or informal is immaterial, so long as the RA gets the chance to discuss this issue.
Click to expand...

Formal Debate is a stage in a proposal's lifetime - five days to finalize any associated text. The Speaker has discussed establishing exemptions for recalls as they have no text, but has not done so yet and I am bound by his rules.

I do not understand why the next "opening for vote" is on 21st June - unless it is to allow R3N's proposals to be voted on ahead of this.
Click to expand...

Yes. Of the two proposals at vote currently, one will finish on Wednesday the 10th and the other on Sunday the 14th. r3n's two bills will then go to vote on Sunday the 14th, and conclude on Sunday the 21st.

Given that his proposals are not time-sensitive, but this motion clearly is, I would request that his proposals be voted on in a later time slot, allowing this to come to vote before the elections.
Click to expand...

I would need to consult with the Speaker before deviating from the established protocol of first in, first out - particularly as there is not currently a legal mechanism allowing for expedition (as a side note: I believe r3n's amendments address this).

However, as you have said, the recall is a (flawed) mechanism for censuring or otherwise expressing displeasure at the behavior of a government official. Rushing to a vote whose passage I have already expressed my skepticism of will do nothing of the sort - rather, it will show that the vast majority of the RA does not feel that Gaspo's actions warrant his removal from office.

Given that a voting thread is strictly limited to "aye", "nay", or "abstain", it seems as though the RA would be better served by making use of this thread in order to actually express their disappointment, chagrin, anger, or any other feeling they may have about the AG's problematic actions - a true laying-out of grievances, which would include ones from people who do not feel that their grievance rises to the level of an "aye" vote.
 
For someone who so venomously defended his office, Gaspo sure is doing a good job of continuing the tradition of the Judiciary. I do believe Gaspo does warrant an actual recall because he has done NO job. One trial seen through to completion, while relatively Herculean for this region, is no excuse for the rest of nothing that he has contributed as an office holder.

I am in favor of a recall to make clear my disapproval of the (non) job Gaspo did as AG.

rather, it will show that the vast majority of the RA does not feel that Gaspo's actions warrant his removal from office.
Click to expand...

I guess that is why they call you the Speaker! You speak for all of us! :)

(I would nth this motion, but the result has already been determined, so instead I will commend the forward thinking nature of our elected(?) representatives.)
 
I am not sure why you think anything has been "determined". Tyler's proposal contained no argument, received no support from anybody now rising up in arms, and was deliberately inflammatory to the point of earning him a warning increase from administration. It wasted the RA's time.

Flem's proposal contains an argument, has received a fair amount of support (even if some of it is merely outrage about the Speaker's office using its legal powers), and is not an attempt at a personal attack on the official in question. I still believe it is unlikely to succeed, but it can no longer be categorized as a waste of time.

A proposal cannot move straight into formal debate/seconding, in order to allow it sufficient time to be discussed among the RA. It is not in my power, as deputy, to override the rules of the RA that the Speaker has set - and this is one of them. That does not mean that this cannot or will not go to a vote, merely that I will not break the rules for what will be, no matter how it is sliced, purely symbolic.
 
So it only appears as if you are deliberately delaying, at best, any motion related to this subject? I apologize for clearly not understanding. And again, I would like to thank you for protecting me from wastes of time.


Edit: I would not discount the impact of symbolic actions nearly so much as you.
 
I believe this has to do with the new Regional Assembly rules. According to them some amount of time must be allocated to debate of motions before they may be seconded and voted upon.
 
With every day that passes it becomes more difficult, but I believe that if R3N's proposals are delayed for just a couple of weeks before bringing them to vote (and none of them are time-critical) and if my move to vote is allowed, there is time to do this recall.
 
The more this drags on the more the power and purpose of recalls loses their teeth.

Fun fact for those catching this on DVR, my first recall motion was proposed on May 14th.

Guess when the vote started? A week later? Two weeks?...nope....

Two days later on May 16th the vote started.

Yes, the Speaker has changed the rules such that the 2nd recall vote against me started 7 days after the first post, but recalls need to be of greater importance than standard law changes. Recalls are the people's way to tell officials who have either done a piss poor job or are doing things counter to the RA that we as an RA will not stand for those actions.

And if they have to be stuck behind the bureaucratic bs that we have today, then it loses all effect.

Let's pretend for a moment that we weren't in the Judicial election cycle, if my read of Silly String's note is correct the earliest a recall vote against Gaspo could occur would be 7/21, i think that's nearly 3 weeks after the first post.

That's crazy when prior to the recent rules changes, it only took 2 days to get the vote up. I want to say to the Speaker and his deputies that this needs to be addressed and you have the power to address it.
 
Sorry for the double post....to drive the point home further.

NK Posted at approximately 9pm May 14th US EST

The vote commenced at approximately 2am May 16th US EST.

That's actually only a little over 24 hours. I don't know if things need to be that quick, but recalls should be able to be expedited. Under present rules that's not happening.
 
Proposals move to vote in the order that they are moved by the assembly, and no more than 2 votes take place at a time. At the time your recall was proposed, there were no other proposals at vote, and the rules about how quickly proposals could go to vote were different. You're comparing apples to oranges.

If you want recalls to move faster, make a law saying they have to. Speaker policy is subordinate to the RA rules, the Legal Code, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
 
Democratic Donkeys:
So it only appears as if you are deliberately delaying, at best, any motion related to this subject?
Click to expand...
I am deliberately delaying this motion in accordance with RA procedure. Were any other proposal to be made at this time, it would be deliberately delayed as well, in accordance with the same procedures.

You are free to test this statement out, using science (you monster!), if you would like. :)
 
COE,

Re: No more than 2 votes taking place at a time. Is that within the Legal Code, Constitution, or Bill of Rights?

If not, who is able to make a change in that area?

If it is, I'll go ahead and start to work on amending the law.
 
We really do need to adjust the rules. If thie were a situation where the delegate had gone walkabout, we certainly couldn't afford to dilly-dally with the process.

Silly String, I think you have done a great job in COE's absence, but I am troubled by your comments regarding the thread Tyler opened. It likely didn't spur much discussion as it was opened and closed - twice - over a long US holiday. Indeed, the topic has been on my mind, but I have really been too busy to address it until now. Had the original thread just been allowed to continue, we wouldn't be subject to additional delay, would we?

As for the recall itself, I am generally reluctant to support recalls, as I do like to give folks the benefit of the doubt. But in this case, I can't think of an explanation as to why a deputy was not assigned to the Tim trial. There's no fixing it now. There are several other criminal complaints languishing in the AG's office waiting for the indictments to be filed. It is quite a burden to place on a successor. With the position essentially abandoned by Gaspo, I shall be voting in favor of a recall.
 
Ok. Then I will be urging the Speaker to please allow the RA to address the question on the voting floor in a timely manner. Those broad powers affirmed by the Court surely extend to situations in which reason and practicality ought to trump procedural meanderings. After the Speaker, who understands that a good leader takes the people where they want to go, opens the recall vote I shall be voting in favor of a recall.
 
COE????

COE,

Re: No more than 2 votes taking place at a time. Is that within the Legal Code, Constitution, or Bill of Rights?

If not, who is able to make a change in that area?

If it is, I'll go ahead and start to work on amending the law.
Click to expand...
 
punk: COE remains on a Leave of Absence and is unavailable. If I may answer your questions, though... the issue of two votes at once is currently the Speaker's policy, set in the absence of legislation.

However, I would direct you to this bill, currently scheduled to go up for vote on the 14th or 15th - specifically section 2.1.

To GBM, Flem, and any others following along: I denied the motion to move immediately to a vote because I am legally required to do so. However, given that this recall proposal is nothing at all like the previous one, either in its formulation or in the support it has received, I have no intention of attempting to block it from going to vote legally.

To be more explicit, since this seems to be necessary: If Flem motions to move this forward now, with time having elapsed to allow members of the RA to weigh in, it shall move forward. I invite you to read this post, specifically points 3, 4, and 5, if you have questions about the specifics of the process.
 
SillyString:
To be more explicit, since this seems to be necessary: If Flem motions to move this forward now, with time having elapsed to allow members of the RA to weigh in, it shall move forward. I invite you to read this post, specifically points 3, 4, and 5, if you have questions about the specifics of the process.
Click to expand...
I so move.
 
SillyString:
To be more explicit, since this seems to be necessary: If Flem motions to move this forward now, with time having elapsed to allow members of the RA to weigh in, it shall move forward. I invite you to read this post, specifically points 3, 4, and 5, if you have questions about the specifics of the process.
Click to expand...
I so move.
 
Sorry, GBM, seconds will only be accepted following the conclusion of Formal Debate. :shrug:

This recall has now entered Formal Debate. Formal Debate will last for a maximum of five days, or until the author of the proposal wishes for it to end. It will then have two days to acquire a second.

I would encourage anybody actually interested in this measure to continue to use this time to express their thoughts on the recall and on the AG's performance during his term.
 
Point of Order

4.2.8 of the Legal Code says the following:

"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"

It has been 15 days since Gaspo has logged onto the regional forums without prior notice, as far as I am aware. As such, this motion to recall is void since, by law, the office has been vacated.
 
That's true - and even if it were not, the vote could not end prior to the close of elections.

However, since several members of the RA seem to feel that a recall's worth is symbolic, not tangible, and since I would likely be deep fried and served on a stick if I attempted to limit the amount of silliness in these halls, I see no reason to intervene.
Please note: Strings are not delicious on sticks. Please find another method of consumption.
Carry on! :)
 
Sanctaria:
Point of Order

4.2.8 of the Legal Code says the following:

"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"

It has been 15 days since Gaspo has logged onto the regional forums without prior notice, as far as I am aware. As such, this motion to recall is void since, by law, the office has been vacated.
Click to expand...



I would say that is prima fascia evidence of the fact that Gaspo has abandoned his post. As such, TNP is withouth an AG. Hence a recall is meaningless and unnecessary as the position is vacant at this time.

Now, the mechanics of replacing the AG in the event of abandonment of the position should come into operation.

Ironically, if those mechanics are not initiated, one could file suit in the Court to enforce the appropriate laws, but alas, since there is no AG to prosecute the charges, the whole court system grinds to a halt because of a case of terminal constipation due to a procedural issue with the RA. :P :duh:

SillyString:
That's true - and even if it were not, the vote could not end prior to the close of elections.

However, since several members of the RA seem to feel that a recall's worth is symbolic, not tangible, and since I would likely be deep fried and served on a stick if I attempted to limit the amount of silliness in these halls, I see no reason to intervene.
Please note: Strings are not delicious on sticks. Please find another method of consumption.
Carry on! :)
Click to expand...

I remember the good old days when I was Speaker when a proposal was made, we kicked around for a couple of says and then voted on it.

The Flemingovia God forbid if we had a pressing matter under the purvey of the RA that needed to be addressed immediately but is held back because of bureaucratic clusterfuggery due to the fact that there are already two bills concerning the safety of cheese on the floor of the RA. :blink:

Here is where I agree in toto with Flemingovia - the parliamentary procedure is an exercise in clusterf*ckery with bells on.

I would propose a bill to change all this but it might actually get to a vote sometime after the sun has gone out and the universe has collapsed into a singularity awaiting the next big bang to happen (and at which time we will be eventually doing this all over again).

Legislation should be a simple and prompt procedure, not something akin to a sloth's colon after the slot overdosed on Kayopectate.
 
Romanoffia:
I would say that is prima fascia evidence of the fact that Gaspo has abandoned his post. As such, TNP is withouth an AG. Hence a recall is meaningless and unnecessary as the position is vacant at this time.

Now, the mechanics of replacing the AG in the event of abandonment of the position should come into operation.
Click to expand...
4.2.8 also says the following:

"Vacancies of elected offices are filled through a special election unless a it cannot be completed prior to the beginning of the appropriate scheduled election cycle."

The Attorney General is an elected office. By law, Gaspo has abandoned i.e. vacated that office. However, since the appropriate scheduled election cycle i.e. the judicial election cycle is already underway, a special election cannot be completed prior to its beginning, obviously.

As such, instead of holding a special election, as would normally be the case, the law permits us to wait for the results of this judicial election to decide who will succeed Gaspo as AG.

---

All-in-all, since Gaspo has vacated the office, there is no need for a recall, and since a new AG will be elected within the next week, there is no need to hold a special election, indeed the law provides for this.

This whole debate is spectacularly pointless and serves as nothing more than a symbolic vote of disapproval of Gaspo's tenure in office. Perhaps the Assembly would be better off with a motion of censure or the like, rather than recalling him from an office which he currently does not hold.
 
I was just about to raise the point about the vacancy in its own thread. Of course I realised this is TNP, and there already would be one :p
 
Sanctaria:
This whole debate is spectacularly pointless and serves as nothing more than a symbolic vote of disapproval of Gaspo's tenure in office. Perhaps the Assembly would be better off with a motion of censure or the like, rather than recalling him from an office which he currently does not hold.
Click to expand...
I have suggested this approach.

Apparently, people are uninterested in a censure which might have actual teeth, and prefer the standard fare of absurdity and pointlessness. :shrug:
 
SillyString:
Apparently, people are uninterested in a censure which might have actual teeth, and prefer the standard fare of absurdity and pointlessness. :shrug:
Click to expand...
sillystring:
if I attempted to limit the amount of silliness in these halls,
Click to expand...


Do you even believe in the objectivity of your office?
 
flemingovia:
Do you even believe in the objectivity of your office?
Click to expand...
Of course. And you are free to review the actions I have taken in pushing things to vote, opening votes, closing votes, and counting votes to see if you can find any discernible subjectivity in the manner in which I count.

However, as an RA member, I am entitled to voice my personal opinion on matters of law, and as Acting Speaker, I am helpfully empowered - thank you, Flem, for establishing that kind precedent - to put an end to things which are not in the RA's best interest. To quote:

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.
Click to expand...

There seems to be some impression that I am doing everything I can to protect Gaspo. I am not sure why this is the case, given that I told you explicitly on IRC that if there is a vote, I will be voting in favor. Like many others, I am quite disappointed with his job performance - I simply prefer legislation with teeth.

However, given the current election cycle, the vacancy created in the AG's office by the incumbent's failure to log in, as well as a recently noticed complete and total vagueness in the Constibillocode on the matter of recalls... I am reconsidering the legality of allowing this to go forward. I really urge the RA, and Flem in particular, to consider changing this recall into a censure, which would be both more sensible and more effective, and would face no opposition from my office.

Edit: More sensible, more effective, and, I believe, easier to pass.
 
I will consider that if you can show me where "motions of censure" are mentioned in TNP law anywhere. I can't find it.
 
The Bill of Right also only confers a right to recall a government official, which Gaspo no longer is since the Legal Code deems him to have vacated his office.

Can you please point out where the law allows you to recall someone from a position they do not occupy?
 
Legal status of recalls:
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...
Constitution:
3. The Regional Assembly may remove a government official from office by a two-thirds majority vote.
Click to expand...
Legal Code:
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, or when an election winner or appointee fails to post the Oath of Office.
Click to expand...
RA Rules:
Rule 4

Removing and/or Replacing Executive Officers
1. A legal motion may be filed to remove an executive officer.
2. Such a motion may name a replacement.
3. If seconded, such a motion will move to a vote within two days.
4. The vote on this motion will be open for five days.
Click to expand...

In sum: The right to seek the recall a government official only exists in allegations of abuse of power, but the RA as a body can vote to remove an officeholder from their office for any reason. RA rules only cover the recall of executive officers, generally understood to mean ministers (though the laws do not prohibit the delegate from creating other officers as they please), which possibly throws into question a lot of older votes to recall non-executive officers, like, say, justices... but in this case, it appears to be a moot point as there is nobody in the office to be removed.

The legal purpose of a recall vote is to remove someone from office, and not to express an opinion over their actions. I am, therefore, not sure that a vote to remove somebody not holding an office from an office they do not hold is legal - it would certainly open the door to a bevy of absurd recall motions, such as "Recall GBM as Delegate" or "Recall Eluvatar as Regional Turtle".

---

As for censure, I see two possible paths. The first would be to simply draft a proposal formally censuring him and vote on it within the RA subforum (much as the RA was allowed to vote on the Qadiate of the fiqh). Faster and easier, but messier in terms of replicating it in the future.

The second would be to pass a law explicitly allowing the RA to censure its members, and then to censure Gaspo (or anyone else, as desired). This would take more time, but he is inactive, and we have a number of months until the next election, and - given how often we are disappointed with our officials - doing it properly the first time around seems a worthwhile investment.
 
SillyString:
As for censure, I see two possible paths. The first would be to simply draft a proposal formally censuring him and vote on it within the RA subforum (much as the RA was allowed to vote on the Qadiate of the fiqh). Faster and easier, but messier in terms of replicating it in the future.
Click to expand...
In this you are quite wrong. The Regional Assembly never voted on the Qadiate of the Fiqh. I personally allowed members of that body to participate in my ballot. But that is quite a different thing.

I do not see from your post above how a "motion of censure" would be allowable under our rules. Nor do I see how such a thing would carry any weight.
 
This recall has now entered Formal Debate. Formal Debate will last for a maximum of five days, or until the author of the proposal wishes for it to end. It will then have two days to acquire a second.
Click to expand...

I now move the motion.

I believe that it now requires a seconder?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top