[Private] RE: Resignation

Ator People

Ator People

TNPer
With this (http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8143657&t=7200753) we have a vacancy in the Court.

As per Chapter 3, Section 3.1 of the TNP Legal Code:

Section 3.1: Chief Justice Selection
2. Whenever the position is vacant, the Justices shall elect a Chief Justice from among themselves by a majority vote.
3. In the event that a Chief Justice has not been elected by seven days after the conclusion of a Judicial election, including the conclusion of any required run-off votes, the Chief Justice shall be the Justice who received the highest number of votes in said election. In the event of a tie for highest number of votes, the Chief Justice shall be the one among those tied with the longest period of membership in the Regional Assembly.
Click to expand...

I vote for you, SillyString. Presuming you vote for yourself, we can announce the next Chief Justice and continue with the Court's business until the Special Election.
 
I believe I can live with that. :P

Are you able to get on IRC at some point? Given that we can't create a majority to rule on r3n's thing anymore (and couldn't even if Roman hadn't resigned since he apparently was unwilling to back the ruling despite agreeing with it...?) we'll need to hammer out something else.
 
Let's wait until we get a new Justice for the r3n ruling, then. I don't have terribly strong opinions on the issue, but if we can't come to a consensus in this particular instance then is there any harm in waiting?

Court business on everything else can proceed (though it will of course be slower considering we're one Justice short).

Would you like to make the Chief Justice announcement in the Public Gallery?
 
Sure, I'll go do that.

The only issue I have with delaying is that the ruling is linked to the FOIA request.. so that one can't proceed either until we make a determination. Personally, I think Grosse is right in his brief, and the Vice Delegate has two separate roles - their actions as chair of the security council are not executive in nature and are not subject to FOIA.

This is of course very frustrating because I think the SC itself should be subject to FOIA, but under the law as written I don't think it is. <_<

By the way, have you had a chance to read over the draft rules I sent you? :)
 
If you want to draft something to that effect I could be convinced.

I haven't had a chance to look at the draft rules, unfortunately. I will try to this weekend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top