Discussion: Alunya's SC Application

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Alunya has applied to the Security Council:

I, Alunya, a Vassal (333 SPDR) with 299 endorsements, apply to join the Security Council.

This application will be discussed for a minimum of two days. A vote will be scheduled when once the minimum discussion period has passed, and once a motion for a vote has been made and seconded.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

The reason we're doing this again is that r3n never took his oath of office as an SC member, and thus his vote on Alunya's application is invalid. Alunya claims that since the Security Council included 11 members at the time, and their application received 6 Aye votes including r3n's, that their membership in the SC is invalid. Without r3n's vote, the total would have been 5 Ayes, and 1 Nay. 5 is not a majority of 11, Alunya argues, and so their application should not have passed.

However, I am not so sure that Alunya's membership is invalid. Here is what the SC procedure says:

a. The Council shall admit by majority vote those applicants who the Council determines are not a Security Risk to the North Pacific and meet the minimum Influence and endorsement levels prescribed by law.

Even without r3n's vote, Alunya clearly received a majority of the votes cast, and a quorum was present.

I am new to SC procedure. Is it customary that a majority vote must consist of a majority of ALL councilors, or just those participating in the vote?

Naturally, Alunya truly has the final word here. Even if we think they are still a member, they could simply resign and reapply if they disagreed with us.

In the meantime, I will have Alunya's SC privileges revoked pending our discussion and potentially this application process. I will contact Alunya to discuss this matter.

 

[Democratic Donkeys]

Those participating as I recollect. Sometimes there are members that are away, but are still maintaining their influence and endorsement count. You try to get most everyone to weigh in but I personally always viewed the RA vote to be the more important, as long as the vote in the SC was clearly favorable of that applicant.

 

[Romanoffia]

I agree with you (COE) and DD - we could simply hold another vote or let the original vote stand. Holding another vote would clear up any technical rule issues and most likely result in the same results. Upholding the original vote would work too, but I'd have to dig into the minutiae of the relevant rules to be absolutely sure.

On that note, Alunya would make and excellent addition to the SC as I noted in the original discussion thread.

But either way, COE, PM all the members as DD suggests to get them to weigh in on it. Get them active again.

 

[Lord Nwahs]

Once again, Alunya is fairly active in the RMB and in RP, if not in regional politics, and their high endorsement levels will benefit the SC greatly.

As for the issue, i don't think I am in a good position to comment given my (relative) lack of experience in this body.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

The original application was approved by a majority of those who voted. That's all that is required.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I'm inclined to agree. I've contacted Alunya expressing that, and am awaiting a reply. If they do not see themselves as a legitimate member here, then I propose to go through this process again for their sake, even if I consider it redundant. Personally, I hope we can bring Alunya around.

In the future, however, I will certainly consider a majority vote to be a majority of those present, unless compelling historical evidence is presented showing that we're both off base here.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

After a little more communication, Alunya has come around to our way of seeing things. I'm glad to welcome Alunya back to the SC after this minor misunderstanding

As such, this application is no longer necessary. I will leave the topic open for further comment, but the application may be considered withdrawn.

 

[r3naissanc3r]

In the future, however, I will certainly consider a majority vote to be a majority of those present, unless compelling historical evidence is presented showing that we're both off base here.

With respect to this, "majority vote" is consistently used in the Constitution and Legal Code to refer to "majority of those voting/present", not of the entire bodies.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

If memory serves me correctly, I was on a medical leave of absence when Alunya's application was made, and I did not receive any PM to alert me about this, so I did not participate in the vote in the SC or the RA.
Had a new vote in the SC been required, I probably would have abstained since I wasn't involved in the original discussion or vote.

 

[Lord Byron]

To weigh in, I agree that majority is to be calculated based on those present as opposed to the entire body.