A motion to recall Bootsie as Speaker

Siwale

Siwale

Administrator
-
-
-
Pronouns
he/him/his
TNP Nation
Siwale
Discord
siwale
It saddens me to have to bring this to the Regional Assembly, but I believe it is necessary at this point.

Bootsie is simply not active enough to continue to serve as Speaker of the Regional Assembly. Since the Speaker keeps the legislative process flowing, the job cannot be taken lightly. The job requires daily attention with processing citizenship applications, staying up-to-date with citizenship and residency checks, and keeping up with current proposals (scheduling votes, counting votes, bringing passed resolutions to the Delegate, updating the Legal Code etc.).

Bootsie has failed to keep up with his responsibilities. A good way to keep track of his activity is to take a look at his posting history. Most of the Speaker's tasks require a post to be made somewhere within the forum. His last Speaker-related post dates back to June 8th in which he presents the Delegate's Day Bill to the Delegate for his signature or veto. His full posting history can be found here.

While Bootsie can still be seen logging onto the forum, he has made no more Speaker-related posts. All current matters seem to be handled by the Deputy Speaker, but this job is too big to be handled by one deputy. Tasks like citizenship applications and citizen and residency checks, which used to be handled daily, are now only taken care of every few days. With multiple proposals currently on the floor, it is only a matter of time before the voting process gets backed up as well.

Therefore, I hereby propose to the Regional Assembly the recall of Bootsie as Speaker of the Regional Assembly.
 
Sad to say but has my vote or third? I haven't had a single interaction with Boostie since I have returned.
 
I object to the decision of the Deputy Speaker to schedule a vote. Two days is way too short a time to debate the recall of a government official.
 
Darcania:
I object to the decision of the Deputy Speaker to schedule a vote. Two days is way too short a time to debate the recall of a government official.
Click to expand...
I understand and will schedule the vote for seven days from today (06/07/2017)
 
Owenstacey:
Darcania:
I object to the decision of the Deputy Speaker to schedule a vote. Two days is way too short a time to debate the recall of a government official.
Click to expand...
I understand and will schedule the vote for seven days from today (06/07/2017)
Click to expand...
urhhhhh. I object to the scheduling of a vote.

There has not been adequate time for discussion of this topic.
 
Lord Ravenclaw:
Owenstacey:
Darcania:
I object to the decision of the Deputy Speaker to schedule a vote. Two days is way too short a time to debate the recall of a government official.
Click to expand...
I understand and will schedule the vote for seven days from today (06/07/2017)
Click to expand...
urhhhhh. I object to the scheduling of a vote.

There has not been adequate time for discussion of this topic.
Click to expand...
I am postponing the scheduling of the vote until further notice
 
I would assume there are ways and means that are less extreme than firing an elected official.

If there is a problem with the Speaker coming from the Cabinet, let there be an official request made of him to devote more time to his duties rather than this method.
 
Xyre:
I would assume there are ways and means that are less extreme than firing an elected official.

If there is a problem with the Speaker coming from the Cabinet, let there be an official request made of him to devote more time to his duties rather than this method.
Click to expand...
A request was already made with no response from the Speaker. This recall is a last resort and was not taken lightly.
 
Who made the request? When was it made? Has Bootsie been around on Discord? I feel like I do not have enough information to make a decision.
 
Great Bights Mum:
Who made the request? When was it made? Has Bootsie been around on Discord? I feel like I do not have enough information to make a decision.
Click to expand...
The request was made on Sunday by the Delegate. It's quite difficult to know whether Bootsie has been on Discord since he could always put his account in "offline" mode. What we do know is he has logged onto the forum multiple times since then. And I don't think the details of the request should have that great of an influence on your decision. Bootsie has not performed his duties in 3 weeks with no leave of absence notice. We can clearly see that through his post history. We can also look at his history on the citizenship spreadsheet if an admin wants to release that information to us. Most of the Speaker's duties can be tracked using these two resources.
 
I reluctantly support this motion, unless Bootsie can credibly assure us that he has returned to full activity, or made arrangements for all tasks to be covered until his return to full activity, before this comes to a vote. I Will have time to lay out my reasons for this in the coming hours, but not at the moment.
 
Great Bights Mum:
Is it not summertime in Siwale? :eyebrow: The real question is, what exactly has been screwed up in the last 2 weeks?
Click to expand...
A lack of a Speaker would never screw anything up, due to having Deputies. However, that doesn't mean being inactive is okay.
 
Great Bights Mum:
Is it not summertime in Siwale? :eyebrow: The real question is, what exactly has been screwed up in the last 2 weeks?
Click to expand...
A number of things, actually. Bootsie disappeared without warning, and without preparing his single deputy to take on all of his responsibilities. OwenStacey has been doing the best he can, but it was several days before anyone realized that Bootsie had gone inactive, and there's been some confusion over what powers the deputy speaker actually has. Right now, requests for leaves of absence are being ignored, because it is unclear whether the deputy speaker is allowed to grant those without that power being delegated to them by the speaker. It even took a bit of creative interpretation of the law to allow the deputy to update the legal code. The election reform bill was signed on the 3rd, but due to all the confusion created by Bootsie's disappearance, it was not reflected in the legal code until the 27th. Same with the Delegate's Day bill, which was signed on the 8th. Furthermore, when the delegate appointed election commissioners under the new law, it was several days before anyone from the speaker's office took notice and began a discussion of the confirmations. This has left the new Election Commission scrambling to get itself organized for the judicial election taking place in just a couple days.

Mystery Player is right that if the Speaker has multiple deputies, and has made arrangements for all of their duties to be covered in their absence, a Speaker can be a low level of activity for a long period of time, as long as those deputies stay active and do the tasks that they are assigned. However, in this case, Bootsie has only one deputy, and he left without warning, without appointing any additional deputies, without delegating any additional powers to his deputy, and without fully preparing his deputy to manage the office in his absence. One person working by themselves is not enough to keep the Speaker's Office running smoothly, and appointing new deputies is not a power that can be exercised by the deputy speaker. With no expectation or assurance that Bootsie will return anytime soon, it's unreasonable to expect OwenStacey to run the whole office by himself until September, when a new Speaker would be elected, especially when he does not enjoy all the powers that an elected Speaker has.

I don't derive any pleasure from supporting this motion, but I think our only viable option is to remove the Speaker from office and have a special election for a replacement to lead the office through the end of the term.
 
A sad but inevitable circumstance this motion is. As mentioned before, Bootsie just up and vanished. A million kudos to Owen for doing the best he can with Speakery stuff, though. Who knows, maybe he could run to be the next speaker?

Support.
 
As I see, this is necessary for the whole Legislative to function correctly. Owenstacey has been taking on all the work needed for the Office to function with no help. I think that either a special election should be held or that Owenstacey should be appointed speaker so that they can appoint deputies to help them. It sadden me to see this, but I agree with this proposal.
 
Abc, there is no provision to simply appoint Owenstacey as speaker. If Bootsie is removed as speaker, Owen becomes acting speaker until an election is held.
Legal Code Chapter 4 Section 4.2 Clause 9:
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. Pending an election, a vacancy may be temporarily filled as provided by the Constitution, this Legal Code, or a rule adopted by the appropriate body.
Click to expand...
Regional Assembly Rules Section 3 Clause 3:
When there is a vacancy or absence in the position of Speaker, the Deputy Speaker will assume the powers and duties of the office of the Speaker for the duration of the vacancy or absence, respectively. When there is simultaneously a vacancy or absence in the positions of Speaker and Deputy Speaker is simultaneously vacant, the citizen who is available, has the longest period of citizenship, does not decline the position, and is not otherwise prohibited by law will assume the powers and duties of the office of the Speaker for the duration of the simultaneous vacancy or absence.
Click to expand...
 
Wait that wording is really what it says?

"When there is simultaneously a vacancy or absence in the positions of Speaker and Deputy Speaker is simultaneously vacant..."

That language is awful. As for my thoughts on this specific motion, like COE I must put it aside for later when I can speak at greater length.
 
I wish this weren't needed but it's desperately needed, Owenstacey has done an admirable job but can't cope on his own.
 
I find myself reluctantly supporting this recall as well. The Speaker has been absent for three weeks, and the office is not running as it needs to. The last time we recalled an elected official, it was also someone who had vanished for three weeks, but was still logging into the forum often enough to not create a legal vacancy.
 
SillyString:
I find myself reluctantly supporting this recall as well. The Speaker has been absent for three weeks, and the office is not running as it needs to. The last time we recalled an elected official, it was also someone who had vanished for three weeks, but was still logging into the forum often enough to not create a legal vacancy.
Click to expand...

:pinch:
 
SillyString:
I find myself reluctantly supporting this recall as well. The Speaker has been absent for three weeks, and the office is not running as it needs to. The last time we recalled an elected official, it was also someone who had vanished for three weeks, but was still logging into the forum often enough to not create a legal vacancy.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the last forum login time is not a good metric to use to determine an official's activity and whether a position is abandoned. Sounds like the law should be changed. Legally, loss of citizenship is enough to cause abandonment, but if we expect more activity out of our officials, perhaps instead of "does not log onto the regional forums for two weeks" should be changed to "fails to post in the regional forum for two weeks..."
 
Sil Dorsett:
SillyString:
I find myself reluctantly supporting this recall as well. The Speaker has been absent for three weeks, and the office is not running as it needs to. The last time we recalled an elected official, it was also someone who had vanished for three weeks, but was still logging into the forum often enough to not create a legal vacancy.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the last forum login time is not a good metric to use to determine an official's activity and whether a position is abandoned. Sounds like the law should be changed. Legally, loss of citizenship is enough to cause abandonment, but if we expect more activity out of our officials, perhaps instead of "does not log onto the regional forums for two weeks" should be changed to "fails to post in the regional forum for two weeks..."
Click to expand...
Without being sure of the actual duties, wouldn't it make more sense if the wording was changed to reflect not doing duties in a 2 week period.

As i said, i'm not familiar with the specific duties, but i suppose it's possible that there would be no need to post in a 2 week period. Somebody can correct me if i'm wrong.

A change could also be made to say not doing duties and/or posting in 2 weeks.

Just a thought
 
The problem with adjudicating it based on doing duties is two-fold. 1. Duties of each government official would need to codified, and have some methodology to track it, or 2. Someone would have to bring forth a claim that an official wasn't doing their duties, which is what happened here. The "does not log onto" and "fails to post" methods are automatic.
 
Personally, I think failure to log in is an adequate threshold past which the RA must make the determination as to whether or not the official is performing their duties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top