A celebration: This is what The North Pacific is at its core. TNP is a celebration of the people and nations that wish to work together to create a masterpiece of a regional government that stands as a model for the remaining regions of NationStates. This is how I view this great region of ours, and that is why I wish to serve it in any way I can.
Hello! I am Wonderess, one of your current Deputy Speakers, and I am running to serve as your next Speaker of the Regional Assembly. I have spent this past term under Speaker abc learning what serving the Regional Assembly is all about. In truth, it is a daunting and very complex task. I do not wish to be Speaker because I believe that I can serve perfectly or through my efforts alone. The Speaker's job rather is to listen to the people and facilitate the legislative process for the betterment of government and regional function. Therefore, I consider it the Speaker's duty to listen to the wise members of the region, acknowledge when mistakes are made, and strive for better service for the sake of the people. This is why I have chosen my slogan: "Wonderess for Speaker: So that the voices of the people may echo ever louder." The Speaker is a mediator of the important proceedings that address the problems of The North Pacific today.
Here are some points that I believe will aid in improving the office's efforts and efficiency:
- Publish RA Digests monthly so that a significant amount of activity may be reported and so that the number of telegrams taking up the time of citizens may be minimized.
- Have at least one Deputy Speaker be someone with experience in the office in order to have an advisor figure for the sitting Speaker in case questions present themselves.
- Open a thread that contains all laws pertinent to and constituting the parameters of the Regional Assembly in one place for easy viewing.
- Hold conferences every two weeks so that the Speaker may address any questions or concerns of the Regional Assembly in a collaborative session.
- Create a comprehensive document explaining the functions of the Speaker's Office in order to train new citizens, Deputy Speakers, and Speaker's Staff about the powers, responsibilities, and procedures of the Regional Assembly.
Above all, I wish to emphasize the Speaker's important role of being a part of the community. I am currently a member of TNP Role Play, Executive Staff (Foreign Affairs, Culture, and World Assembly Affairs), and a regular chatter/debater in the throws of The Agora on Discord. If you select me, I shall strive to remain an active member in order to be a part of the body I pledge to represent.
I look to this opportunity in joy for I wish to serve this region in repayment for allowing me the honor of being a part of this great celebration of a region that shall endure. Thank you all!
Over this last term, you have shown the dedication and drive to perform this job to the beat of your abilities, and so i am sure that, if you are elected, you will do an amazing job. You have my vote.
Thank you for your kind words. I would like to let everyone know that I will be holding a town hall in The Agora Voice Channel in Discord at (time=1535911200) your local time and again at (time=1535943600) your time. So if you have any questions or concerns feel free to bring them forward, I would love to hear from you.
[quote uid=7922 name="Wonderess" ]I do not wish to be Speaker because I believe that I can serve perfectly or through my efforts alone. The Speaker's job rather is to listen to the people and facilitate the legislative process for the betterment of government and regional function. Therefore, I consider it the Speaker's duty to listen to the wise members of the region, acknowledge when mistakes are made, and strive for better service for the sake of the people. This is why I have chosen my slogan: "Wonderess for Speaker: So that the voices of the people may echo ever louder." The Speaker is a mediator of the important proceedings that address the problems of The North Pacific today.[/quote]Outstanding. It is very encouraging that, despite your relative inexperience in the office, you have grasped this concept so quickly: that the citizenry has the real power, and the speaker's role is to facilitate their will. You have my support.
Wonderess, you are the chief deputy of abc, and have taken on the brunt of his duties, he taught you what you know but you have been part of the string of errors that have generated criticism. Why should people assume that electing you is any different from electing abc, who is the incumbent and will have to improve on the same things you would have to improve if you are elected? If you want to take credit for what worked as his deputy, how can you distinguish yourself from what went wrong? Put another way, if I have to decide between the two of you, aren't you and abc going to do the same things, essentially, to correct what went wrong the last 4 months? Is there a difference between the two of you, since you were both involved in the same work this term?
Could you tell me every specific thing you learned from this term that will serve you going forward so you know how to do those specific things or respond to them if they come up again?
[quote uid=5577 name="Pallaith" ]Wonderess, you are the chief deputy of abc, and have taken on the brunt of his duties, he taught you what you know but you have been part of the string of errors that have generated criticism. Why should people assume that electing you is any different from electing abc, who is the incumbent and will have to improve on the same things you would have to improve if you are elected? If you want to take credit for what worked as his deputy, how can you distinguish yourself from what went wrong? Put another way, if I have to decide between the two of you, aren't you and abc going to do the same things, essentially, to correct what went wrong the last 4 months? Is there a difference between the two of you, since you were both involved in the same work this term?
Could you tell me every specific thing you learned from this term that will serve you going forward so you know how to do those specific things or respond to them if they come up again?[/quote]It is true that abc and myself would improve on the same things that we learned from mistakes made in the previous term However, our vision for the Speaker's office remains different. I personally wish to be more open to communal suggestions in how to improve the office along with my own ideas stated in my platform above. In a way the office is currently cut off from dialogue with the citizenry and I would want to encourage and provide time for that dialogue so that I am constantly office management to better serve the people. the Speakership not all about performing monotonous procedures and repetition but about actively facilitating the deliberative process of law making as a person who utilizes public relations to make legislation and function as a personal resource for those seeking to write good proposals. There is humanity to the office and that is what I bring on top of the changes to administration to minimize the reoccurrence of past mistakes.
On the point of what I have learned, I have had training in doing citizenship checks, purging inactive members from the roll, starting a vote, ending a vote, keeping track of votes in the citizenship spreadsheet, posting votes to the spreadsheet, creating an RA Digest, and publishing a RA Digest. I have also looked at the rules and laws that makeup the functions of the Regional Assembly for personal reference throughout the term. As a different person from Speaker abc, I would naturally govern the RA differently even if I sought to run it in the same fashion as him. Though, this is not the case. I do hope this answers your question.
I have a few questions for you. Some of them are straightforward factual questions, while others will require you to interpret and apply some of the Speaker's discretion over the RA. I am hoping to get a handle on not just how familiar you are with the laws and court rulings that relate to the office, but what philosophical stance you take on the speaker's powers.
1) What RA majority is required to successfully overturn the delegate's veto of a constitutional amendment?
2) Suppose a member of the RA proposes a bill which, if passed, would add into the legal code a declaration that a certain nation is guilty of gross misconduct. Further suppose that this nation has never been accused, tried, or convicted of gross misconduct in TNP. The author motions for a vote. What would you do?
3) Suppose a vote to add a new memorial day to the legal code has just passed by the slimmest majority. The debate over this was fierce and sometimes heated, as the community was bitterly divided over whether the selected event should be commemorated or not. On more than one occasion, forum moderation had to step in to keep the discussion thread civil. Immediately after the delegate signs the bill into law, someone on the losing side proposes a repeal of that same bill in the RA. What is your reaction?
4) After accusations of abuse of power are made against a government official, a member of the RA motions for a recall. The motion is seconded, and a vote is scheduled. Before it is opened, the official in question resigns from their post. What do you do?
For extra credit, suppose the official resigns after the vote is opened. Now what do you do?
5) You are doing your speaker duties one morning and you're a little sleep deprived, since you stayed up late the night before. In your pre-coffee haze, you accidentally grant citizenship to someone who has failed the vice delegate's security check. Is that person a full citizen? If not, why not? If so, how can you revoke their citizenship?
6) A member of the RA proposes a bill that is an extensive rewrite of our criminal and penal codes. Almost every clause in those two chapters has been completely rewritten. Two hours later, they motion it into Formal Debate. What is your response?
[quote uid=2308 name="SillyString" ]I have a few questions for you. Some of them are straightforward factual questions, while others will require you to interpret and apply some of the Speaker's discretion over the RA. I am hoping to get a handle on not just how familiar you are with the laws and court rulings that relate to the office, but what philosophical stance you take on the speaker's powers.
1) What RA majority is required to successfully overturn the delegate's veto of a constitutional amendment?
2) Suppose a member of the RA proposes a bill which, if passed, would add into the legal code a declaration that a certain nation is guilty of gross misconduct. Further suppose that this nation has never been accused, tried, or convicted of gross misconduct in TNP. The author motions for a vote. What would you do?
3) Suppose a vote to add a new memorial day to the legal code has just passed by the slimmest majority. The debate over this was fierce and sometimes heated, as the community was bitterly divided over whether the selected event should be commemorated or not. On more than one occasion, forum moderation had to step in to keep the discussion thread civil. Immediately after the delegate signs the bill into law, someone on the losing side proposes a repeal of that same bill in the RA. What is your reaction?
4) After accusations of abuse of power are made against a government official, a member of the RA motions for a recall. The motion is seconded, and a vote is scheduled. Before it is opened, the official in question resigns from their post. What do you do?
For extra credit, suppose the official resigns after the vote is opened. Now what do you do?
5) You are doing your speaker duties one morning and you're a little sleep deprived, since you stayed up late the night before. In your pre-coffee haze, you accidentally grant citizenship to someone who has failed the vice delegate's security check. Is that person a full citizen? If not, why not? If so, how can you revoke their citizenship?
6) A member of the RA proposes a bill that is an extensive rewrite of our criminal and penal codes. Almost every clause in those two chapters has been completely rewritten. Two hours later, they motion it into Formal Debate. What is your response?[/quote]1. A two-thirds majority is necessary.
2. I would schedule the vote but would at the same remind the RA of RA Rule 1.3 which allows the citizens to object to the scheduling which would force me to cancel the vote before it would ever get to the floor. There is a chance that Rule 1.4 would be used to force a vote nonetheless, but I see it as my job to comply with the will of the Regional Assembly. It is the place of the legal system to test the constitutionality of the proposal. I would actively oppose the legislation however by voicing my opinion on the matter.
3. It is my job to facilitate the ongoing discussion of the Regional Assembly. Therefore, I would schedule the vote. I have no intention of abusing my power for the sake of pushing or blocking certain pieces of legislation. After all, this is the Delegate's authority. I would advise people to rethink their proposal if it was incapable of being applied to any legal power of the Regional Assembly such as the recent inquiry that has been brought to the RA without any legal basis for its existence. Though, even then I would not stand in their way of presenting it to the citizenry.
4. I would call on the citizenry to cancel the vote through the process of RA Rule 1.3. I wish to only change the docket through the democratic process and not through any act of my own.
If I understand correctly, there is nothing the Speaker can do. If the vote does not meet quorum, it is not required that the Speaker extend the duration even though he or she can so I would not exercise that power and would allow the vote to end without quorum, otherwise it has to continue until the vote ends. If it is early enough in the vote I presume a non legislative motion could be brought up that proposes to end the vote early. The Speaker could set the time of the vote where it ends before the original vote which would cancel the original vote by an act of the Regional Assembly.
5. The Legal Code states in Section 6.1 statute 6 that the Speaker must reject applicants that fail a check. Therefore, by law the Speaker is not allowed to grant citizenship to such an applicant. I see it as necessary to rectify the situation and deny citizenship since the original action was not legally sound.
6. I would allow the formal debate to continue. The Speaker has to trust that the citizenry can spot a bad proposal for the region from a good one. It is the Speaker's job to administrate the process and not to steer it. I would not consider changes to the two chapters to be considered "two documents" so I do not believe that the operating clause would be required in the proposal according to the Standing Procedures.
it's not unknown, but it is quite rare for a deputy speaker to seek to unseat an incumbent Speaker who is seeking a second term. What is wrong with ABC that you want to replace him, or think you could do a better job.
PS I am really good at seeing through faux flattery. there must be something, or you would be endorsing his candidature.
It is truth to say that abc has been unpopular with some in his current term. I believe that I can offer a more community based direction for the office that requires significant activity in the region and the ability to communicate with the citizenry and the rest of the government to make sure the Regional Assembly is functioning correctly, actively, and in conjunction with the needs of the region as a whole. I believe my activity is higher than abc and therefore I could more readily address these problems while also allowing the RA to flourish in its efforts to make our region ever better. I see my vision as different from abc who may have a platform that favors a continuation of what has been.I want to help people become acquainted with the Regional Assembly and feel confident enough to voice their ideas This interactive aspect is what I think is missing currently and I wish to fill that void.
Thank you for your answers Wonderess. I appreciate the effort you put into them. However, I have some concerns, based on some of what you have said, that you are not familiar with the scope of the speaker's power or with the several court rulings relating to the obligations of the office.
I will respond to these out of order:
1) What RA majority is required to successfully overturn the delegate's veto of a constitutional amendment?
I apologize for starting off with a trick question, but the delegate cannot veto a constitutional amendment.
4) After accusations of abuse of power are made against a government official, a member of the RA motions for a recall. The motion is seconded, and a vote is scheduled. Before it is opened, the official in question resigns from their post. What do you do?
For extra credit, suppose the official resigns after the vote is opened. Now what do you do?
4. I would call on the citizenry to cancel the vote through the process of RA Rule 1.3. I wish to only change the docket through the democratic process and not through any act of my own.
If I understand correctly, there is nothing the Speaker can do. If the vote does not meet quorum, it is not required that the Speaker extend the duration even though he or she can so I would not exercise that power and would allow the vote to end without quorum, otherwise it has to continue until the vote ends. If it is early enough in the vote I presume a non legislative motion could be brought up that proposes to end the vote early. The Speaker could set the time of the vote where it ends before the original vote which would cancel the original vote by an act of the Regional Assembly.
For this one, I agree with your interpretation on the extra credit. Once a recall vote is opened, the speaker may not preemptively close it just because the official resigned. The vote must continue - it will simply be meaningless whether it passes or fails.
However, I disagree that you are powerless in the first circumstance. The constitution states that the RA may recall government officials by a 2/3 vote - it may not recall non-govermment officials. If someone is not a government official there is nothing to recall. At most, the RA may pass a non-binding resolution which states that if the person were a government official, they would be recalled... but non-binding resolutions require a simple majority vote, not a two-thirds majority.
I asked you this question because this is very similar to a situation that arose when I was serving as acting speaker several years ago (Summer 2013, I believe). Some in the RA wanted to recall someone who had already left the position they had held. It is a strange case, but not out of the realm of possibility, so I believe speaker candidates need to be prepared to face it.
6) A member of the RA proposes a bill that is an extensive rewrite of our criminal and penal codes. Almost every clause in those two chapters has been completely rewritten. Two hours later, they motion it into Formal Debate. What is your response?
6. I would allow the formal debate to continue. The Speaker has to trust that the citizenry can spot a bad proposal for the region from a good one. It is the Speaker's job to administrate the process and not to steer it. I would not consider changes to the two chapters to be considered "two documents" so I do not believe that the operating clause would be required in the proposal according to the Standing Procedures.
Your answer here does comply with the law, but I'm not sure it's the right answer nevertheless. Formal Debate is an invention of the speaker's office; it exists to help shepherd a bill to vote without the author having to pull it back for last minute changes. The speaker is never required to grant formal debate; it is an accepted and well-practiced use of the speaker's authority to judge that a major bill has not seen enough discussion and to require that it wait longer before proceeding. If members of the region disagree, they can overrule the speaker and force an immediate vote.
The remaining three questions deal with matters the court has adjudicated.
5) You are doing your speaker duties one morning and you're a little sleep deprived, since you stayed up late the night before. In your pre-coffee haze, you accidentally grant citizenship to someone who has failed the vice delegate's security check. Is that person a full citizen? If not, why not? If so, how can you revoke their citizenship?
5. The Legal Code states in Section 6.1 statute 6 that the Speaker must reject applicants that fail a check. Therefore, by law the Speaker is not allowed to grant citizenship to such an applicant. I see it as necessary to rectify the situation and deny citizenship since the original action was not legally sound.
Despite the fact that the Speaker has very strict limits on when an applicant is to be denied and when they are to be accepted, under these clauses the Speaker still possesses the final duty of action. An applicant is not accepted after passing the security checks, nor rejected after failing them, until the Speaker declares that such is so. Despite the Speaker's lack of discretion in the decision, their statements on the matter are explicitly performative - in contrast with the passive change of status allowed for by 6.1.10.
[...]
Drawing on all of the above factors, the Court rules that statements from the Speaker's Office on the state of an individual's membership in the RA are explicitly performative. That is, membership is neither gained nor lost until the Speaker's Office acknowledges that fact, with the sole exception of the two week limit on the waiting period for RA applicants.
As for the specific case of Treize_Dreizehn, the Court rules that his original admission to the Regional Assembly was not lawful. However, over the past four months he has acted in nothing but good faith. He has been a productive member of the RA, has voted on legislation and run in elections, and has served admirably in the Attorney General's office. Should the Court rule that these associated posts, votes, and actions are ex post facto unlawful, legally speaking, it would simultaneously be required to order a recount of all such legislative, non-legislative, and electoral votes, as well as a review of all actions taken as a government official and, potentially, a reopening of voting for any election in which Treize was a candidate. Such alteration of accepted fact is neither practical, possible, nor permitted by the Bill of Rights.
Therefore, Treize_Dreizehn's membership in the Regional Assembly is not revoked. He may continue to serve as a full-fledged member, entitled to all of the rights and privileges afforded to any other member. However, his original rejection by Sanctaria was upheld by the Regional Assembly, and the recent motion to overturn that rejection failed. If Treize's membership in the Regional Assembly is renounced or allowed to lapse through normal channels, he will not be able to rejoin until his rejection is overridden by a majority vote of the RA.
To explain these rulings a little more, the first ruling states that the Speaker's actions to admit or deny an individual are performative - which means they happen when the speaker makes them happen. You can think of it like marriage; the officiant's pronunciation that the couple is married is what marries them. Similarly, the Speaker's announcement that someone is a citizen, or has lost citizenship, is what grants or removes that status.
Second, Treize Dreizehn was someone who was admitted to the RA despite having been denied by the Vice Delegate. In that case, it was a later vice delegate who stated that they passed the check, and the speaker admitted them following that. The court ruled in that case that despite the unlawful admission, Douria was and could remain a citizen until they lost citizenship naturally, at which point they would not be eligible to rejoin.
So, taking the two together, you are correct that admitting such a person would not be legally sound, but they would still be admitted. They would be a full citizen from the moment of admission. The speaker might be recalled for it, or possibly face a criminal charge if an AG was feeling punitive, but that would not revoke the citizenship.
2) Suppose a member of the RA proposes a bill which, if passed, would add into the legal code a declaration that a certain nation is guilty of gross misconduct. Further suppose that this nation has never been accused, tried, or convicted of gross misconduct in TNP. The author motions for a vote. What would you do?
2. I would schedule the vote but would at the same remind the RA of RA Rule 1.3 which allows the citizens to object to the scheduling which would force me to cancel the vote before it would ever get to the floor. There is a chance that Rule 1.4 would be used to force a vote nonetheless, but I see it as my job to comply with the will of the Regional Assembly. It is the place of the legal system to test the constitutionality of the proposal. I would actively oppose the legislation however by voicing my opinion on the matter.
3) Suppose a vote to add a new memorial day to the legal code has just passed by the slimmest majority. The debate over this was fierce and sometimes heated, as the community was bitterly divided over whether the selected event should be commemorated or not. On more than one occasion, forum moderation had to step in to keep the discussion thread civil. Immediately after the delegate signs the bill into law, someone on the losing side proposes a repeal of that same bill in the RA. What is your reaction?
3. It is my job to facilitate the ongoing discussion of the Regional Assembly. Therefore, I would schedule the vote. I have no intention of abusing my power for the sake of pushing or blocking certain pieces of legislation. After all, this is the Delegate's authority. I would advise people to rethink their proposal if it was incapable of being applied to any legal power of the Regional Assembly such as the recent inquiry that has been brought to the RA without any legal basis for its existence. Though, even then I would not stand in their way of presenting it to the citizenry.
These two deal more with the speaker's discretionary power, and there have also been two rulings about that. They read as follows:
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 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.
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.
As in the review of a Speaker's decision to end debate, we find the Speaker's power broad, but not unlimited. While the Speaker may refuse to tolerate something harmful, it is not a legitimate use of their power to capriciously stifle any and all debate. Two things therefore matter in this instance: the content of the proposal in question, and the severity of the Speaker's crackdown.
The proposal previously reviewed, which attempted to ban an individual legislatively, was determined to be controversial, to have prompted "not-insignificant" responses from the moderation team including multiple warnings (a status which we shall term "flammability"), to lack merit, to lack viability, and to lack legality. This is not a precedential, exhaustive list of instances where a Speaker is well within their rights to block a debate or vote, and the Speaker's Office is not obliged to use or refer to it for any future issue. There are, however, a number of similarities between that case and this one which help clarify our decision.
[ul][li]Controversy: The Religious Exclusion Act is one in a series of legislation which have provoked a great deal of uproar about the relationship between religion and government in TNP. Like Chasmanthe's bill, this one was not introduced innocent of any knowledge of the controversy that would accompany it, but rather in full awareness and with the intent to provoke it further. It is, therefore, highly controversial.
[li]Flammability: A number of warnings have been handed out for escalating or outrageous behavior during the tangled course of these debates, including one to the author of this bill in a previous thread and one to another participant in the debate on this specific bill. It is, therefore, highly flammable.
[li]Merit: The subtitle of this post is "For the sake of silliness and fun", and the author of this bill describes it as "hysterically entertaining", "meaningless", and "unenforceable". Other posters within the thread regard it similarly. The Court is happy to agree with everyone that this proposal lacks merit.
[li]Viability: The majority of posters within the thread in question are opposed to the proposal, and several commented on their annoyance. It seems safe to conclude that this proposal has no viability, and would not have attained a majority at vote.
[li]Legality: Many of the clauses of this bill are direct violations of the bill of rights, but they are contradicted by a clause which states, essentially, that if made law this bill would not have the force of law. This is unestablished in precedent, and it is not clear that it can legally be done or how it interacts with any sworn oath to obey the law. The legality of this proposal is therefore, at best, questionable.
[/li][/ul]Based on these five criteria, the Court determines that this proposal is easily one which falls within the reasonable right of the Speaker to shut down.
[...]
1. The Speaker's option to refuse a discretionary vote is entirely legal and can be used at any time. The Speaker may deviate from the Standing Procedures at any point, provided that the deviation is not a violation of any other law or policy and does not infringe on any rights.
2. If, at any point, the Speaker determines that allowing a debate to continue is not in the best interests of the region, we concur with the previous Court that they have an obligation to put an end to it.
The scenarios I gave you are again extremely close to events that occurred in actuality. In the first, a member of the RA proposed to legislatively ban another member, without going through a court case. The speaker refused to entertain debate, and the court found that this was within the speaker's authority to do when continued debate on a topic "is not reasonably in the best interests of the region".
The second occurred in relation to the adoption of Flemingovianism as the regional religion; it was an argument that had dragged on for some time and gotten somewhat nasty. When yet another bill was passed, the Speaker again stepped in to shut it down. In this case, the Court took a stronger stance and stated that rather than simply possessing the right to intervene, the Speaker is obligated to do so when a matter being debated is not in the interests of the region. The court also laid out some guidelines which the Speaker's office may (but is not required to) refer to when considering halting debate in the future.
So, I now would like to ask if there are any portions of your answers you would change, knowing the relevant legal background (and of course, feel free to review the full cases for additional context before answering). If not, in what circumstances would you consider it your obligation to exercise that particular power of the office?
1. You are of course right. In fact the amendment for the forum came through this term. I honestly was not thinking when I answered.
4. That makes perfect sense when stated in that way. One cannot recall a non-government official so I concur with your reasoning.
6. I understand your point, but this is a discretionary aspect of the speakership. There comes a point when such an action would be considered overreach. I think it is in good conscience that I say that there may come a circumstance when denying scheduling may be necessary for the good of the region. However, I believe that the citizenry as a whole is first judge in regard to the soundness and quality of a proposal. I of course would warn an author of the sub par state of their proposal but would most likely leave it to the RA to speak for itself. The Delegate is another line of defense with veto power (if this is indeed a legislative action) so I would only reserve the speaker's discretion as an emergence break in the most dire of circumstances.
5. The courts have spoken and therefore I shall act in their stead. It is my intention to ensure this state of events never occurs and I am proud to say that it has never occurred while I have done checks over the months.
2/3. I must say that these cases are intriguing and quite tailored to their circumstances. I acknowledge that the Speaker does serve a role as the "failsafe" guard of the dignity of the RA by defending it from proposals that may contradict standing law and most especially the constitution and the bill of rights (if they are not being amended). Once again, I could not rule out the possibility of me exercising those powers in order to protect the region. I would be very hesitant to use them as surely the situation calls for deep contemplation into the effects that would be brought forth in the possibility that such a proposal was passed. I would seek counsel from veterans of the region, fellow citizens, the Attorney General, and any applicable authority that would deal with the conflict at hand. Such time and care should be taken before such a unilateral act of the office was exercised.
I want to take this time to thank you for your questions and for enlightening me of these circumstances that have come before the Regional Assembly in the past. Furthermore, you have demonstrated an aspect of the office I wish to bring to the forefront of practice if I am so lucky to be elected Speaker. Here it has been demonstrated that I do not know everything about the office. I accept that fact and challenge it with this: I wish to continue to learn to be a good speaker as I occupy the office and listen to the long established and wise of the region. This is what I think it takes for any governmental official to succeed in administering their duties. I desire the office only to do it rightly while being constantly informed and taught so that I may become an ever more perfect servant of the region. Therefore, I invite others to question me and test my adequacy so that I may prove my competence to you or so that I may grow from my wrongs. Either way I am the better for it. Thank you!
What do you think has been the most critical problem the Speakers office has faced this term? How would you overcome this next term?
Did you feel that the Speaker was deliberately preventing his Deputies from exercising their responsibilities in the lead up to this election in order to minimise any potential threat to his candidacy as Speaker?
Could you elaborate on what areas (in particular) you think you and other current Deputies have lacked the required training in order to carry out the role of Speaker effectively?
Did you find the training provided to you this term been adequate? Would you change anything if you were Speaker?
Who was your favourite former Speaker of the Regional Assembly and why?
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you've only served in a position in the legislative branch of the government. If you could occupy another role in another area of the government, what would you be most interested in?
If you could make one change to the laws of TNP despite any potential controversiality, what change would you make? Think big!
Thank you for your followup answers, Wonderess. I appreciate your willingness to reconsider your original take, and also to stand by it when you feel it is appropriate. Every speaker wields power differently, and part of growing into the role is determining where you yourself draw lines.
[quote uid=1669 name="mcmasterdonia" ]What do you think has been the most critical problem the Speakers office has faced this term? How would you overcome this next term?
Did you feel that the Speaker was deliberately preventing his Deputies from exercising their responsibilities in the lead up to this election in order to minimise any potential threat to his candidacy as Speaker?
Could you elaborate on what areas (in particular) you think you and other current Deputies have lacked the required training in order to carry out the role of Speaker effectively?
Did you find the training provided to you this term been adequate? Would you change anything if you were Speaker?
Who was your favourite former Speaker of the Regional Assembly and why?
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you've only served in a position in the legislative branch of the government. If you could occupy another role in another area of the government, what would you be most interested in?
If you could make one change to the laws of TNP despite any potential controversiality, what change would you make? Think big!
[/quote]I think that a major problem has been the connection between the citizens and the Speaker's Office. I want to remove the vacuum that has led to mistakes being made because there was no input from citizens who knew the right answers or could have given advice that would prevent mistakes from being made.
All I can tell you is that I have not been given any responsibility in the office for about two weeks now which is out of the ordinary for the term before election season came around.
Before Silly String mentioned it I was not familiar with the court cases that pertained to the Speakership. I also never really new what I was capable and not capable of doing. Siwale would ask me to post a confirmation vote or a treaty vote and I kept having to tell him that I was unsure if I had the ability to do that without talking to abc about it which I admit slowed down the RA process.
Training was mostly on a need to know basis. Like when a proposal was being posted for a vote I was taught about it. I would say that the discussion of the basics were all there and taught, though special cases and nuances were omitted.
I am unsure if I have a go to job in mind. I like Foreign Affairs and Culture but I don't see myself being in a leadership position for those anytime soon. I like administration which the Speakership is rich in.
I have mentioned this before, but I want to allow the RA to have a collaborative aspect with the Delegate's Government. Now the RA is limited to changes to the law, confirmations of certain officials, and treaty ratifications. I do not see why there cannot be a function that advises NOT FORCES the ministries to take action. I think it is an avenue that can lead to more activity and creative process in the RA.
