As a member of the Security Council, and a former Vice Delegate, I'm going to put on my security hat for a moment. I don't believe a drumbeat for activity, activity, activity tells the whole story of what the SC can do, defines what their purpose is, or determines their value. And I do not believe that recent bad trends means we need to be ready to give the boot to someone who put a great deal of time and dedication toward the security of our region, and who did great things in the past. I believe no small amount of deference is owed to such people, and the bar for something like this should be very high. Being on the Security Council isn't like elected office, or a position in the cabinet. A lot of our work happens in the background, slowly over a great deal of time, and we don't have the kind of fast turnaround, single-term expectations those offices have.
I put a lot of work into figuring out how to improve the SC's endorsement gathering and engagement. Even before I was Vice Delegate, I saw an encouraging trend, fresh faces and new blood invigorating the SC after a long period of old members peeling off and the council shrinking and, I might even say, withering. By the end of my term as VD we had 2, soon to be 3, new members. I believe this is the most active the SC has been in a long time, and the fact that even then they could be so much more is not lost on me. The SC is not a body that changes quickly, or without a great deal of thought and care. So to an extent, I am willing to be patient and not give its members too hard a time, because the culture is changing and the number of consistent and present SC members is higher than it has been since I have been in TNP, at least from what I could gather. And when it comes to engagement, that is directly tied into culture, and the habits of the SC members. It's not a body that is as keyed into regional life writ-large, at least for the more veteran members. The newcomers, on the other hand, come from that experience, and that is driving the change in SC culture. We have to nudge the others along so they get accustomed to that, and we have been seeing improvement there. Endorsements aren't the only, or even the best, way to engage, but increasingly it is something that some us, including me, Siwale, and most recent candidates for VD in the last few cycles, have considered a priority.
But endotarting is elementary. It is the very basic thing all SC members can and should do, and it doesn't change. The culture may shift and the SC may be deliberate and gradual in changing its approach, but endotarting is still SC 101. We shouldn't be so obsessed with activity purity that we pick up our torches and pitchforks after a few bad weeks of endorsement reports. As SillyString pointed out above, of course, we're not talking about a few weeks. We're talking about years. This discussion highlights how fantastic WADP is, but it's supposed to be supplementary, not the source of endorsements. I ran a lot of endorsement alerts as VD, and everyone managed to pick up their slack at some point. Roman did not. I believe the bar is high for recalling a member of the SC, and I believe that it takes a lot for one to fairly say that activity alone, when that person still performs duties and is around in some capacity, is a sufficient cause for that member's removal. We may see in this situation, precisely the sort of scenario where activity has impacted performance, and it can be reasonably said to be below the standard we should expect. When you add to that the fact that Roman has zero engagement outside of the meager votes or endorsements he has taken part in, it's that much harder to meet the changing standard we have for the SC.
I don't know Roman, we've rarely interacted, I'm not actually sure if we've even interacted directly. I believe he deserves to be here, and I have no doubt he did great things and was a important help to our region in the past. There always seems to come a point when the old greats don't keep up. Maybe they are not willing to, maybe they aren't able to. Their reasons are their own, and probably more important than any of this. That's fine, life moves on and priorities must take center stage. A decision to bring his service to an end does not diminish any of the things he has done, it does not mean we do not believe he deserves to be here, it does not mean he has failed. It means that times have changed, our expectations have changed, and he is not, at this time, able to continue to serve in that environment. But considering who it is, I echo the opinion of many others in saying that he deserves to be heard, he deserves to have a chance to address our concerns, to explain where he is coming from. If this has been a long time coming, another week surely isn't too much to ask.
