Recall Reform Act

Status
Not open for further replies.
Romanoffia

Romanoffia

Garde à l'eau!
Here's the proposition. Either as a stand-alone Constitutional Amendment or as a specific stand-alone law:

No person who holds an elected position shall be subject to recall unless a specific violation of a specific law or legal requirement of position is cited. A trial conducted by the Regional Assembly shall determine the results in which a two thirds numerical majority conviction is required for removal of said person from elected position.
Purpose of legislation:

To prevent the removal of a person from elected office for trivial, arbitrary or capricious reason.


Argument:

It is too easy to remove or force a person from office for arbitrary and capricious reason. It also to easy to systematically recall and remove people from office for reasons of personal animosity or personal gain, or to remove someone from an elected position for reasons not supported by the Law or Constitution.

Apology (in the literary sense and not the colloquial usage):

The use of recall to undermine the government is a weakness in The North Pacific. You can systematically remove government officials one by one or wholesale if one gains a sufficiant majority. No legal basis needs to be cited. All you have to do is to convince enough people to remove someone and it is done. This is a seed for usurpers, bullies and rogues.

For example - someone has a hatred for a particular person, drums up enough hatred for that person and then recalls them from office without the victim having done anything in violation of any law, rule or regulation. If an elected office holder is recalled without any legal cause in terms of violations of the Law and Constitution, it means that elections are meaningless and subject to arbitrary reversal on a whim.

This particular weakness is an invitation to usurpers and rogues because instant and immediate discord can be drummed up in instant without anyone having any time to understand what is going on. We've seen this before in other recalls. No one is give the opportunity to object and in some instances vote or otherwise register the proper legal objection.

This is an exploit that must be closed.


Counter Apology:

It might be argued that a recall for any reason is 'the will of the people'. Yes, indeed, the will of the people at a given instant which can be exploited and manipulated. It was the will of the people to elect an official at a given point of time also. And if the will of the people decides at an uninformed instant to remove an official without proper violation of a legal point, it is an instant negation of an election thus rendering elections meaningless because they can be reversed on a whim reducing stability and regional security.


Closing Statement:

I wish the members of the RA to seriously consider, discuss and modify this proposal as needed for serious consideration before a vote.

The Speaker may extend the traditional discussion of this matter if the rules so apply.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Are you trying to say we should amend the constitution in regards to the recall or that the Legal Code should define the Pate Meyers for what constitutes a recall? Maybe I’m missing something in what you have posted but I think it would be helpful to understand what law you are trying to change and how that change will look in a contextual manner.
 
Syrixia:
Where's the markup?
Click to expand...
It was a grammatical and punctuation shange. I wish this forum format had an "edit history" feature.

mcmasterdonia:
Can we instead have a Committee for Public Safety? It could be two officials (myself and I). We could decide who gets removed from office without troubling the assembly.
Click to expand...

Ah! French Revolution reference? :P

You have a good idea there about a commission to determine the merits of a recall. I like the idea, but the mechanics might get complicated and that is something TNP suffers too much from. I have a better idea:

It would be much simpler if anyone bringing articles of recall (colloquial term, not legalistic term) were required to cite the legal points regarding the request for recall and let the RA sort it out in a proper discussion lasting about 10-14 days. If the RA things there is sufficient legal cause in terms of a legal violation, then it proceeds.

The problem with recalls is that there is no way to actually get an injuction in the Court without taking a course in Law. The Court is more interested in grammar and punctuation that it is Law (/srcasm /poking humour).

All that needs to be done is to require a citation of a violation of the laws for a given position before any recall proceeds. That prevents the whole process from wandering away into a rail-road job on the intended target.

Let me give you the immediate example (and this is not an invitation for others to use to attack me):

I was brought up for 'recall' from the SC without me having violated any rules as per anything. I was then arbitrarily targeted, piled on, and bullied until I resigned. I violated not law, now requirement or anything regarding the position of being an SC member. The result was damage to the SC by forcing out an effective member of the SC. The only purpose this served was to weaken the effectiveness of the SC for obvious purposes, Before anyone calls "conspiracy theory' on this let it be known that I never attribute to a conspiracy that which can be explained by simple incompetence. :P

And yes, for the record, I have a personal gripe against at least one of the ring leaders of my bogus recall who has been on my case for a long time for some idiotic reason.

But that is irrelevant. I have suggested a while back that we should have some form of constabulary in place to enforce or at least point out potential violations of the law and investigate said violations before presenting it to the AG/Court.The only problem with that is that it might potentially turn us unto a police state (not that we aren't already there in some aspects.)

All that has to be done is to establish a reasonable set of requirements when a case of recall is presented and do so in a manner that largely precludes using a recall as a personal means of revenge or harassment.
 
I honestly don't think there should be a recall reform (at least I don't think any certain parts need to be reformed) however I am willing to translate your proposal into an actual law markup (such as the Constitution) if you wish.
 
Dinoium:
I honestly don't think there should be a recall reform (at least I don't think any certain parts need to be reformed) however I am willing to translate your proposal into an actual law markup (such as the Constitution) if you wish.
Click to expand...

It can actually be a markup of exiting law. A constitutional amendment would be better as it would enhance the provisions regarding due process and set a bar for recall/impeachment or similar procedures.

Another problem with our 'recall' method is that there is too much opportunity for the process to be ram-rodded through before anyone is actually allowed to discuss the matter as we have seen a couple of times.


Syrixia:
Where's the markup?
Click to expand...

I misunderstood your use of the term 'markup'. I can markup the existing laws governing recall (of which there are largely none in terms of procedure or required evidence or charges).

All the current law requires is that a recall requires no legal standard other than people deciding to recall an official for any reason, no matter how trivial, that they can think of. Under current TNP Law, you can recall someone because it's Friday afternoon and the moon is full and you have enough votes to do it.
 
Dinoium:
I honestly don't think there should be a recall reform (at least I don't think any certain parts need to be reformed) however I am willing to translate your proposal into an actual law markup (such as the Constitution) if you wish.
Click to expand...
Article 2, clause 5 of the Constitution shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
Click to expand...
Done. The remainder of this proposal is already covered by Article 5 of the Constitution, though not precisely the way the proposer has outlined.
 
Darcania:
Done. The remainder of this proposal is already covered by Article 5 of the Constitution, though not precisely the way the proposer has outlined.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. It needs to be revised. If this were the case, my bogus 'recall' from the Security Council would have been shot down before it got off the ground.

This only proves that there is a great big hole in the Law and Constitution. The problem here is that you can recall anyone for any reason no matter how trivial without any legal basis. I've seen it done before. I've seen votes ram-rodded through before any real discussion has been conducted. It's all in the timing and how a propaganda war is waged against a target.

Like I have said before, if you can raise a sufficient majority, you can violate the laws and constitution and no one can oppose you. You take out people one by one or wholesale, ignore the constitution and the law, and if anyone complains, you accuse them of going against the 'will of the people'. And, as we all know, the "will of the people" trumps the Constitution and the Law, but only when it serves a particular cowd's agenda.

I'm just pointing out the obvious and waiting for the usual suspects to attack me for it,
 
Striking article 2, clause 5 is precisely what you're going for based on your rants - the law already provides for ways to remove an official from office if they fail to meet the legal minimum requirements via charges of Grosse Misconduct.
 
Yes, I was about to ask about it:
5. All Nations of The North Pacific have the right to be protected against the abuse of powers by any official of a government authority of the region. Any Nation of The North Pacific has the right to request the recall of any official of a government authority of the region in accordance with the Constitution, that is deemed to have participated in such acts.
Click to expand...
The bill of rights must not be violated, so we have to retain the ability to ask for the recall of officials for harm done, regardless of whether that harm explicitly violated a law or rule.
 
Eluvatar:
Yes, I was about to ask about it:
The bill of rights must not be violated, so we have to retain the ability to ask for the recall of officials for harm done, regardless of whether that harm explicitly violated a law or rule.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with that point, but there has to be protection from simply being recalled because someone doesn't like you or for reasons not based in any violation of the law or Constitution. And how do you define 'harm'? And who defines what it is? And how arbitrary can it be? For instance, what 'harm' did I do to get recalled? What what the 'harm' or violation of law or Constitution? None. Hence, a political weapon. See what I am driving at? You can recall a Delegate because the Delegate's name had too many or too few letters in it is or any reason under the sun and to think that it can't be done because they couldn't get the 3/3rds majority to do it is foolish. Sillier things have happened, especially when the targets of 'recall' are given exactly two minutes to respond before it moves to a vote and 'objections' to the whole process are denied out of hand despite the rules for the process. The whole process as it stands now is too prone to be used in a mean-spirited fashion as a bludgeon that can be wielded for purely personal or political ambition goals.

And also, you don't even have to actually successfully recall a person to destroy their reputation and resume. All you have to do is start the process and then pile on the target and accuse them of anything and everything that isn't true. And you've destroyed or damaged their reputation for good. Remember, the constitution should also protect the person being 'recalled' against the lax recall process which is prone to being used as a political weapon or personal weapon.

The current process is not due process at all - if you remove someone via the current means and there is no crime or defined legal point to base the matter on, then you are punishing someone for a crime that is not in the legal code or Constitution, and the last time I looked, someone cannot be prosecuted or denied due process for a crime that is not in the legal code. And that is essentially what the current recall process is.

The problem I have with the current process is that there needs to be a well defined legal bar which has been crossed in order to bring a recall into play. That is to say, there should be a well defined line that needs to be crossed for which there is sufficient evidence (and not 'belief') to prove before allowing such a process to begin. What I am saying is that there should be a specific procedure for recall and specific, well defined reasons which are not nebulous and utterly undefined, carved in stone in the legal code. Only then can you have true due process in such matters and not a circus of blood thirsty clowns out to drag someone through the mud for whatever reason you can think up.

The whole purpose of government and law is to protect the rights of minorities from the majority, and the world's smallest minority is the individual.
 
Darcania:
Striking article 2, clause 5 is precisely what you're going for based on your rants - the law already provides for ways to remove an official from office if they fail to meet the legal minimum requirements via charges of Grosse Misconduct.
Click to expand...

That's not where I am going with this. Read my post just above this one. I'm going for a defined process with a specific legal bar to be met based upon the existing laws and prohibiting recalls not based in an actual violation of oath of office or existing laws. The current process is to prone to be used as a personal or political weapon to damage reputations.
 
From what I have seen so far in this proposal is an attempt to limit the authority of the Regional Assembly to protect members in office. The wording of the recall power allows the Regional Assembly to keep government officials in check and to prevent complacency in an office by doing the bare minimum to keep said office. Officials should always do more than the bare minimum that is required of them and the Regional Assembly should expect them to do more than the bare minimum.

In the case of your (now null) recall from the Security Council, yes your nation had the required endorsements and influence, you posted on the forum roughly every 10 days (to avoid abandoning your position) and you maintained citizenship. That is the bare minimum that Security Councilers should do. Participation in Security Council debates and votes was minimal at best. As stated in the recall, your endorsements were propped up by two endorsement events held by two separate administrations and the WADP program, not due to you personally working to maintain your counts.

Minimal work is no longer acceptable, minimal work should no longer guarantee a position in this region while others work to pick up the slack, and minimal work to maintain the minimum requirements should no longer be a shield to protect an official from scrutiny from the Regional Assembly. I will not support curtailing the Regional Assembly's duty in being a check on government officials.
 
We need more democracy not less. I suggest mandatory - and weekly - confirmation votes of all government officials, including deputy ministers and NPA soldiers.
 
There have been discussions in the past about requiring annual or biennial confirmation votes on members of the SC, so that the community can make a conscious decision about who should remain on the SC, rather than just appointing them one day and then rarely or never considering if they should be removed. The initiation of a recall vote is a big step that many are reluctant to take, since it can come off as personal. Having automatic reconsideration of SC members from time to time may be a better process. The SC is unique among our institutions since the appointments are indefinite. They are the only government officials that are not subject to any kind of regular review - be it an election, or reappointment. It's worth considering.
 
I would like to make a simple objection to the argument laid out by Roman. I do not view recall from office as inherently a punishment. Government office is not a right that can only be taken away as a result of punishing some crime, and consent of the governed is an important aspect of public service.

I believe that we are long overdue for taking a closer look at how we handle the Security Council in general, and in fact this recall effort is part of that reconsideration. Our expectations and standards are changing, and that can and should lead to looking at everything from additional confirmations to taking a closer look at open nominations for people not currently on the SC.

When it comes to the recall itself, I view the issue as being a result of the difference between legislative and non-legislative proposals. There is room to either write a more explicit process for handling debate in recalls, or to revisit the way debate is handled for non-legislative proposals more generally. I am fairly confident the Speaker has learned from this vote and would approach a potential future recall differently when it comes time to vote.
 
This bill seems to obstruct the ability of the citizenry from removing a person in office they see as detrimental in some way. The written law will never cover every single type of infraction that is recall worthy and so to limit such efforts to what is written down is quite the hindrance. One could say that the law can be amended and then enacted to force a recall, but I think that wastes precious time when the dysfunction could have been handled already. I am opposed to this.

@Romanoffia may I ask why you think this legislation is helpful to the whole region?
 
Wonderess:
One could say that the law can be amended and then enacted to force a recall, ...
Click to expand...
Bill of Rights Article 9 disallows ex post facto laws. So we could prevent people from doing so in the future but couldn't prosecute the offender.
 
Roman, if you had read the recall thread thoroughly, and not resigned in a fit of pique, you would know that you would have had up to another 2 weeks to respond more appropriately.
 
mcmasterdonia:
How would a recall work under your proposal?

Wouldn’t the Committee for Public Safety be a better option? Hiring and firing as they choose, answerable only to the guillotine.
Click to expand...

Now that's the type of humour and irony I appreciate!

All sarcasm and joking aside, the purpose of this proposal is to set a specific process for recall in which certain states must be met in order to proceed with a recall, possibly by an automatic mechanism, but I will make not of that mechanism in a response to the next quote in this thread.


Artemis:
From what I have seen so far in this proposal is an attempt to limit the authority of the Regional Assembly to protect members in office. The wording of the recall power allows the Regional Assembly to keep government officials in check and to prevent complacency in an office by doing the bare minimum to keep said office. Officials should always do more than the bare minimum that is required of them and the Regional Assembly should expect them to do more than the bare minimum.

In the case of your (now null) recall from the Security Council, yes your nation had the required endorsements and influence, you posted on the forum roughly every 10 days (to avoid abandoning your position) and you maintained citizenship. That is the bare minimum that Security Councilers should do. Participation in Security Council debates and votes was minimal at best. As stated in the recall, your endorsements were propped up by two endorsement events held by two separate administrations and the WADP program, not due to you personally working to maintain your counts.

Minimal work is no longer acceptable, minimal work should no longer guarantee a position in this region while others work to pick up the slack, and minimal work to maintain the minimum requirements should no longer be a shield to protect an official from scrutiny from the Regional Assembly. I will not support curtailing the Regional Assembly's duty in being a check on government officials.
Click to expand...

Very good points. Well said. This makes me reconsider parts of my proposal because you gave me a good idea on how to proceed in a manner that does not curtail the RA's check on the other branches and functions of the government. I have this idea to float:

What if we put special activity requirements on the Security Council? What if we require SC members to be present for a roll call on a regular basis, say every few days? Allow SC members to give an announce or request sabbatical leaves to allow for RL situations and allow for 'leave time' from the SC. Also, make considerations for RL situations to consider situations in which the SC member is absolutely precluded from the activity requirements for a given period of time (say 14 days as starting point). The exact details can be worked out in the SC rules rather than by legislation (given the mechanical nature of the SC insomuch as it is not technically a 'government position' per se).

This would cut down on the number of people in the SC which seems to have evolved into some kind of badge of honour rather than a real function of regional security.



St George:
We need more democracy not less. I suggest mandatory - and weekly - confirmation votes of all government officials, including deputy ministers and NPA soldiers.
Click to expand...

Close to the idea I presented above. Special activity requirements of a more stringent nature may be in order for government officials and SC members.



Crushing Our Enemies:
There have been discussions in the past about requiring annual or biennial confirmation votes on members of the SC, so that the community can make a conscious decision about who should remain on the SC, rather than just appointing them one day and then rarely or never considering if they should be removed. The initiation of a recall vote is a big step that many are reluctant to take, since it can come off as personal. Having automatic reconsideration of SC members from time to time may be a better process. The SC is unique among our institutions since the appointments are indefinite. They are the only government officials that are not subject to any kind of regular review - be it an election, or reappointment. It's worth considering.
Click to expand...

I thank you for your insightful post because it has also made me think of this in an entirely new angle. My response to Artemis goes right along the lines you suggest (as I understand it):

How about this approach - specific activity requirements for SC members (the SC can do this by creating their own rules, possibly). Have weekly or bi-weekly role calls. Those not responding to two consecutive roll calls or regular three day meetings go into a 'suspended' state unless they have requested a sabbatical or have a pressing and unannounced RL matter that prevented them from responding as required. Such 'suspended' members would remain 'suspended' from a certain number of days before being removed from the SC by SC rules. Said 'suspended' members would be reinstated to 'active' status upon their reappearance or return provided they don't do it again in the near future in an mechanical fashion which takes advantage of the rules. That simple, nothing to be taken as 'personal'.

Your and Artemis' ideas are well worth discussing in detail to base any change in this department.



Pallaith:
I would like to make a simple objection to the argument laid out by Roman. I do not view recall from office as inherently a punishment. Government office is not a right that can only be taken away as a result of punishing some crime, and consent of the governed is an important aspect of public service.

I believe that we are long overdue for taking a closer look at how we handle the Security Council in general, and in fact this recall effort is part of that reconsideration. Our expectations and standards are changing, and that can and should lead to looking at everything from additional confirmations to taking a closer look at open nominations for people not currently on the SC.

When it comes to the recall itself, I view the issue as being a result of the difference between legislative and non-legislative proposals. There is room to either write a more explicit process for handling debate in recalls, or to revisit the way debate is handled for non-legislative proposals more generally. I am fairly confident the Speaker has learned from this vote and would approach a potential future recall differently when it comes time to vote.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you 100% after taking a closer look at the whole matter.

I am actually pleasantly surprised at this thread and how it is being discussed in a logical and civil manner, all things considered. This is what I call progress - allowing an proposal to 'evolve' in a cooperative and not adversarial way. I am honestly humbled beyond belief by the way this is playing out so far and almost thankful of the 'recall' which resulted in a 'kick in the arse' to me to return to total activity on the forum and in the region in general.

It's not often that we see any number of people come up with the same logical solution to a problem or potential problem. I am very optimistic that something good will come out of this whole episode.
 
Romanoffia:
The exact details can be worked out in the SC rules rather than by legislation (given the mechanical nature of the SC insomuch as it is not technically a 'government position' per se).
Click to expand...
That's where you're wrong. Here's the Constitution on the subject:
TNP Constitution:
2. Government officials are the constitutionally-mandated elected officials, any officials appointed by them as permitted by law, and members of the Security Council.
Click to expand...
If the SC were to create additional activity requirements, they don't currently have a means to enforce them. The SC can't oust its own members under the law as it stands.

Personally, I'm happy with the status quo. If an SC member loses the confidence of the citizenry, they get recalled, just like any other government official. The 2/3 majority of the RA is really the only threshold that I think is necessary.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
There have been discussions in the past about requiring annual or biennial confirmation votes on members of the SC, so that the community can make a conscious decision about who should remain on the SC, rather than just appointing them one day and then rarely or never considering if they should be removed. The initiation of a recall vote is a big step that many are reluctant to take, since it can come off as personal. Having automatic reconsideration of SC members from time to time may be a better process. The SC is unique among our institutions since the appointments are indefinite. They are the only government officials that are not subject to any kind of regular review - be it an election, or reappointment. It's worth considering.
Click to expand...

I think this is an excellent idea.

The original proposal not so much, for all the reasons already brought up.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
That's where you're wrong. Here's the Constitution on the subject:If the SC were to create additional activity requirements, they don't currently have a means to enforce them. The SC can't oust its own members under the law as it stands.

Personally, I'm happy with the status quo. If an SC member loses the confidence of the citizenry, they get recalled, just like any other government official. The 2/3 majority of the RA is really the only threshold that I think is necessary.
Click to expand...

Yeah, just looked at that part of the Constitution and you are right. No argument there.

As per the status quo, I have concluded that the right to recall by the RA is indeed necessary. But I think more stringent activity requirements should be implemented just to assure activity on the part of the SC members. More discussion on this is needed.

What I don't like is that the present arrangement can be taken too personally because 'recall' can be totally arbitrary. If certain detailed rules are in place and the enforcement of those specific details be also enforceable by the SC, it would make the process rather impersonal and less prone to it being interpreted as personal in nature.

I understand how it is disconcerting to alter the 'status quo' in anything. Confidence of the citizenry in some instances is too easily manipulated for potentially nefarious reasons and for transient and capricious reasons. But that is human nature. I'm a fan of 'status quo' as long as it doesn't cause too many problems that can be misconstrued. In fact, I ultimately resigned from the SC due to the 'status quo' and fighting it would only cause more discord. At this point, I am willing to live with the results of my inaction on the forum and have dispensed with anything I consider 'personal'. No big deal at this point. But I would like to see more specific activity requirements for the SC so it doesn't become just a badge of honour or status symbol.

I can now understand the recall and personally condemn my radical reaction to it because I wrongly perceived it as 'personal'. I have decided that it was just a matter of mechanics and choose to look at it now as exactly that. I also understand that the decision to go to a recall was largely motivated by the fact that someone who has been around as long as I have been around in TNP not being as active as I should have been, should be given a kick in the arse for not giving a proper reason before it came to this. My bad. I understand that now. I became complacent, inattentive and coasted along because nothing much happened recently. I tender my apologies, to you and the whole region for my lack of enthusiasm in the execution of my duties.

Despite my endorsement levels, I won't ask to be reinstated to the SC unless asked to do so. That said, I will behave and act as though I was an SC member if anything should devolve upon me. My first loyalty is to TNP. Everyone knows that. I will do whatever is asked as long as it is legal, constitutional, ethical or moral.

I do believe that this matter of required activity in the SC should be revisited and revised, and made more stringent with a means to inform SC members to be as active as possible. As a fault on my part, due to RL considerations, I only maintained the minimum requirements. Those RL conditions having been solved and kept under control, I have the time to attend to those duties beyond the minimum. That is beside the point. I now understand the recall. Long standing citizen of the region, who should have known better, became largely inactive and silent. I understand the ire that this resulted in. I was wrong to react the way I did. There. I said it. I accept and acknowledge my fault in this matter and it it is no ones fault but my own.
 
King SillyString:
I think this is an excellent idea.

The original proposal not so much, for all the reasons already brought up.
Click to expand...

It’s a fine idea with a couple of issues.

One is that the public have no ability to know how active an SCer is “behind the scenes”. We can rely upon their publicly available information - endorsements counts, rmb posts, discord presence, and the like. But that’s not really enough to provide a truly fair assessment (I don’t think).

Given how dishonest some SCers were both about the data publicly available and the private availability of Roman in the recall thread, I don’t think this is enough information.

If the change included some requirement that the Vice Delegate provide a summary of the public and private activity of SC members (beyond simply tarting) that could be enough to make this functionally work a little better.

Otherwise we are taking what individual SCers say about their activity at face value with limited ability to challenge any claims made.
 
mcmasterdonia:
It’s a fine idea with a couple of issues.

One is that the public have no ability to know how active an SCer is “behind the scenes”. We can rely upon their publicly available information - endorsements counts, rmb posts, discord presence, and the like. But that’s not really enough to provide a truly fair assessment (I don’t think).

Given how dishonest some SCers were both about the data publicly available and the private availability of Roman in the recall thread, I don’t think this is enough information.

If the change included some requirement that the Vice Delegate provide a summary of the public and private activity of SC members (beyond simply tarting) that could be enough to make this functionally work a little better.

Otherwise we are taking what individual SCers say about their activity at face value with limited ability to challenge any claims made.
Click to expand...

I like that idea. The public information about any given nation is obviously available from the Endorse TNP page. From that information, you could simply create an automatically generated page or spreadsheet which a given SC nation's name is a link to all the specific information you cite.

Very nice. I like it.
 
I'd l'd like to kick this back to the Security Council to see if they can come up with a public manner for the citizenry to observe the participation of all SC members in order to make an informed decision in such recalls. if the SC is willing to take this up seriously.
 
Other than National Happenings, searching the RMB, searching the Forum, and all of our Discord servers, I don't know what more you're asking for.

All of that information is public, with the exception of executive staff/council channels, subject to FOIA, and the Security Council channel which I believe is not subject to that. It's governed by the Security Council Procedures, Article 10.

It's very easy to search through that data and get a feel for someone's activity, but isn't that just another subjective methodology that you felt was unfair when you were under the recall threat? Even when raw data about your endorsements given count was posted, the point at which it was deemed unacceptable was subjective because there was no definition of what is acceptable and what is not.

Give me metrics you want tracked, and let's come up with thresholds for them.
 
Romanoffia:
I'd l'd like to kick this back to the Security Council to see if they can come up with a public manner for the citizenry to observe the participation of all SC members in order to make an informed decision in such recalls. if the SC is willing to take this up seriously.
Click to expand...

I seriously don't understand what you want me to take seriously. There is no actual proposals or ideas on the tables. This thread has become a hodgepodge of random ideas most of which have dead ends or just trail off into bottomless pits......

I am willing to have a discussion about any of these topics, but I don't even know where you want me to start and I am not doing the heavy lifting to create proposals for other people to revise things I currently think are functioning fairly efficiently.....
 
The discord activity and participation in the War Room is useful information for people to know when considering a recall.

All the other stuff that is public is useful too. But as I’ve said, given there were some perhaps unintentional misleading remarks about SC activity in the recall debate about Roman, the Vice Delehate (presumably) making a summary of that information available would be useful.

Particularly if we go the route of confirming SC members once per year.
 
I think in all serious though, a Committee or Commission wouldn't be the worst idea. If they feel someone is needed to be recalled, they can draft their opinion on the matter and present it to the RA. I know this is sort of unnecessary bureaucracy but honestly in my opinion, I don't think McM's original idea wasn't the worst and could be necessary in the future. All Citizens will have the right to recall still but possibly this Committee or Comission could help out. Similar to the AG Office helps people make R4Rs with the FIRST STOP program.
 
Dinoium:
I think in all serious though, a Committee or Commission wouldn't be the worst idea......
Click to expand...

I really don't see how a committee on recalls would be necessary though. We have 1-2 recall attempts a year, to create a whole body that creates more government officials possibly more elections or yet more seats that the Speaker and the Delegate have to find people for after every general election. Especially if its going to be a committee that you can just ignore. Especially when the bar for Recalls remains at 66%+1 (a supermajority) and frivolous ones are easily tossed out
 
Lord Lore:
I really don't see how a committee on recalls would be necessary though. We have 1-2 recall attempts a year, to create a whole body that creates more government officials possibly more elections or yet more seats that the Speaker and the Delegate have to find people for after every general election. Especially if its going to be a committee that you can just ignore. Especially when the bar for Recalls remains at 66%+1 (a supermajority) and frivolous ones are easily tossed out
Click to expand...
Yeah that is a good point. I just thought if we were to take Mcm's idea serious, that's how it could work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top