Marcus Antonius' Security Council Application

[Oracle]

The Security Council has nominated Marcus Antonius for a seat on the Security Council. The vote for the nomination, with 4 ayes, 2 nays, 1 abstention, and 2 not present.

The Chair now presents this to the Regional Assembly for discussion.

 

[Dreadton]

@Marcus Antonius has been a citizen since October 2018. He has been a active and positive contributor to the community for a solid period of time. He has worked to keep TNPU functional through the good and rough times. His work there shows a strong focus on improving our community. Since July 2018 he has maintained an endorsement count higher that the SC requirements. I find nothing objectionable in his conduct and activity that would lead me to question his loyalty to TNP and our Democracy. I support this application and encourage others to pass this application.

 

[Darcania]

What about this applicant separates him from Xentherida, another recent applicant who was rejected?

What reasons did the two naysayers have to vote against this applicant?

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

I wonder if the applicant could assist me by answering some questions.

What is your view on the present state of disclosure of information from the Security Council; in particular, what is your view on the in relation to level of disclosure in respect of discussion around nominating applicants to the Council?

What would be your view on amending the Council's rules to establish a disclosure regime, as the Court did some time ago, for example (though one would think that the timescale and mechanism may differ).

Beyond the standards prescribed by law, what would you think an appropriate basis on which to recall a member of the Council or to not admit an applicant to the Council?

What is your view on the exemption from Council nomination which those previously nominated to the Council enjoy? Do you think that the Council should consider revoking any of its previous nominations, whether particular nominations or in general, and should there be a particular system or standard adopted by the Council when it considers doing so?

Part of the role of a Councillor is advising the Vice Delegate in connection with applicants for citizenship, in particular whether an applicant should be denied, to what extent do you think you would be capable of fulfilling that role and what standard would you use when considering what advice to give?

If I may, I would also ask of the Councillors who voted against the applicant's nomination, what was it that led you so to vote?

 

[Siwale]

What reasons did the two naysayers have to vote against this applicant?

My reasoning behind voting against this applicant stems from their rich history of leave of absences. Going off of the Ministry of Communications LoA thread, the applicant has considered themselves absent from their duties 50 out the past 170 days (~30% of the time). This number is composed of three 14 consecutive day absences and one 8 day consecutive day absence.

The frequency and duration of these LoAs are simply unacceptable when applied to the role of a Security Councillor. It is the duty of the SC to provide a continuous level of protection to TNP and its democratic foundation. Every individual member has a role to play strengthening this collaborative effort of the Council.

Occasional short-term absences are OK. Being gone 30% of the time is not.

 

[Bobberino]

I echo Darcania's first question.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I strongly support this applicant. Marcus is very dedicated to the region and to in-game tarting.

Not concerned at all about the LOA’s. Marcus always tells us in advance which is more than reasonable. He also sticks to them and doesn’t do unannounced absences. It shows the dedication to his work and the region that he takes the time to inform us... rather than just disappearing on holiday. I think it’s a strength rather than a weakness.

Most of the SC was dead when I was last a member and I think GBM was the only one who ever posted her LoA’s. I’m sure the SC can manage someone who actually warns them of their absences.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

What about this applicant separates him from Xentherida, another recent applicant who was rejected?

Applications are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. We do not compare and contrast candidates.

 

[Darcania]

Applications are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. We do not compare and contrast candidates.

Thank you for the non-answer, Madame Councilor. Am I to presume my other questions are to be met the same way? I'll ask them anyway, so please pardon the inconvenience. While I trust the Security Council to do what needs to be done, I tend to prefer asking questions and getting answers, being as I am a citizen of this region that you are, as per the Constitution, part of the governing body of. You'll excuse my attempts at getting some small amount of information which I could use to inform my vote on the matter.

As you do not "compare and contrast" candidates, even when asked to, then I'll ask in absolutes and do the actual comparison myself.

For the case of Xentherida, what demerits did he have when it came to his application that led to his denial?
For the case of Marcus Antonius, what merits did he have when it came to his application that led to his nomination?

 

[Oracle]

I’ll be replying g to your question regarding Marcus shorty. I’m about to have dinner. I will say that I don’t see the reason for discussing Xen when this is an application for Marcus.

 

[Fontainberg]

I strongly support Marcus Antonius for a seat on the Security Council. He is a kind, considerate, and fair person, actively participating in and managing numerous ministries within the TNP government. On top of all that, he is a very active member of our community, which makes him perfectly suited to be part of the Council, which requires active participation.

Overall, I think Marcus would make a splendid addition to the SC team.

 

[Bobberino]

I’ll be replying g to your question regarding Marcus shorty. I’m about to have dinner. I will say that I don’t see the reason for discussing Xen when this is an application for Marcus.

Is there somewhere else more appropriate that discussion could take place in then?

 

[Sil Dorsett]

What reasons did the two naysayers have to vote against this applicant?

My Nay vote was for several reasons. Siwale's concern over the frequent leave periods left me wondering if Marcus would even be able to maintain the office by ensuring that they logged into the forum at least once every 14 days. Remember, the Security Council is subject to the office abandonment clauses in the Legal Code. The frequent absences also have me worried whether he could react in a nightmare scenario if it were needed.

I'm also not convinced that his service to the region justifies being granted this kind of responsibility, yet. He's held a handful of deputy ministerships, one incomplete term as a minister affected again by holiday, but most of the work he's done recently has been related to the University, which is disconnected from actually operating the region. Remember that a Security Councilor could potentially stand in as Delegate in an emergency, so having some sort of background there is helpful. I think back to when I applied to the council, which was after a full year of service on the Executive Council as WA Minister and after three Vice Delegates asked if I was interested, and my service was considered only marginally sufficient because I hadn't held elected office before applying.

Marcus is a great guy, personally. I know this through talking with him before, and I think he's got the right mindset, focus, and commitment to the region's security. But, he's not ready. Security Council membership shouldn't be a reward for endotarting, and I think we need to see more stability and more growth in the executive branch before he's ready. He'll get there.

 

[Kaschovia]

Let me begin by saying that Marcus is a wonderful member of our community and has been invaluable to the Ministry of Communications in his planning of TNS, and I am aware that he has been just as crucial to other ministries, and of course, the University, as he has to Communications.

However, I do agree with Siwale and Sil Dorsett.

I would recommend that Marcus spend some time in roles of greater leadership and responsibility, to get used to the standards and expectations of the Security Council. A position on the SC is not awarded through contribution to the Executive alone. Almost every single member of the current SC has served in a leading role in another area of the government, be it Chief Justice, Delegate, Vice Delegate, or Speaker prior to or during their time on the Security Council. This is the kind of experience one must have, I believe, to gain the confidence of the region in terms of its own security.

We can believe that Marcus would take the responsibilities of the SC in his stride, and be comfortable in positions of such responsibility, BUT, we do not yet know for sure that he would. I would like to be sure that he can handle such responsibility, and be available enough to do so effectively, before suppporting his application.

 

[Oracle]

For the case of Marcus Antonius, what merits did he have when it came to his application that led to his nomination?

As stated earlier, I would be getting to this question. While I do not speak for the Council, I was somewhat hesitant about supporting the applicant with an affirmative vote. I took into consideration his various Leave of Absences, of which he would still post on the forum and discord, his experience in government (which include several successful deputy ministerships), and his short time as a Minister. I take the issue of his LOA with some seriousness as previously they were frequent and at some length. This was mitigated though by the fact that he actually announced them and that he still posted during these times. Had he not posted a leave of absence, I doubt I would have even noticed that he was not around. I appreciate the drive that the applicant has shown as well. Marcus has been very dedicated to his positions when he has held them, from Deputy Minister to Chancellor of the University. I appreciate his drive to join this council, which is something that he has strived to achieve since he first joined this region. He was given some advice, due to his lack of experience, and he has truly taken that to heart and worked hard to build up that experience and make a name for himself within the region.

Is there somewhere else more appropriate that discussion could take place in then?

Seeing as this has been discussed in the RA Channel on Discord, it can continue there or if you would like a more formal discussion, feel free to bring it up in any of the private halls of the Regional Assembly or inquire about it in the Security Council forum.

 

[Marcus Antonius]

I support this application and encourage others to pass this application.

Thank you Dreadton

I strongly support this applicant.

Thank you McM

I strongly support Marcus Antonius for a seat on the Security Council.

Thank you Angshire

I wonder if the applicant could assist me by answering some questions.

What is your view on the present state of disclosure of information from the Security Council; in particular, what is your view on the in relation to level of disclosure in respect of discussion around nominating applicants to the Council?

My view on disclosure in relation to SC is simply this. If it isn't a secret and does no harm to regional security, then it should not be a problem. In relation to discussion in respect of nominees to SC. I would say these discussions should be private. But a report should be released to RA referring to why an applicant has been accepted or not, after conferring with the applicant and offering, if necessary, an option to withdraw their application.

What would be your view on amending the Council's rules to establish a disclosure regime, as the Court did some time ago, for example (though one would think that the timescale and mechanism may differ).

Obviously this is going to cause more work for somebody. In principle, I have no problem with one being established apart from what I have mentioned in relation to the Regions Security and the possible extra bureaucracy that it may cause.

Beyond the standards prescribed by law, what would you think an appropriate basis on which to recall a member of the Council or to not admit an applicant to the Council?

Obviously, potential security risks and if the SC member is not participating as they should be on the council.

What is your view on the exemption from Council nomination which those previously nominated to the Council enjoy? Do you think that the Council should consider revoking any of its previous nominations, whether particular nominations or in general, and should there be a particular system or standard adopted by the Council when it considers doing so?

To be honest, I have no particular view on this. I for one, trust what the SC are doing and for their reasoning behind their actions.

Part of the role of a Councillor is advising the Vice Delegate in connection with applicants for citizenship, in particular whether an applicant should be denied, to what extent do you think you would be capable of fulfilling that role and what standard would you use when considering what advice to give?

That is a very good question. I believe that if applicants for Citizenship are being denied there will be evidence to support that decision. That decision should be made fairly and honestly. For myself, when considering this I would carry out what I have said in a calm and courteous manner. The standard is simple, the safety and security of the region is paramount.

 

[Marcus Antonius]

My reasoning behind voting against this applicant stems from their rich history of leave of absences. Going off of the Ministry of Communications LoA thread, the applicant has considered themselves absent from their duties 50 out the past 170 days (~30% of the time). This number is composed of three 14 consecutive day absences and one 8 day consecutive day absence.

The frequency and duration of these LoAs are simply unacceptable when applied to the role of a Security Councillor. It is the duty of the SC to provide a continuous level of protection to TNP and its democratic foundation. Every individual member has a role to play strengthening this collaborative effort of the Council.

Occasional short-term absences are OK. Being gone 30% of the time is not.

I thank you, Siwale, for allowing me to see your reasoning behind your negative vote.

In answer to your concerns about my leave of absences. The figures you have displayed are correct and had I already been on the SC with no contact with NS at all, I would agree wholeheartedly with what you have said. But that is not the case. On one 8 day LoA I had to borrow my wife's tablet - it was terrible to use, but I was able to remain in NS contact. On one 14 Day LoA I had no means of staying in contact with NS. The remaining two 14 day LoA's I was using my new laptop to remain in contact with NS. When I post an LoA it is out of common courtesy and it does not mean I actually regard myself to be absent from my duties. It is just allowing others to know there may be times where WiFi coverage may be a problem.

In RL I was a UK Serviceman for a total of 18 years and after that, a Civil Servant for a further 11 years. In this time I took LoA's when permitted and was at times called back from them. I take security very seriously and I was able to protect my country's national security in the days before internet.

 

[Marcus Antonius]

My Nay vote was for several reasons. Siwale's concern over the frequent leave periods left me wondering if Marcus would even be able to maintain the office by ensuring that they logged into the forum at least once every 14 days. Remember, the Security Council is subject to the office abandonment clauses in the Legal Code. The frequent absences also have me worried whether he could react in a nightmare scenario if it were needed.

I'm also not convinced that his service to the region justifies being granted this kind of responsibility, yet. He's held a handful of deputy ministerships, one incomplete term as a minister affected again by holiday, but most of the work he's done recently has been related to the University, which is disconnected from actually operating the region. Remember that a Security Councilor could potentially stand in as Delegate in an emergency, so having some sort of background there is helpful. I think back to when I applied to the council, which was after a full year of service on the Executive Council as WA Minister and after three Vice Delegates asked if I was interested, and my service was considered only marginally sufficient because I hadn't held elected office before applying.

Marcus is a great guy, personally. I know this through talking with him before, and I think he's got the right mindset, focus, and commitment to the region's security. But, he's not ready. Security Council membership shouldn't be a reward for endotarting, and I think we need to see more stability and more growth in the executive branch before he's ready. He'll get there.

I thank you Sil for allowing me to see your reasoning behind your, at first abstention and then, negative vote.

Please see the reply I made above to Siwale' concerns.

as for.............

I'm also not convinced that his service to the region justifies being granted this kind of responsibility, yet. He's held a handful of deputy ministerships, one incomplete term as a minister affected again by holiday, but most of the work he's done recently has been related to the University, which is disconnected from actually operating the region.

I will say this. I believe that a Deputy Minister is a 'Minister in waiting'. In my experience I have been given tasks that a Minister can do and carry them out so the Minister does not have to do them. I was trusted enough by two ex-Ministers and the current one of Communications to produce The North Star which is published and released to NS. This enabled them to concentrate on other projects.

Yes, I did have a short term as a Minister, but this was not all due to my LoA. There were other factors, the main one being the 'TNPU Crisis'. I have been the Chancellor of TNPU since March 2019 and the chaos caused when TNPU split from the Ministry of Culture caused a vast amount of distraction and diverted effort. TNPU has in itself become a Ministry in all but name, hence why it is to become part of the Executive and I, it's Chancellor, it's Minister.

Remember that a Security Councilor could potentially stand in as Delegate in an emergency, so having some sort of background there is helpful.

I would like to point out that if I am entered onto the SC, I will be a very junior member, so my ascension to become a possible Delegate is going to take some time, unless I run for the Delegacy of course. lol.
As a team player and as a junior I will be looking up to my seniors to Mentor me what I need to know. "Teach, Learn, Apply" is a good motto for this.

Marcus is a great guy, personally. I know this through talking with him before, and I think he's got the right mindset, focus, and commitment to the region's security. But, he's not ready.

Thank you Sil Now stop it you're making me blush lol. When I was a RL Servicemen, was I ready? - I knew very little about what was expected of me in the armed services. But I learnt and carried out my duties and left after an Exemplary Career and carried on into the Civil Service. I was learning all the time.

Security Council membership shouldn't be a reward for endotarting.

I wholeheartedly agree. So why do I want to be on the SC? The very same reason why I decided to put myself into 'harm's way' in RL by joining the armed forces. It's my calling.

 

[Dreadton]

What do you think are the current threats to TNP regional security?

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

I'm grateful for the answers given. There are a few matters which I would ask for some expansion on.

What would be your view on amending the Council's rules to establish a disclosure regime, as the Court did some time ago, for example (though one would think that the timescale and mechanism may differ).

Obviously this is going to cause more work for somebody. In principle, I have no problem with one being established apart from what I have mentioned in relation to the Regions Security and the possible extra bureaucracy that it may cause.

Would you, therefore, support the introduction of a disclosure regime for the Council?

Beyond the standards prescribed by law, what would you think an appropriate basis on which to recall a member of the Council or to not admit an applicant to the Council?

Obviously, potential security risks and if the SC member is not participating as they should be on the council.

Setting aside the risk question for a moment, what participation do you consider relevant in considering the issue of recall and, in broad terms, what would you say the appropriate level is, as regards that participation.

What is your view on the exemption from Council nomination which those previously nominated to the Council enjoy? Do you think that the Council should consider revoking any of its previous nominations, whether particular nominations or in general, and should there be a particular system or standard adopted by the Council when it considers doing so?

To be honest, I have no particular view on this. I for one, trust what the SC are doing and for their reasoning behind their actions.

If I may, what do you understand to be the reasoning of the Council as regards its practice in this regard?

Part of the role of a Councillor is advising the Vice Delegate in connection with applicants for citizenship, in particular whether an applicant should be denied, to what extent do you think you would be capable of fulfilling that role and what standard would you use when considering what advice to give?

That is a very good question. I believe that if applicants for Citizenship are being denied there will be evidence to support that decision. That decision should be made fairly and honestly. For myself, when considering this I would carry out what I have said in a calm and courteous manner. The standard is simple, the safety and security of the region is paramount.

There are two issues which I am driving at in relation to this question. One thing I am curious about is familiarity with the history of the region, other regions, and NationStates more widely. I am not asking, as I think others have drawn from my question, as to your experience, or lack thereof, in other regions; one can, I think, have the necessary familiarity without being involved elsewhere.

The second is around the standard. I appreciate what is said, but I think there is perhaps more to it. There is a question of risk and what level of risk is tolerable. What level, again in broad terms, of risk to the safety and security of the region would justify you to advise that an applicant be denied citizenship? Take two potential risks as an example: the first, that the applicant could rise to a position of power in the region and misuse it; the second, that the applicant would use their citizenship to sow discord and strife, to make vexatious and divisive proposals in the Assembly for instance, but without any real risk that they would be trusted with a position such as the Delegacy.

Related to the above, is there a distinction, in your view, between the level at which you should advise the Vice Delegate to take action and leave the matter to the Assembly and the level at which the Assembly should uphold the action? That is, are there times where it would be right to recommend a denial, in order that the Assembly can decide the matter, but where you would not necessarily deny.

 

[Pallaith]

I will adapt what I said in Discord regarding this application:

I support Marcus because he’s the first person I’m aware of who was a newcomer to TNP and pursued a SC position, was given advice regarding how to get there after being approached because of his high number of endorsements, and put in the time and effort to actually do it. As we hoped, his efforts to get involved allowed him to interact with more of the community in a positive way, demonstrate what kind of person he was, contribute substantially to the region, and build trust. And he always maintained the high endorsement count. I feel he is a success story of what high endotarters can be when they actually decide to step up and take our advice to heart. I am not concerned about the leaves of absence because if he didn’t do them all the time, most people wouldn’t even notice he was gone because he still manages to check in, and on several occasions we had to ask why he even did the leave if he was still going to be around.

Similarly I am not concerned with his lack of executive experience, because I don’t believe that tells the whole story, and if he put in another 4 months there that wouldn’t give me any additional information as to who he is or what he can do. I feel I already know, and I feel that more time in specific roles in the region won't change my conclusion about who he is. However, I recognize that the resume matters to a lot of people, and more time would satisfy their concern. You have to decide how much weight that carries with you. For me, I believe in his character and what he can bring to the table, and that's why I supported his nomination.

 

[Marcus Antonius]

What do you think are the current threats to TNP regional security?

An interesting question. Obviously, I am not yet privy to what is occurring within the SC. There is always a possibility of 'sleeper' units within TNP.

Personally, I am always suspicious of nations that do not endorse the Keepers, SC or Delegate, this is of course a freedom of choice on whether to endorse or not. But to deny the region less security I find unusual.

I'm grateful for the answers given. There are a few matters which I would ask for some expansion on.

What would be your view on amending the Council's rules to establish a disclosure regime, as the Court did some time ago, for example (though one would think that the timescale and mechanism may differ).

Would you, therefore, support the introduction of a disclosure regime for the Council?

Personally, I would support a disclosure regime subject to the majority agreement of the SC.
I would also add that as an ex RL Civil Servant, I, and others had been given FOI requests to answer. They were the most 'soul destroying, tedious tasks' we had to endure. The majority of us, taken away from productive duties, thought they were a total waste of time, effort and tax payers money. The information passed made not a 'jot' on anything.

Beyond the standards prescribed by law, what would you think an appropriate basis on which to recall a member of the Council or to not admit an applicant to the Council?

Setting aside the risk question for a moment, what participation do you consider relevant in considering the issue of recall and, in broad terms, what would you say the appropriate level is, as regards that participation.

To recall an SC member there would have to be grounds to do so. I am not privy to the 'behind the scenes' operations of the SC, so I cannot account exactly what would trigger a recall. The only recall I have any knowledge of is that of Novare Res. for his non participation within the SC and relying on the SC to gather his endorsements.

What is your view on the exemption from Council nomination which those previously nominated to the Council enjoy? Do you think that the Council should consider revoking any of its previous nominations, whether particular nominations or in general, and should there be a particular system or standard adopted by the Council when it considers doing so?

If I may, what do you understand to be the reasoning of the Council as regards its practice in this regard?

I cannot make an accurate answer on this question as I am not privy to what has occurred at SC level. My understanding, an assumption, would be that, possibly, the SC have no concerns over the individual, for instance how the individual had performed on the SC previously. I see no reason why the SC should revoke any previous nominations.

 

[Marcus Antonius]

I'm grateful for the answers given. There are a few matters which I would ask for some expansion on.

[QUOTE="Zyvetskistaahn, post: 10271665, member: 3157760"There are two issues which I am driving at in relation to this question. One thing I am curious about is familiarity with the history of the region, other regions, and NationStates more widely. I am not asking, as I think others have drawn from my question, as to your experience, or lack thereof, in other regions; one can, I think, have the necessary familiarity without being involved elsewhere.

The second is around the standard. I appreciate what is said, but I think there is perhaps more to it. There is a question of risk and what level of risk is tolerable. What level, again in broad terms, of risk to the safety and security of the region would justify you to advise that an applicant be denied citizenship? Take two potential risks as an example: the first, that the applicant could rise to a position of power in the region and misuse it; the second, that the applicant would use their citizenship to sow discord and strife, to make vexatious and divisive proposals in the Assembly for instance, but without any real risk that they would be trusted with a position such as the Delegacy.

Related to the above, is there a distinction, in your view, between the level at which you should advise the Vice Delegate to take action and leave the matter to the Assembly and the level at which the Assembly should uphold the action? That is, are there times where it would be right to recommend a denial, in order that the Assembly can decide the matter, but where you would not necessarily deny.

I will admit that my knowledge and familiarity relating to the history of the region, other regions, and NationStates is not on immediate recall. I rely heavily on knowledge gleaned through TNP Handbook, TNPU NS Division https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/forum/3040211/ and other long standing citizens for information. As to the Standard - you have made two very good cases. Other circumstances I would put forward are, has the individual been banned from the region before? For instance on trust (security) issues or has the individual been banned for breaking laws?

 

[Marcus Antonius]

I will adapt what I said in Discord regarding this application:

I support Marcus because he’s the first person I’m aware of who was a newcomer to TNP and pursued a SC position, was given advice regarding how to get there after being approached because of his high number of endorsements, and put in the time and effort to actually do it. As we hoped, his efforts to get involved allowed him to interact with more of the community in a positive way, demonstrate what kind of person he was, contribute substantially to the region, and build trust. And he always maintained the high endorsement count. I feel he is a success story of what high endotarters can be when they actually decide to step up and take our advice to heart. I am not concerned about the leaves of absence because if he didn’t do them all the time, most people wouldn’t even notice he was gone because he still manages to check in, and on several occasions we had to ask why he even did the leave if he was still going to be around.

Similarly I am not concerned with his lack of executive experience, because I don’t believe that tells the whole story, and if he put in another 4 months there that wouldn’t give me any additional information as to who he is or what he can do. I feel I already know, and I feel that more time in specific roles in the region won't change my conclusion about who he is. However, I recognize that the resume matters to a lot of people, and more time would satisfy their concern. You have to decide how much weight that carries with you. For me, I believe in his character and what he can bring to the table, and that's why I supported his nomination.

Thank you Ghost
I believe you have summed me up accurately.

 

[Praetor]

I agree with Ghost that it is encouraging someone who has wanted to join the SC take the necessary steps to join the SC.

I am slightly concerned regarding the amount of LoA's however, I do appreciate that he at least lets people know.

I have a question to the SCers that voted Aye; what does Marcus bring to the table that the SC doesn't already have? Why is there a need for him on the Council?

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I’m delighted in the manner Marcus has answered questions here and engaged with citizens. I am hopeful that the RA will see the benefits of Marcus on the SC very soon.

 

[Darcania]

Do the Aye SC voters plan to respond to Praetor's questions?

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

To recall an SC member there would have to be grounds to do so. I am not privy to the 'behind the scenes' operations of the SC, so I cannot account exactly what would trigger a recall. The only recall I have any knowledge of is that of Novare Res. for his non participation within the SC and relying on the SC to gather his endorsements.

To come back to some of the points I have been driving at, do you think your answer demonstrates something problematic as regards scrutiny of the Council due to its opacity? Part of the means by which government in the region is held to account is by the mechanism of recall (and with the Council this is perhaps more important than with other arms of government, where elections give opportunity for accountability), but does not the lack of knowledge about the operation of the Council create a substantial difficulty in the Assembly being able to exercise its power of recall and in nations being able to exercise their right to request recall if they cannot see how the Council exercises its powers?

 

[Great Bights Mum]

I like Marcus for the SC, because I trust him to do what he says he is going to do. He has loyalty, commitment and maturity. (Insert “OK boomer” here.) One of the things I consider with SC applications is how likely it is for the RA to support a nomination. With respect to Marcus, I believe the community does have confidence that he will do a good job.

 

[Marcus Antonius]

To come back to some of the points I have been driving at, do you think your answer demonstrates something problematic as regards scrutiny of the Council due to its opacity? Part of the means by which government in the region is held to account is by the mechanism of recall (and with the Council this is perhaps more important than with other arms of government, where elections give opportunity for accountability), but does not the lack of knowledge about the operation of the Council create a substantial difficulty in the Assembly being able to exercise its power of recall and in nations being able to exercise their right to request recall if they cannot see how the Council exercises its powers?

I believe the SC does not require opacity in some of its duties. I do not believe this to be a problem unless it is believed that the individuals that have been voted onto the SC by the RA, in trust, are no longer trusted. Personally, I have tried to find out as much as I can about the SC, I have read the Procedure of the Security Council and The Legal Code of The North Pacific, Chapter 5: Regional Security Law. In RL, I was vetted for my security clearances. I believe, in some respect, that is what this process, we are in, is. I see your point on the recall mechanism and agree, it does seem problematic for the RA to exercise that power. But it was successful was it not, in the recall of Novare Res?. In RL my security clearances were approved for 10 years at a time, this time period can vary on level of clearance (Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret) and then reviewed after the time period lapses. I have been through this process 4 times due to my service requirements.

 

[Marcus Antonius]

I like Marcus for the SC, because I trust him to do what he says he is going to do. He has loyalty, commitment and maturity. (Insert “OK boomer” here.) One of the things I consider with SC applications is how likely it is for the RA to support a nomination. With respect to Marcus, I believe the community does have confidence that he will do a good job.

Thank you GBM I just checked with my son, he's 24. He reckons I am a 'Generation X'. I was born in 1961 lol.

 

[Darcania]

For the record, Roman was never recalled. He resigned.

 

[Marcus Antonius]

For the record, Roman was never recalled. He resigned.

Thank you Darc.
I stand corrected. Yes, he did resign, after there was a 'potential' recall - 'Recall Novare Res from the Security Council' https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9189978/

 

[Pallaith]

Also for the record, being born in that year you are definitely a boomer.

 

[Marcus Antonius]

Also for the record, being born in that year you are definitely a boomer.

Thanks Ghost lol

I never knew there were so many generation names, and the years they covered.

2000 to present: New Silent Generation or Generation Z
1980 to 2000: Millennials or Generation Y
1965 to 1979: Thirteeners or Generation X
1946 to 1964: Baby Boomers
1925 to 1945: Silent Generation
1900 to 1924: G.I. Generation

 

[Gorundu]

Explains all the vacations to Spain

 

[Marcus Antonius]

Explains all the vacations to Spain

Lol

Aaah! Benidorm............

Spoiler

 

[Gorundu]

Do we want any more discussions on this?

 

[Praetor]

Do we want any more discussions on this?

I'm waiting on the Aye SCers to answer my question. Unless they'd prefer to continue discussing who is a boomer and who isn't?

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I'm waiting on the Aye SCers to answer my question. Unless they'd prefer to continue discussing who is a boomer and who isn't?