The Removal and Replacement of Officials Amendment [DRAFT]

I propose that Article 2, Clause 3, shall be amended as.

The Removal and Replacement of Officials Amendment (RROA):

1. Resident means any person with a nation in the region of The North Pacific or one of its territories.
2. A territory is any region that is recognized by the Regional Assembly as a part of The North Pacific.
3. The Regional Assembly will consist of all citizens.
4. Requirements for citizenship will be determined by law.
5. The Regional Assembly may enact, amend or repeal laws by a majority vote.
6. The Regional Assembly may remove and appoint a government official from office by a two-thirds majority vote, provided that an appointment may only be made as a replacement for an official so removed, and approved by the delegate.
7. The number of votes required to achieve quorum for any vote of the Regional Assembly except elections will be determined by law.
8. The Regional Assembly will elect a Speaker every four months.
9. The Speaker will administer the rules of the Regional Assembly. Where no rules exist, the Speaker may use their discretion.
10. Abstentions cast in the Regional Assembly will not be used to determine the result of any vote, but may be used for quorum and all other purposes.
11. The Speaker may appoint deputies to assist them in the execution of any of their powers and duties. Appointment of deputies may be regulated by law and the rules of the Regional Assembly.

Click to expand...

This amendment creates a clear and supportive process for the Regional Assembly to step in when a minister might benefit from additional guidance or changes. The goal isn’t to question anyone’s decisions, but to ensure the government can work as effectively as possible for everyone.

Constitutionally-mandated elected officials are replaced via special elections.
Government officials appointed by Constitutionally-mandated elected officials are replaced by said official.
Security Councilors are not replaced. The RA can already appoint someone (without SC nomination) by a 2/3rds vote.

Why should this be changed?

good question.

Sil Dorsett:

Constitutionally-mandated elected officials are replaced via special elections.
Government officials appointed by Constitutionally-mandated elected officials are replaced by said official.
Security Councilors are not replaced. The RA can already appoint someone (without SC nomination) by a 2/3rds vote.

Why should this be changed?

Click to expand...

For E.G this amendment will give the R.A the option to replace a minister after they made the hard decision to oust them, in all other scenario's when it comes to appointing "constitutionally-mandated elected officials" the Delegate has all the rights to do so, this amendment just gives the R.A an option to appoint an official in a rare case if they remove one, so that the replaced officer can be supported by both the R.A, and the Delegate

I think the wording of the proposed amendment would help clear up what you’re going for here. It sounds like, based on your most recent post, you want to enable the RA to select an official to replace the recalled one, but not have that be required, and that the delegate has to be okay with their choice. If it is an option though, how do you reconcile that with a scenario where the delegate makes a choice before the RA has a chance to? And if the RA wants to make the pick and the delegate doesn’t like the choice, how is that resolved?

I think you’re going to need to make some choices and close some of these open-ended scenarios. Consider what your goal is with the bill, and that not everyone may agree with it, so you will just have to plead your case and hope that you can win them over. Leaving things too broad can undermine the success of what you’re shooting for.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think I agree with this idea. The delegate picks his cabinet and having the RA step into it and pick someone can impact the delegate’s working order. Not to mention it takes longer to make that pick than the delegate just picking someone. And if the delegate has to agree with the pick, either you negatively impact what the RA can actually do, or you stretch out what would be a much quicker process.

And that’s just for ministers. Recall impacts any government office. If you recall a member of the electoral commission, that’s a position nominated by the delegate and confirmed by the RA. So doing this, depending on how you go about it, you completely exclude the delegate, or you are not doing anything different. If you recall an elected official, there’s already a process for that which doesn’t involve either of these procedures. If you recall a bar commissioner, there’s three different ways to replace them depending on which one you recalled, and this process would completely contradict all three.

So identify what your goal is here, and consider how it connects to the applications of recall, decide on a path, and build that up. Then you have your pitch and the thing to argue for. You’re still in that first part of the process.