This legislation removes requirements that recalls may only be initiated for dereliction of duty, abuse of authority, or violations of the law. In doing so, it restores democratic accountability for officials of the Coalition, and ensures that what has traditionally been the case in the South Pacific will once again be the case: that officials serve with the democratic mandate of the Assembly, and that the Assembly may revoke any mandate it has granted.

Democratic Accountability Amendment
An amendment to relax recall requirements to ensure democratic accountability

1. Amendment to the Charter of the Coalition of the South Pacific

(1) Article XI, Section 1 of the Charter of the Coalition of the South Pacific will be amended as follows:

1. Any official of the Coalition may be recalled by an Assembly resolution passed with three-fifths majority of those voting.
a. Recalls should only be initiated for dereliction of duty, abuse of authority, or violations of the law, and not for purposes of political rivalry.
b. a. Upon initiation, recall resolutions must be debated for three days and receive a motion and second before being put to vote.
c. b. Upon passage, the recalled official will immediately be removed from office.

Reply

This legislation removes requirements that recalls may only be initiated for dereliction of duty, abuse of authority, or violations of the law. In doing so, it restores democratic accountability for officials of the Coalition, and ensures that what has traditionally been the case in the South Pacific will once again be the case: that officials serve with the democratic mandate of the Assembly, and that the Assembly may revoke any mandate it has granted.

Democratic Accountability Amendment
An amendment to relax recall requirements to ensure democratic accountability

1. Amendment to the Charter of the Coalition of the South Pacific

(1) Article XI, Section 1 of the Charter of the Coalition of the South Pacific will be amended as follows:

1. Any official of the Coalition may be recalled by an Assembly resolution passed with three-fifths majority of those voting.
a. Recalls should only be initiated for dereliction of duty, abuse of authority, or violations of the law, and not for purposes of political rivalry.
b. a. Upon initiation, recall resolutions must be debated for three days and receive a motion and second before being put to vote.
c. b. Upon passage, the recalled official will immediately be removed from office.

I mean, is this suggestion a return to recalling people we don't like?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Yeah um no. I am fine with adding something like the Assembly has lost faith in their judgment as a reason but this is not good.

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

 

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

Reply

I mean, is this suggestion a return to recalling people we don't like?

It is a suggestion that recall should be at the discretion of the Assembly rather than the High Court. As the law currently stands, anyone recalled can appeal to the High Court on the grounds that there was no dereliction of duty, abuse of authority, or violation of the law. At that point the High Court will have to observe an evidentiary standard that should not apply to recalls. Legislators will have to prove that the grounds for recall constituted dereliction of duty, abuse of authority, or violation of the law. That should not be necessary. Legislators should be able to recall officials. Period.

To be frank, the current state of affairs is allowing some officials to evade accountability for actions they know are going to meet with broad opposition because they also know that it is going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to recall them for those actions. That should not continue.

Yeah um no. I am fine with adding something like the Assembly has lost faith in their judgment as a reason but this is not good.

I mean, I could add that, but that is essentially the same as not adding anything at all. Recalling them is already an indication that the Assembly has lost faith in their performance.

In short, to address both of your points, I don't think recalls are going to suddenly become frequent. How many people were unfairly and successfully recalled before these restrictions were enacted? Point me to some examples, please.

Reply

I motion to vote

Reply

I find that we don't need to change this whatsoever.

Furthermore, I urge the Chair to restart debate time, given that this bill had been tabled for so long.

Reply