Sorry lol, I'm gonna have to vote AGAINST regarding SPSF General. The rest are free game though.

Why should SPSF Generals be exempt? The SPSF has at least one inactive General now.

I fear this will only politicize these roles.

Yeah, heaven forbid officials of TSP's government be at all accountable to anyone else once confirmed.

I completely support this. I think six months is reasonable, but if eight months is a workable compromise, that's fine with me too.

(This post was last modified: 06-22-2017, 08:10 PM by Cormac.)

Reply

I, too, say no on Generals. The MoD has total control over ranks and staff and can handle things in forming a team he or she needs to be efficient. Poor performance of a General does not effect the Assembly at all. Think of Generals as Deputies an not elected officials if uo need a reference point.

Real-life Girls

Reply

Sorry lol, I'm gonna have to vote AGAINST regarding SPSF General. The rest are free game though.

Why should SPSF Generals be exempt? The SPSF has at least one inactive General now.

I fear this will only politicize these roles.

Yeah, heaven forbid officials of TSP's government be at all accountable to anyone else once confirmed.

I completely support this. I think six months is reasonable, but if eight months is a workable compromise, that's fine with me too.

I think you confuse my reply with me saying I don't want officials to be held accountable.
I'm all for accountability, and we already have a law that handles that.

"1. Any official of the Coalition may be recalled by an Assembly resolution passed with three-fifths majority of those voting."

Semi-Unretired

(This post was last modified: 06-22-2017, 08:28 PM by Drugged Monkeys.)

Reply

I, too, say no on Generals. The MoD has total control over ranks and staff and can handle things in forming a team he or she needs to be efficient. Poor performance of a General does not effect the Assembly at all. Think of Generals as Deputies an not elected officials if uo need a reference point.

The difference with Deputies vs. Generals is that Generals need to be confirmed by the Assembly.

Semi-Unretired

Reply

I, too, say no on Generals. The MoD has total control over ranks and staff and can handle things in forming a team he or she needs to be efficient. Poor performance of a General does not effect the Assembly at all. Think of Generals as Deputies an not elected officials if uo need a reference point.

The Minister of Military Affairs absolutely doesn't have total control over any of those things. There is no provision in the law that allows for the dismissal of Generals by the MoMA. The Charter says only that Generals will be appointed by the MoMA and confirmed by the Assembly. Absent any provision for their dismissal, the only provision that exists for their dismissal is recall for abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, or violation of the law.

Generals are in no sense currently deputies of the MoMA. They are independent officials, in that the MoMA cannot dismiss them, and in fact Generals are made superior to the MoMA by the Military Code in several respects. For example, only the General Corps can promote SPSF soldiers through the SPSF's ranks, according to Article 1, Section 2 of the Military Code. They're even "responsible for the planning of and overseeing of all missions of the SPSF" (Article 1, Section 5) which is problematic in a number of ways because I'm pretty sure most operations of the SPSF have been planned and overseen by the MoMA rather than the General Corps. Either Article 1, Section 5 conflicts with Article X, Section 2 of the Charter and is unconstitutional or, if it doesn't and isn't, all operations that have been planned and overseen by any MoMA who was not a General have been illegal.

It's one thing to say that Generals should be deputies of the MoMA. I would agree with you on that. It's another to say that's what they currently are. That isn't what they are according to current law, and if that's what we want them to be, that's going to require amendments to current law. In the meantime, they shouldn't be treated as deputies while they are still independent officials. As independent officials, they must still be accountable to some institution, and that institution is currently the Assembly since the MoMA has no power to dismiss a General. It's completely reasonable to subject Generals to re-confirmation, unless we're instead going to alter the nature of the General Corps and make Generals deputies able to be appointed and dismissed by the MoMA at will. But if we're going to leave the General Corps pretty much as it is, Generals should be subject to re-confirmation.

I think you confuse my reply with me saying I don't want officials to be held accountable.
I'm all for accountability, and we already have a law that handles that.

"1. Any official of the Coalition may be recalled by an Assembly resolution passed with three-fifths majority of those voting."

But only for abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, and violation of the law, as you well know. And because those are legal requirements, should any official subject to recall decide to do so, they can take legal action to halt their recall and recalling them will require proof of abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, or violation of the law according to the High Court's evidentiary standards. That isn't accountability. That is the facade of accountability to make this system look okay at face value, while in reality enabling appointed officials to remain virtually unaccountable to everyone else.

If officials can't maintain the support of the Assembly to remain in office, they shouldn't be in office. Period.

Reply

 

I think you confuse my reply with me saying I don't want officials to be held accountable.
I'm all for accountability, and we already have a law that handles that.

"1. Any official of the Coalition may be recalled by an Assembly resolution passed with three-fifths majority of those voting."

But only for abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, and violation of the law, as you well know. And because those are legal requirements, should any official subject to recall decide to do so, they can take legal action to halt their recall and recalling them will require proof of abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, or violation of the law according to the High Court's evidentiary standards. That isn't accountability. That is the facade of accountability to make this system look okay at face value, while in reality enabling appointed officials to remain virtually unaccountable to everyone else.

If officials can't maintain the support of the Assembly to remain in office, they shouldn't be in office. Period.

But the law was written in such a way to prevent politics from being used as a method for recall, requiring proof rather than opinion to initiate a recall, as you well know.
If needed, the article could be amended to include inactivity, but anything more would certainly result in politicization of the process.
God forbid someone should have the chance to face their accuser with evidence rather than popularity at the time of recall.

Semi-Unretired

Reply

But the law was written in such a way to prevent politics from being used as a method for recall, requiring proof rather than opinion to initiate a recall, as you well know.
If needed, the article could be amended to include inactivity, but anything more would certainly result in politicization of the process.
God forbid someone should have the chance to face their accuser with evidence rather than popularity at the time of recall.

Can you explain why officials should remain in office if they no longer have the support of the Assembly to do so?

Reply

But the law was written in such a way to prevent politics from being used as a method for recall, requiring proof rather than opinion to initiate a recall, as you well know.
If needed, the article could be amended to include inactivity, but anything more would certainly result in politicization of the process.
God forbid someone should have the chance to face their accuser with evidence rather than popularity at the time of recall.

Can you explain why officials should remain in office if they no longer have the support of the Assembly to do so?

Can you explain for what reasons officials would no longer have the support of the Assembly?

Semi-Unretired

Reply

Can you explain for what reasons officials would no longer have the support of the Assembly?

So you don't intend to answer my question, and just expect everyone to take for granted that officials should be able to remain in office despite the Assembly no longer supporting them in that office?

It doesn't matter why the Assembly doesn't support them. What matters is that they no longer enjoy democratic support.

(This post was last modified: 06-22-2017, 09:01 PM by Cormac.)

Reply

Can you explain for what reasons officials would no longer have the support of the Assembly?

So you don't intend to answer my question, and just expect everyone to take for granted that officials should be able to remain in office despite the Assembly no longer supporting them in that office?

It doesn't matter why the Assembly doesn't support them. What matters is that they no longer enjoy democratic support.

True, which is why the Charter already includes the recall procedures.
I think that is pretty clear, but if you need me to provide a link I can.

If you have other reasons that need to be added, feel free to add them to the current Recall procedure.
But a blanket scheduled Vote of Confidence isn't the way to go, because it will only lead to politicization.

Semi-Unretired

Reply