[PASSED] Removing Reconfirmation Vote for the Legislator Committee |
Considering recalling by the Assembly is already a mechanism to remove incompetent legislator committee members and other independent institutions don't have reconfirmation votes, this thing is redundant, unnecessary, and only serves the purpose of making being a CoA harder.
Quote:
Chief Supervising Armchair
(02-14-2019, 12:23 AM)USoVietnam Wrote: Considering recalling by the Assembly is already a mechanism to remove incompetent legislator committee members and other independent institutions don't have reconfirmation votes, this thing is redundant, unnecessary, and only serves the purpose of making being a CoA harder. Emphasis mine. Personally, I am happy with the current arrangement. It goes a little way in holding our officials accountable. True, the Assembly has a mechanism to remove the scourge of incompetence but the present system has few detriments other than a (very) minor inconvenience to the Chair. A good Chair should already be aware of when reconfirmation votes are due (<.<). If anything, I would argue for the High Court to also be subject to reconfirmation votes ... (02-14-2019, 01:44 AM)Amerion Wrote:(02-14-2019, 12:23 AM)USoVietnam Wrote: Considering recalling by the Assembly is already a mechanism to remove incompetent legislator committee members and other independent institutions don't have reconfirmation votes, this thing is redundant, unnecessary, and only serves the purpose of making being a CoA harder. And the CRS; any permanent appointment, really - though I think there might be an argument for making it less frequent. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
Yeah, I actually agree with Belschaft. I'm in favor of re-confirmation votes for more "permanent" officers, but we could make them less frequent. CRS, High Court, Legislator Committee, anything of that nature. Maybe every six months instead of every four months, or idk.
There should obviously be some level of stability to these positions, but I don't think they should be without re-confirmation. If there's an overall negative opinion of a High Court justice or something, but it doesn't fall under what would necessitate a recall, I feel that a re-confirmation vote would be the proper way to fix that. Witchcraft and Sorcery Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Formerly many things in other regions. Defender. Ideologue. he/they. WARNING OF EXPIRATION
Pursuant to Section 6, Article 1 of the Legislative Procedure Act, all bills, resolutions or amendments which have been inactive for more than one month shall be considered defunct and archived, unless the Chair decides otherwise. The last post on this amendment was made on February 15, 2019, which is 22 days ago. Seeing as this amendment will expire in 8 days, does its sponsor, @USoVietnam, wish to motion this amendment to vote? If the Chair does not receive a reply from the sponsor within such time frame, this amendment will be considered defunct and archived, effective 02:00 AM (UTC), March 17, 2019.
Bzerneleg Chair of the Assembly
I motion this bill.
Chief Supervising Armchair
Second. Let's put it to the test.
(03-09-2019, 01:49 PM)Roavin Wrote: Second. Let's put it to the test. I third it(???) The Sakhalinsk Empire, Legislator of the South Pacific
Currently a citizen and legislator of TSP. I am active as Sverigesriket in Europe. Complete Conflict of Interest 10 March 2019
Legislators, Please be advised that the vote to amend Article 1 of the Legislator Committee Act has been opened. The vote has been designated in the Assembly's official record as A1903.01 and referred to in full as Amendment to Article 1 of the Legislator Committee Act. Legislators may cast their vote here. The vote will end on the 15th of March, 2019 at 10:20 a.m. (UTC). LEGISLATION PASSED
15 March 2019
(A1903.01)
Legislators, Please be advised that the vote to amend Article 1 of the Legislator Committee Act has passed. The final tally is 20 in favour, 5 in opposition, with 11 abstaining, for a total of 36 votes. The vote was passed with 80% voting in favour, exceeding the requirement for a three-fifths supermajority of those voting with the exclusion of abstentions. A spreadsheet of the vote breakdown will be available soon. |
Users browsing this thread: |
1 Guest(s) |