Users browsing this thread:

***Tsunamy*** · 03-20-2015, 09:26 PM

(03-20-2015, 08:10 PM)Unibot Wrote: Sorry, what responsibility are you complaining about? That you need to nominate the EC a week before elections?

Yes. I'm all about giving over to the Assembly, but if it's a nominate and approval thing, then the admins are also forced to find a second choice if the first is rejected and what not.

While I'm happy with Feir's suggestion ... I think we need someone specific to be in charge of nomination. How about either the delegate or the chair?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

03-20-2015, 09:44 PM

How about the parole board?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

***sandaoguo*** · 03-20-2015, 10:31 PM

What happens if the appointee isn't approved and elections are supposed to start in a day or two?

Archerinia · 03-20-2015, 10:41 PM

(03-20-2015, 10:31 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: What happens if the appointee isn't approved and elections are supposed to start in a day or two?

I was just thinking this. Is one week enough time?

Turtles all the way down.

Todd McCloud · 03-20-2015, 11:04 PM

I'd just leave it as whoever the administration trusts. If all of them are running, then just nominate someone. Hile's doing a good job of it, and I did it several times over the years and in a pinch I could probably do it, but that'd be for a future time.

***Kris Kringle*** · 03-21-2015, 01:16 PM

I think the current system works fine. We haven't had any problems with it so far, why change it?

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

TAC Saxton · 03-21-2015, 02:45 PM

I could go either way on this. I agree with Kris on the current system, but at the same time shifting responsibility to The Assembly would free certain admins (glances at Tsu Tounge

) from the "burden" of finding a viable candidate.

I am a Super Villain

***Tsunamy*** · 03-21-2015, 04:15 PM

(03-21-2015, 02:45 PM)TAC Wrote: I could go either way on this. I agree with Kris on the current system, but at the same time shifting responsibility to The Assembly would free certain admins (glances at Tsu ) from the "burden" of finding a viable candidate.

I want to point out ... it's not that I find this to be an un-doable burden, but it's part of a principled stance.

We often get proposals to legislate how individuals — especially admins — do the job. Since it's a volunteer job that some people can't leave v. easily, I think legislating that to be inappropriate.

If the Assembly wants a specific power (like overseeing the EC) — great. Figure out an elected official to do the job, since that official can resign or just not run again for office.

But don't throw powers at administrators and set out pitfalls they must navigate. That's inappropriate and taking the admins' good will for granted.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

(This post was last modified: 03-21-2015, 04:16 PM by Admin.)

TAC Saxton · 03-21-2015, 04:40 PM

I like Tsu's idea of the CoA in charge of nominations. If we're gonna throw it at an elected official, it should be one of the most active ones and IMO the CoA is one of, if not the most active official of the bunch.

I am a Super Villain

Hileville · 03-21-2015, 04:42 PM

I think the Chair appointing an EC for Court elections would be fine. I'd rather have someone else do so for Cabinet elections.