| [Draft] Legislative Procedure Act |
Again, recall the chair for those reasons. Don't feel like it's important enough for a recall? Then it's not all that bad after all, apparently. Recalls are not extraordinary. You guys just recalled Omega because he was too slow on moving things to vote. Now you don't feel like you can recall a chair that you think is blatantly abusing their power? C'mon.
You are greatly underestimating the obstruction this would bring, when the Assembly is already pretty slow-moving and prone to informal obstruction as it is. You are trying to fix a problem that hasn't occurred, and doing it in a way that will backfire immediately. I can guarantee you that we will be forced to sit through 4 day delays, all well-timed!, on any issue of disagreement. Particularly when it comes to the gameside/forum division.
My understanding is that Omega stepped down before he was recalled. You can correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm not changing the legislation because you object to checks on your power, Glen. Sorry. If there is significant objection from others I might consider it, but lately it seems like you oppose any legislation you have a small issue with by default and aren't willing to even attempt compromise. I can't work with that.
Yeah, I have never been recalled. Get the facts right. Also, that was not like some minor delays, they were serious delays that affected the ability of the court to rule on laws, could have led to illegal voting and could have led to legislators not being able to properly amend laws. It wasn't just "Omega was too slow moving things to vote".
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
Omega faced recall procedures because, all due respect, there were very strong indications that he was barely doing his job as Chair, and that Ryccia was picking up the slack in a significant manner. Don't get me wrong, that aside I think very highly of Omega, but to say his unrealised recall was due to being "slow" is a misrepresentation.
With that in mind, I agree with Cormac that some kind of balance is necessary. Just like Glen says not all legislators will be reasonable, not all Chairs will be reasonable. Provisions need to be in place for both. 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
I would like to keep stressing that I originally proposed the amendment to strike down one ruling. We all make occasional mistakes. However, making one bad ruling should not be grounds to remove someone from a position. Think of it like this: if a MoRA project is a flop do we recall the MoRA? No, we let them try again and hope they get better. This way we can mitigate the damage from a bad ruling and still show the CoA that they need to think about their rulings.
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
No, Omega faced a recall because you guys thought he was slow, and because he was slow, you guys thought he was incompetent. I was there when the decision was made. Don't pretend like it was a grave matter and people were reluctant to do it.
Recalls are the appropriate way of holding elected officials accountable. If you're writing laws so that you can personally overturn the decisions of your elected official at every turn, then ffs you shouldn't let that person be in their position. If a decision isn't serious enough for you to recall, then it isn't serious in the first place. If you want to be the one making decisions, then be the chair yourself. Don't back seat drive under the guise of "checks and balances." This region has been plagued by delay and obstruction for the past 3 years. It's frankly a moronic idea to introduce even more obstructionist tools to the simplest of jobs. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (04-19-2017, 02:55 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: No, Omega faced a recall because you guys thought he was slow, and because he was slow, you guys thought he was incompetent. I was there when the decision was made. Don't pretend like it was a grave matter and people were reluctant to do it No one said I was incompetent. And I was told by many of the people who proposed the recall that this was simply a matter of not having the time to do a job. And I have been very honest about the fact that I did things the wrong way as CoA. I resigned promptly when the charges were brought forward, a move many of y'all praised. You said, "there's no shame in leaving a job when you can't give it the time it deserves". If someone thought I was incompetent, that was never made public. I was very honest that I had messed up, and I was sorry for that. It was also made clear by multiple people that they still had faith in my ability to govern and that my intentions were good I just didn't have the time at that point to be CoA. I think the thing that is worth noting Glen is that you are the only person saying this would lead to obstruction. No one else has said that they have a problem with it. You also happen to be the only person who's power would be checked. And once again, I am a firm believer that a Chair should not be recalled based on a single bad ruling. 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
It's an objective fact that this will lead to obstruction. You are literally introducing the ability of any person to force a mandatory 24 hour debate and 3 day vote on any decision made by the Chair. That sounds all fine and dandy as long as you're thinking, "Oh geez, checks and balances!" Not so great when you all are complaining that a debate is going on too long, and then somebody decides "Fuck y'all, I disagree. I motion to overturn the chair's decision."
Why is this necessary? It's not. Are you guys also going to request that we get a vote to overturn MoMA appointing a deputy, firing one, deciding to start a newspaper or end one? No. Because you elected them to make those decisions. You don't vote for them again if you disagree with their decisions, and you recall them if you think they've done something egregious. You elect a chair to make decisions, too. If you think the chair's decisions shouldn't ever be final, then don't have the chair make those decisions in the first place. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You're thus far the only person complaining about a simple check on the Chair's power.
I mean, is this your surreptitious way of asking to be recalled? So far everyone keeps saying an overturned ruling is no reason to fire the Chair (which is currently you). You're the only one arguing for the extreme route.
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 |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |