Users browsing this thread:

***sandaoguo*** · 11-03-2017, 08:42 AM

This’ll be a no-frills campaign thread.

I’m running as interim chair in large part because it was my idea. I can’t very well throw a wrench into the gears and walk away!

In my campaign to re-open nominations, I said that we should elect a chair in an interim capacity, whose only duty will be to process legislator applications. I stand by that. I’m prepared to do the job.

But the second half of the job is overseeing a reform of the position. That is already happening in the Assembly, thankfully. Separation legislator applications off to a dedicated person/body was my main idea, too, and that seems to be the direction Roavin and others are headed in. I support that.

In addition, I will be proposing a special resolution for an expedited election when the interim chair steps down. We don’t need another 2ish weeks of an election, and legislator applications shouldn’t be put on hold again.

Lastly, I’d like to touch on conflicts of interests. I am a member of the CRS and a forum admin. That creates several overlapping duties and powers. As interim chair, I would recuse myself from any CRS or admin decision-making that overlaps with the duties and powers of the Chair, or where the Chair is expected to serve as a check. My hope is that Altmoras will stay on as deputy. Where I recuse myself, Altmoras will step in. Where legally only the Chair, not their deputy, can act, I will defer to their decisions.

However, I don’t plan on being interim chair for longer than a month at most. Given that work is already underway addressing the problems with the position, I don’t think it’ll take more than that to wrap up the reform effort. So there probably won’t be many instances where Altmoras will need to step in.

That’s all! Again, I think anybody can do this job. Vote for me, vote for my competitors.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(This post was last modified: 11-03-2017, 08:43 AM by sandaoguo.)

**Belschaft** · 11-03-2017, 02:33 PM

The concept of "Interim" Chair has no legal standing, and there are legal requirement to the office - including bringing things to vote if duly motioned.

How would you deal with these hypothetical scenarios;

A piece of legislation is brought before the Assembly and motioned to vote. It is on a topic other than Chair reform. What do you do?

A piece of legislation is brought before the Assembly and motioned to vote. Having reviewed it, you believe that it directly contradicts the Charter. What do you do?

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 11-03-2017, 04:47 PM

I think the Assembly should be devoting itself entirely and singularly to reforming the Chair position, so that we can hold a full election for a new Chair under the newly redesigned position. Obviously I can't block people from doing other things. But 21 people voted to re-open nominations after I made a thread laying out my idea for an interim Chair and a call for reform. I expect those voters will want to see that through.

As for your second question, it's not the Chair's authority to determine the legality of bills. If there's a valid motion and a second, a bill must be brought to vote. It's the court's sole authority to declare laws unconstitutional. The Chair can't and shouldn't make that decision themselves and block votes on that basis.