It would allow someone holding an appointed position to take up an elected one for a period of time, without resigning the appointed post. That would prevent us from going through an entirely new appointment process, which can take months.

It wouldn't work if every justice wanted to run for elected office, or if someone wanted to do multiple terms, but it would allow shorter absences.

... but ... maybe the problem is that our selection process shouldn't take months?

Especially if it's a reappointment.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Bel, I didn't mean to imply that everybody supported that part - and obviously, it's not the case!

Regarding the 2016 issue, I can't speak for Glen (obviously), but it was a different kind of thing than this. You were a local councillor running for a simultaneous Chair position. Though the mechanics then were different, it was the Chair (then as now) that facilitated the voice of the game-side in the forum-based government. Being the decider of the bloc vote in one facet and simultaneously the sole position to apply the bloc vote in another facet of our government is a clear conflict, which is why we then didn't allow it.

I don't see that as the case with Prime Minister and Associate Justice, as neither position is the sole facilitator of another's power. An AJ can rule on a political case involving Cabinet, but clearly that's something that must be recused and a Chief Justice (who is deliberately firewalled) will ensure that.

Similar arguments can be made for and against firewalls between various positions - CRS/PM aye, LC/Delegate nay, etc.

I've mentioned this somewhere before, but I think we in the Legislature should create a matrix of the kinds of positions one can hold and then look at each case to see which is absurd or not, then amend the firewalls in law appropriately. Scalpel vs. Axe approach, basically. This is kinda what you mentioned in your second approach.

Reply