| [DEBATING] Reconfirmation votes for all non-elected positions |
Quote: Quote: Quote: So, on the topic of reconfirmations for all lifetime appointed positions... I'd be willing to break this out into 3 separate topics, but I thought it best to be an omnibus bill for now. Breakdown: Legislator Committee Act - Simple update from 4 to 6-month reconfirmation votes. Judicial Act - addition of a 6-month reconfirmation Charter, CRS section - Reconfirmation for ALL sitting members in April and October. Provision for a failed vote that the person can't reapply to the CRS for at least a year. Thoughts?
"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011 One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium
What's the rationale for this amendment?
We have a history of people inappropriately politicizing roles like CSR member and court justice. So I’m not really in favor of holding a regular reconfirmation votes. If someone is performing poorly, they should be recalled. But opening up the opportunity to vote over and over again increases the likelihood of politics being more important than merit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oof I missed this thread. I posted this in the other thread but I'm actually in favor of this. The rationale, to answer the question above, is that currently the Legislator Committee is the only "permanent" appointment subject to reconfirmation. The goal is to create a uniform policy with permanent positions, and determine what the best way is to keep these officers accountable while maintaining the level of stability that is desired by the nature of the appointment.
The way I see it, there is a gap between behavior that necessitates a recall and overall negative public opinion of a particular officer. That's the purpose a reconfirmation vote serves. As it stands I'm in favor of a reconfirmation vote every six months for all the above positions. To respond to Glen's concern about positions being inappropriately politicized, is there a way that language could be added to prevent this? Either to these bills or the criminal code? I could see a case being made for especially the more egregious cases meeting the definition of corruption, or potentially electoral fraud if it were amended slightly. I understand the concern, but I don't see it as a humongous risk right now and I think the benefits outweigh it. Witchcraft and Sorcery Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Formerly many things in other regions. Defender. Ideologue. he/they.
The benefit of reconfirmation votes at holding government officials accountable is debatable as far as I am aware. Unless someone has a concrete proof that other regions and real-life governments have done this and their government officials have been truly held accountable and it haven’t been subjected to politicalization in the process I will still cast doubt over its benefits.
TSP’s politics is rather not stable at many points in time and reconfirmation votes will open the opportunity for certain exploitative factions to action when the time comes (Timscade is an example). Recall votes are enough to hold them accountable as recall votes can only be started for incompetence and law violations and cannot be started for political purposes per the Charter, enforce this principle on a reconfirmation vote is difficult or even not doable. You will at least have to make up stories in order to recall an official for political purposes under current law, however, with a reconfirmation vote, just vote and nobody can stop you from voting for political purposes. If we really like reconfirmation votes that much then we should keep them at least 1 year apart.
Chief Supervising Armchair
The logic of mandatory reconfirmation is that the Assembly may no longer support someone remaining in an appointed office, without thinking that they have done anything worthy of recall. I’d question whether or not someone should remain in an appointed office if they can’t summon a simple majority of support from the Assembly, for whatever reason.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png) ![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
The following 4 users Like Belschaft's post:• Poppy, Rebeltopia, The Sakhalinsk Empire, Witchcraft and Sorcery
(02-15-2019, 08:34 AM)Amerion Wrote:(02-14-2019, 10:08 PM)USoVietnam Wrote: ... If we really like reconfirmation votes that much then we should keep them at least 1 year apart. Id have no issue with the change to 12 months.
"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011 One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium
(02-15-2019, 08:53 AM)Belschaft Wrote: The logic of mandatory reconfirmation is that the Assembly may no longer support someone remaining in an appointed office, without thinking that they have done anything worthy of recall. Then there is no valid reason to remove them. Can we please be real with this? We have had so many problems over the years with people attacking members of the CRS and Court, not because of any actual malfeasance in office, but because of social, political, or personal reasons. If an appointed official is no longer fit for office, that is reason for recall. Are they inactive? Recall them. Corrupt? Recall. There is no other valid, reasonable, or logical reason to remove them from office.
I agree with Sandaoguo. There's no need for reconfirmation votes when we have a process for recall in place.
![[Image: VCUpXJI.png1]](https://imgur.com/VCUpXJI.png1) BZERNELEG
South Pacifican. Public Servant. Creator. In that order.
Official Thread • Lampshade Broadcasting Company • The Tsunamy Institution of the Law and Public Policy |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
POSITIONS! POSITIONS, EVERYONE!!
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |