JCP Convention, December 2010 (endorsements posted)

[Antonio the Sixth]

It happened once, with DWTL.  That was perhaps done improperly.

Wasn't he voted out by the Senate ?

[Јas]

It happened once, with DWTL.  That was perhaps done improperly.

Wasn't he voted out by the Senate ?

No, declaration of vacancy.
Which raised no complaint from anyone, including DWTL himself when he returned.

[Јas]

It happened once, with DWTL.  That was perhaps done improperly.

Wasn't he voted out by the Senate ?

No, declaration of vacancy.
Which raised no complaint from anyone, including DWTL himself when he returned.

For reference sake:
The amendment to the OSPR incorporating the vacancy rule. One may note it's content was largely adopted on advice of then Chief Justice TCash. The amendment was approved by Senators across all parties, including the now Associate Justice Ebowed.

The declaration of vacancy thread re: DWTL. As may be noted the legality of the declaration was not questioned by any person of any party, including DWTL on his return.

The vacancy having been noted to the Secretary of Forum Affairs, it led to a special election won by the then chief legal advisor to the executive, Attorney General Marokai Blue.

The first suggestion that the method may not be legally sound was not raised until 3 and a half years after its adoption, when Bacon King's position was brought into question.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It happened once, with DWTL.  That was perhaps done improperly.

Wasn't he voted out by the Senate ?

No, declaration of vacancy.
Which raised no complaint from anyone, including DWTL himself when he returned.

Oh, really ? I had always been sure there was a vote about it. I think there should have been one, at least.

[bgwah]

Well, perhaps the Senate should formally expel him just to be cautious...

[Marokai Backbeat]

It happened once, with DWTL.  That was perhaps done improperly.

Wasn't he voted out by the Senate ?

No, declaration of vacancy.
Which raised no complaint from anyone, including DWTL himself when he returned.

Oh, really ? I had always been sure there was a vote about it. I think there should have been one, at least.

Ironically, that vacancy of DWTL's seat that (probably) improperly led to a special elected is where I won my first election and started a more serious career beyond the Attorney General's office.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It happened once, with DWTL.  That was perhaps done improperly.

Wasn't he voted out by the Senate ?

No, declaration of vacancy.
Which raised no complaint from anyone, including DWTL himself when he returned.

Oh, really ? I had always been sure there was a vote about it. I think there should have been one, at least.

Ironically, that vacancy of DWTL's seat that (probably) improperly led to a special elected is where I won my first election and started a more serious career beyond the Attorney General's office.

Yeah, I know. This is one of my favorite events of Atlasian history (at least what I know about it).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It happened once, with DWTL.  That was perhaps done improperly.

Wasn't he voted out by the Senate ?

No, declaration of vacancy.
Which raised no complaint from anyone, including DWTL himself when he returned.

Oh, really ? I had always been sure there was a vote about it. I think there should have been one, at least.

Ironically, that vacancy of DWTL's seat that (probably) improperly led to a special elected is where I won my first election and started a more serious career beyond the Attorney General's office.

Why am I not surprised that you would benefit from something being done "improperly".

Here is another fact

Badger succeeded Marokai, and Barnes succeeded Badger. So this is the same damn cursed seat.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

I'm a little bit new here, but do we ever have any inspiring speeches from our party leaders during the convention?

[bgwah]

Well, anyway... regardless of "Is Barnes still a Senator" question, how would you guys prefer doing this in the future? A special intra-party election? just have the chair appoint a replacement?

[Ban my account ffs!]

I think having a "straw poll" would be good.. with the appointment made by the chair with the ability for the chair to choose somebody else if there's a good reason to.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It happened once, with DWTL.  That was perhaps done improperly.

Wasn't he voted out by the Senate ?

No, declaration of vacancy.
Which raised no complaint from anyone, including DWTL himself when he returned.

Oh, really ? I had always been sure there was a vote about it. I think there should have been one, at least.

Ironically, that vacancy of DWTL's seat that (probably) improperly led to a special elected is where I won my first election and started a more serious career beyond the Attorney General's office.

Why am I not surprised that you would benefit from something being done "improperly".

Here is another fact

Badger succeeded Marokai, and Barnes succeeded Badger. So this is the same damn cursed seat.

Yeah, especially considering that :
- DWTL vacated it by becoming inactive, Marokai took the seat.
- Marokai vacated it to become SC Justice, Badger took the seat in the general election.
- Badger vacated it to become GM, Barnes took the seat.
- Barnes vacated it by becoming inactive, Lief took the seat in the general election.

The Marokai-Badger precedent is useful there, because, as the election was approaching, no replacement was appointed for Marokai and we just waited for Badger to be seated.

[Badger]

Yes, but don't forget the riots of adoring crowds demanding my early seating. The lootings, the mass suicides, the religions adopting me as a deity----do we really want to go through that again?

Then again, it is just Lief here.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It happened once, with DWTL.  That was perhaps done improperly.

Wasn't he voted out by the Senate ?

No, declaration of vacancy.
Which raised no complaint from anyone, including DWTL himself when he returned.

Oh, really ? I had always been sure there was a vote about it. I think there should have been one, at least.

Ironically, that vacancy of DWTL's seat that (probably) improperly led to a special elected is where I won my first election and started a more serious career beyond the Attorney General's office.

Why am I not surprised that you would benefit from something being done "improperly".

Here is another fact

Badger succeeded Marokai, and Barnes succeeded Badger. So this is the same damn cursed seat.

Yeah, especially considering that :
- DWTL vacated it by becoming inactive, Marokai took the seat.
- Marokai vacated it to become SC Justice, Badger took the seat in the general election.
- Badger vacated it to become GM, Barnes took the seat.
- Barnes vacated it by becoming inactive, Lief took the seat in the general election.

The Marokai-Badger precedent is useful there, because, as the election was approaching, no replacement was appointed for Marokai and we just waited for Badger to be seated.

Yea, because it was too late for a special election (At-Large seats cannot be appointed too. ). However, thanks to the law just passed by bgwah, the major parties can fill the vacated seats of their members now if only six weeks remain. Are you suggesting the JCP should wait to fill this seat till January seventh?

[Antonio the Sixth]

It happened once, with DWTL.  That was perhaps done improperly.

Wasn't he voted out by the Senate ?

No, declaration of vacancy.
Which raised no complaint from anyone, including DWTL himself when he returned.

Oh, really ? I had always been sure there was a vote about it. I think there should have been one, at least.

Ironically, that vacancy of DWTL's seat that (probably) improperly led to a special elected is where I won my first election and started a more serious career beyond the Attorney General's office.

Why am I not surprised that you would benefit from something being done "improperly".

Here is another fact

Badger succeeded Marokai, and Barnes succeeded Badger. So this is the same damn cursed seat.

Yeah, especially considering that :
- DWTL vacated it by becoming inactive, Marokai took the seat.
- Marokai vacated it to become SC Justice, Badger took the seat in the general election.
- Badger vacated it to become GM, Barnes took the seat.
- Barnes vacated it by becoming inactive, Lief took the seat in the general election.

The Marokai-Badger precedent is useful there, because, as the election was approaching, no replacement was appointed for Marokai and we just waited for Badger to be seated.

Yea, because it was too late for a special election (At-Large seats cannot be appointed too. ). However, thanks to the law just passed by bgwah, the major parties can fill the vacated seats of their members now if only six weeks remain. Are you suggesting the JCP should wait to fill this seat till January seventh?

First of all, I don't think Barnes' seat should be declared vacant. I just don't think the OSPR has the constitutional power to expel a Senator.

Second, I find it pretty ridiculous that there is so much excitation about appointing someone who will serve only for two damn weeks. I just think we should avoid procedural aventurism especially when there is absolutely nothing to gain. Once the new Senate is duly seate, we could consider passing an Amendment to clear up this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It happened once, with DWTL.  That was perhaps done improperly.

Wasn't he voted out by the Senate ?

No, declaration of vacancy.
Which raised no complaint from anyone, including DWTL himself when he returned.

Oh, really ? I had always been sure there was a vote about it. I think there should have been one, at least.

Ironically, that vacancy of DWTL's seat that (probably) improperly led to a special elected is where I won my first election and started a more serious career beyond the Attorney General's office.

Why am I not surprised that you would benefit from something being done "improperly".

Here is another fact

Badger succeeded Marokai, and Barnes succeeded Badger. So this is the same damn cursed seat.

Yeah, especially considering that :
- DWTL vacated it by becoming inactive, Marokai took the seat.
- Marokai vacated it to become SC Justice, Badger took the seat in the general election.
- Badger vacated it to become GM, Barnes took the seat.
- Barnes vacated it by becoming inactive, Lief took the seat in the general election.

The Marokai-Badger precedent is useful there, because, as the election was approaching, no replacement was appointed for Marokai and we just waited for Badger to be seated.

Yea, because it was too late for a special election (At-Large seats cannot be appointed too. ). However, thanks to the law just passed by bgwah, the major parties can fill the vacated seats of their members now if only six weeks remain. Are you suggesting the JCP should wait to fill this seat till January seventh?

First of all, I don't think Barnes' seat should be declared vacant. I just don't think the OSPR has the constitutional power to expel a Senator.

Second, I find it pretty ridiculous that there is so much excitation about appointing someone who will serve only for two damn weeks. I just think we should avoid procedural aventurism especially when there is absolutely nothing to gain. Once the new Senate is duly seate, we could consider passing an Amendment to clear up this.

Procedural aventurism? Is rejecting a procedure that has been accepted for almost four years as entirely legitimate by everyone and instead misusing the expulsion procedure as its stand in, not procedureal aventurism?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well, perhaps the Senate should formally expel him just to be cautious...

Are you going to begin that process? I haven't the slightest idea how it is to occur and there is no mention of it in the OSPR. The only thing I have seen so far is the 2/3rd's requirement in Article 1 of the Constitution.

[Ebowed]

Well, perhaps the Senate should formally expel him just to be cautious...

Are you going to begin that process? I haven't the slightest idea how it is to occur and there is no mention of it in the OSPR. The only thing I have seen so far is the 2/3rd's requirement in Article 1 of the Constitution.

someone puts forward a motion to expel, someone seconds it, then you have a big ol' vote on the matter, and then life goes on

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well, perhaps the Senate should formally expel him just to be cautious...

Are you going to begin that process? I haven't the slightest idea how it is to occur and there is no mention of it in the OSPR. The only thing I have seen so far is the 2/3rd's requirement in Article 1 of the Constitution.

someone puts forward a motion to expel, someone seconds it, then you have a big ol' vote on the matter, and then life goes on

Where is the proper place for this motion to be offered?

[Јas]

Well, perhaps the Senate should formally expel him just to be cautious...

Are you going to begin that process? I haven't the slightest idea how it is to occur and there is no mention of it in the OSPR. The only thing I have seen so far is the 2/3rd's requirement in Article 1 of the Constitution.

someone puts forward a motion to expel, someone seconds it, then you have a big ol' vote on the matter, and then life goes on

Where is the proper place for this motion to be offered?

An expulsion motion would normally be conducted in its own thread.

I'd also say though that if the PPT is not willing to execute the Senate's stated rules, he should either offer his resignation, or, at the very least, make a motion to change the rules he finds objectionable.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well, perhaps the Senate should formally expel him just to be cautious...

Are you going to begin that process? I haven't the slightest idea how it is to occur and there is no mention of it in the OSPR. The only thing I have seen so far is the 2/3rd's requirement in Article 1 of the Constitution.

someone puts forward a motion to expel, someone seconds it, then you have a big ol' vote on the matter, and then life goes on

Where is the proper place for this motion to be offered?

An expulsion motion would normally be conducted in its own thread.

I'd also say though that if the PPT is not willing to execute the Senate's stated rules, he should either offer his resignation, or, at the very least, make a motion to change the rules he finds objectionable.

What are you talking about?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I tried to fix this problem via constitutional amendment, the Senate voted it down and the nay voters have made no attempt to repeal the OSPR clause dealing with vacancies. No one here is neglecting their duties Jas, so I haven't the slightest idea what the  you are talking about.

[Јas]

I tried to fix this problem via constitutional amendment, the Senate voted it down and the nay voters have made no attempt to repeal the OSPR clause dealing with vacancies. No one here is neglecting their duties Jas, so I haven't the slightest idea what the  you are talking about.

I'm not accusing you of neglecting your duties, as of yet. (I'm presuming here that you have notified the appropriate powers over the vacancy of Barnes's seat.)

I do believe though that you would be disregarding Senate rules should you purport to call a vote to expel a 'Senator' who per the OSPR is no longer in office.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I tried to fix this problem via constitutional amendment, the Senate voted it down and the nay voters have made no attempt to repeal the OSPR clause dealing with vacancies. No one here is neglecting their duties Jas, so I haven't the slightest idea what the  you are talking about.

I'm not accusing you of neglecting your duties, as of yet. (I'm presuming here that you have notified the appropriate powers over the vacancy of Barnes's seat.)

I do believe though that you would be disregarding Senate rules should you purport to call a vote to expel a 'Senator' who per the OSPR is no longer in office.

No I didn't inform the SoFE directly at the time because a Special election was judged unnecessary due to the closeness of the election and thus a pointless endeavour, untill now with the amendment to the Proportional Representation act. Had this question about the legitimacy of the vacancy clause not been left open like this, I would have posted something similar to what I did for Libertas, at the time. However, the OSPR says I "....Shall further notify the SoFA (an office no longer existing) or Regional Governor, as appropriate, of the vacancy". It doesn't say where the notification must occur or how, and thus my thread alerting that Barnes exceeding the 21 days should suffice under that as "notification". 


I don't plan to motion to expell Barnes. If bgwah or someone in the JCP wants to introduce the motion, they can do so. There is noting in the OSPR preventing an expulsion vote from occuring for no reason either, is there? I will just delay direct notification till it is finished. 

[Јas]

No I didn't inform the SoFE directly at the time because a Special election was judged unnecessary due to the closeness of the election and thus a pointless endeavour, untill now with the amendment to the Proportional Representation act. Had this question about the legitimacy of the vacancy clause not been left open like this, I would have posted something similar to what I did for Libertas, at the time. However, the OSPR says I "....Shall further notify the SoFA (an office no longer existing) or Regional Governor, as appropriate, of the vacancy". It doesn't say where the notification must occur or how, and thus my thread alerting that Barnes exceeding the 21 days should suffice under that as "notification". 

I would say that a decision as to the holding of the election is not yours to make - but for the DoFE.

The rules give you the duty simply of notifying such vacancies as may occur to the appropriate authorities (and indeed, the SoFA no longer exists in that form, but it has a successor office that one can reasonably infer should be notified instead).

I don't plan to motion to expell Barnes. If bgwah or someone in the JCP wants to introduce the motion, they can do so. There is noting in the OSPR preventing an expulsion vote from occuring for no reason either, is there? I will just delay direct notification till it is finished. 

Technically there's nothing in the OSPR about expulsion votes at all.

However to hold an expulsion vote concerning someone who, per the Senate rules, isn't a Senator would seem to represent a fairly clear disregard for those same Senate rules.