S.20.1: the election of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Nominations run for 48 hours.

I nominate myself for Speaker.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I nominate PragPop for deputy speaker.

[Senator-elect Spark]

I second Tim Turner's nomination for speaker.

[PragmaticPopulist]

I accept the nomination for deputy speaker.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

I third the nomination for speaker.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

TimTurner has won the Speakership and PragPop the Deputy Speakership, since their nominations went uncontested.

[West_Midlander]

Calling on the Speaker to put some legislation to the floor.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Calling on the Speaker to put some legislation to the floor.

I motion to bring legislation to the floor.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

also asking the Speaker to bring legislation to the floor. We have 5 bills that are just sitting around. Come on people!

[Senator-elect Spark]

Motion of No Confidence - Regarding the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Southern Chamber of Delegates

i. Under the Standing Rules of the Southern Chamber of Delegates, it is hereby my duty and request to introduce a motion of no confidence
ii. With all due respect, both members are devoted public servants but must abide by their duties in a timely manner
iii. The reason for the motion is substantial inactivity on the part of both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker
iv. The motion shall be for-cause due to the inactivity of the Deputy Speaker for the entire session when the Speaker is absent, and for the Speaker failing to conduct duties effectively
v. Bills remained in queue for longer than a few days when the government must be actively run by the Deputy Speaker in the Speaker's absence
vi. Substantial inactivity on the part of the leadership of the Southern Chamber is detrimental to the people of the Southern region.
vii. Under the rules, I hereby request a vote on whether to retain both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Motion of No Confidence - Regarding the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Southern Chamber of Delegates

i. Under the Standing Rules of the Southern Chamber of Delegates, it is hereby my duty and request to introduce a motion of no confidence
ii. With all due respect, both members are devoted public servants but must abide by their duties in a timely manner
iii. The reason for the motion is substantial inactivity on the part of both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker
iv. Bills remained in queue for longer than a few days when the government must be actively run by the Deputy Speaker in the Speaker's absence
v. Substantial inactivity on the part of the leadership of the Southern Chamber is detrimental to the people of the Southern region.
vi. Under the rules, I hereby request a vote on whether to retain both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker.

Based on their current activity levels do you reckon they will the even turn up to vote?

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Motion of No Confidence - Regarding the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Southern Chamber of Delegates

i. Under the Standing Rules of the Southern Chamber of Delegates, it is hereby my duty and request to introduce a motion of no confidence
ii. With all due respect, both members are devoted public servants but must abide by their duties in a timely manner
iii. The reason for the motion is substantial inactivity on the part of both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker
iv. Bills remained in queue for longer than a few days when the government must be actively run by the Deputy Speaker in the Speaker's absence
v. Substantial inactivity on the part of the leadership of the Southern Chamber is detrimental to the people of the Southern region.
vi. Under the rules, I hereby request a vote on whether to retain both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker.

Based on their current activity levels do you reckon they will the even turn up to vote?

Not that either of the individuals are "bad blokes". Timbo and PragPop are good blokes, being a good bloke isn't at question. It is explicit in motion, that this is not about the type of blokes they are but about activity and dedication to duty.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Motion of No Confidence - Regarding the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Southern Chamber of Delegates

i. Under the Standing Rules of the Southern Chamber of Delegates, it is hereby my duty and request to introduce a motion of no confidence
ii. With all due respect, both members are devoted public servants but must abide by their duties in a timely manner
iii. The reason for the motion is substantial inactivity on the part of both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker
iv. Bills remained in queue for longer than a few days when the government must be actively run by the Deputy Speaker in the Speaker's absence
v. Substantial inactivity on the part of the leadership of the Southern Chamber is detrimental to the people of the Southern region.
vi. Under the rules, I hereby request a vote on whether to retain both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker.

Based on their current activity levels do you reckon they will the even turn up to vote?

Not that either of the individuals are "bad blokes". Timbo and PragPop are good blokes, being a good bloke isn't at question. It is explicit in motion, that this is not about the type of blokes they are but about activity and dedication to duty.

I agree. That is why in the language it is reflected as such.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Or just compromise and get a more active Deputy (who though?). Tim's always been an inactive figurehead while his Deputy actually does the job.

[Former President tack50]

Or just compromise and get a more active Deputy (who though?). Tim's always been an inactive figurehead while his Deputy actually does the job.

To be honest I don't think that is a good policy. I like Tim, but if he is not active enough to be speaker then he should not be speaker. I remember when I was in the Chamber of Delegates, Wulfric was already the de facto speaker, and he should have been the actual speaker as well. Ironically Deputy Speaker would be a better role for Tim, being able to step in if the Speaker is not able.

Of course I do not think there is a suitable replacement for Tim in the current Chamber of Delegates. WB is also being recalled and the other 3 representatives are not exactly immensely active either.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Or just compromise and get a more active Deputy (who though?). Tim's always been an inactive figurehead while his Deputy actually does the job.

To be honest I don't think that is a good policy. I like Tim, but if he is not active enough to be speaker then he should not be speaker. I remember when I was in the Chamber of Delegates, Wulfric was already the de facto speaker, and he should have been the actual speaker as well. Ironically Deputy Speaker would be a better role for Tim, being able to step in if the Speaker is not able.

Of course I do not think there is a suitable replacement for Tim in the current Chamber of Delegates. WB is also being recalled and the other 3 representatives are not exactly immensely active either.

I have been more active this term.. Out of justice to the Southern people, I do hope this motion is taken up in a timely manner.

[Former President tack50]

In any case, here are the relevant rules regarding the removal of the speaker according to the Wiki (not sure if they are updated or not):

7a.) Upon a motion of any Delegate, a vote of no confidence in the Speaker of the Chamber shall be entertained. Debate shall last no more than 72 hours, unless a majority of Delegates vote to extend the time. No Speaker shall be removed at-will, except upon the vote of 2/3rds of the Delegates. No Speaker shall be removed for-cause, except upon the vote of a majority of the Delegates in a 5 member chamber, or upon the vote of 3/5 of the delegates in a 7 member chamber. Upon a successful vote, the Dean of the Chamber, shall become acting Speaker, unless the Dean is also the Speaker, in which case the next most-senior Delegate shall by acting speaker. A new election for Speaker shall commence within 24 hours using the same process for electing a Speaker at the beginning of the Session. A Successful no-confidence vote shall not result in the expulsion of a Speaker who is also an elected Delegate, merely the forfeiture of the office of Speaker.

So the first question is: Is this an at-will removal or a for-cause removal?

After that, Spark introduced the motion on the 11th of March, so Tim should open a vote on the 14th at the latest unless an extension is filed.

The likeliest scenario is a 2-3 defeat on party lines, but a 3-2 would create an interesting legal scenario where Tim sues to retain his speakership.

[Senator-elect Spark]

In any case, here are the relevant rules regarding the removal of the speaker according to the Wiki (not sure if they are updated or not):

7a.) Upon a motion of any Delegate, a vote of no confidence in the Speaker of the Chamber shall be entertained. Debate shall last no more than 72 hours, unless a majority of Delegates vote to extend the time. No Speaker shall be removed at-will, except upon the vote of 2/3rds of the Delegates. No Speaker shall be removed for-cause, except upon the vote of a majority of the Delegates in a 5 member chamber, or upon the vote of 3/5 of the delegates in a 7 member chamber. Upon a successful vote, the Dean of the Chamber, shall become acting Speaker, unless the Dean is also the Speaker, in which case the next most-senior Delegate shall by acting speaker. A new election for Speaker shall commence within 24 hours using the same process for electing a Speaker at the beginning of the Session. A Successful no-confidence vote shall not result in the expulsion of a Speaker who is also an elected Delegate, merely the forfeiture of the office of Speaker.

So the first question is: Is this an at-will removal or a for-cause removal?

After that, Spark introduced the motion on the 11th of March, so Tim should open a vote on the 14th at the latest unless an extension is filed.

The likeliest scenario is a 2-3 defeat on party lines, but a 3-2 would create an interesting legal scenario where Tim sues to retain his speakership.

I will update to reflect that it is a for-cause removal. And if Tim does not open the thread?

[Former President tack50]

In any case, here are the relevant rules regarding the removal of the speaker according to the Wiki (not sure if they are updated or not):

7a.) Upon a motion of any Delegate, a vote of no confidence in the Speaker of the Chamber shall be entertained. Debate shall last no more than 72 hours, unless a majority of Delegates vote to extend the time. No Speaker shall be removed at-will, except upon the vote of 2/3rds of the Delegates. No Speaker shall be removed for-cause, except upon the vote of a majority of the Delegates in a 5 member chamber, or upon the vote of 3/5 of the delegates in a 7 member chamber. Upon a successful vote, the Dean of the Chamber, shall become acting Speaker, unless the Dean is also the Speaker, in which case the next most-senior Delegate shall by acting speaker. A new election for Speaker shall commence within 24 hours using the same process for electing a Speaker at the beginning of the Session. A Successful no-confidence vote shall not result in the expulsion of a Speaker who is also an elected Delegate, merely the forfeiture of the office of Speaker.

So the first question is: Is this an at-will removal or a for-cause removal?

After that, Spark introduced the motion on the 11th of March, so Tim should open a vote on the 14th at the latest unless an extension is filed.

The likeliest scenario is a 2-3 defeat on party lines, but a 3-2 would create an interesting legal scenario where Tim sues to retain his speakership.

I will update to reflect that it is a for-cause removal. And if Tim does not open the thread?

I guess Prag could open it. If neither opens it then I guess it would be the classic "region falls into disarray" scenario that has happened many times.

In those cases I don't know what is the usual procedure, but I guess any Delegate could open the vote, but it adds yet another possible argument of illegality.

[Senator-elect Spark]

In any case, here are the relevant rules regarding the removal of the speaker according to the Wiki (not sure if they are updated or not):

7a.) Upon a motion of any Delegate, a vote of no confidence in the Speaker of the Chamber shall be entertained. Debate shall last no more than 72 hours, unless a majority of Delegates vote to extend the time. No Speaker shall be removed at-will, except upon the vote of 2/3rds of the Delegates. No Speaker shall be removed for-cause, except upon the vote of a majority of the Delegates in a 5 member chamber, or upon the vote of 3/5 of the delegates in a 7 member chamber. Upon a successful vote, the Dean of the Chamber, shall become acting Speaker, unless the Dean is also the Speaker, in which case the next most-senior Delegate shall by acting speaker. A new election for Speaker shall commence within 24 hours using the same process for electing a Speaker at the beginning of the Session. A Successful no-confidence vote shall not result in the expulsion of a Speaker who is also an elected Delegate, merely the forfeiture of the office of Speaker.

So the first question is: Is this an at-will removal or a for-cause removal?

After that, Spark introduced the motion on the 11th of March, so Tim should open a vote on the 14th at the latest unless an extension is filed.

The likeliest scenario is a 2-3 defeat on party lines, but a 3-2 would create an interesting legal scenario where Tim sues to retain his speakership.

I will update to reflect that it is a for-cause removal. And if Tim does not open the thread?

I guess Prag could open it. If neither opens it then I guess it would be the classic "region falls into disarray" scenario that has happened many times.

In those cases I don't know what is the usual procedure, but I guess any Delegate could open the vote, but it adds yet another possible argument of illegality.

If the Speaker or Deputy Speaker do not move to open the thread by March 14th, I will entertain opening the thread and consider a possible amendment to the Standing Rules to account for that scenario. There should be a provision taking that into consideration.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Of course I do not think there is a suitable replacement for Tim in the current Chamber of Delegates. WB is also being recalled and the other 3 representatives are not exactly immensely active either.

The speaker doesn't need to be a delegate. There has been at least one non delegate speaker before.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

Or just compromise and get a more active Deputy (who though?). Tim's always been an inactive figurehead while his Deputy actually does the job.

To be honest I don't think that is a good policy. I like Tim, but if he is not active enough to be speaker then he should not be speaker. I remember when I was in the Chamber of Delegates, Wulfric was already the de facto speaker, and he should have been the actual speaker as well. Ironically Deputy Speaker would be a better role for Tim, being able to step in if the Speaker is not able.

Of course I do not think there is a suitable replacement for Tim in the current Chamber of Delegates. WB is also being recalled and the other 3 representatives are not exactly immensely active either.

This sort of turmoil is yet more evidence as to why the South needs to become a puppet state controlled by Frémont.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Looks like it's time for me to come in and save the Chamber and the South!

[Senator-elect Spark]

Looks like it's time for me to come in and save the Chamber and the South!

Senator LT, I appreciate that sentiment. However, all will be under control in the Chamber!

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I do not intend to step aside without a fight, should it ever come to that if I have to do that to stay in my job.