View Topic

Draws brought it up to me that it's too late to recall Chanku, so I enquired about the possibility of simply stripping him of his powers as a Speaker. To my astonishment, the response was that there was nothing in the procedural rules to allow for that. I believe this should be rectified.

Perhaps something like this:

"Should the Underhusen wish to remove the powers of the Speaker, for whatever reason, they may do so by introducing a Bill to the Underhusen in which the reason for doing so is clearly stated. If this bill passes, then the Speaker Pro Tempore immediately assumes the role of the Speaker."

Some questions re: the bill currently in the Underhusen:

Does the Speaker preside over the vote of no confidence against themselves? If not, should the act empower the Speaker pro tem to do so?
Would this be better implemented as using a motion (much like the one to empower the Speaker pro tem, currently in the Procedural Rules), or a bill?

Draws brought it up to me that it's too late to recall Chanku, so I enquired about the possibility of simply stripping him of his powers as a Speaker. To my astonishment, the response was that there was nothing in the procedural rules to allow for that. I believe this should be rectified.

Perhaps something like this:

"Should the Underhusen wish to remove the powers of the Speaker, for whatever reason, they may do so by introducing a Bill to the Underhusen in which the reason for doing so is clearly stated. If this bill passes, then the Speaker Pro Tempore immediately assumes the role of the Speaker."

I know you're using a rough suggestion, but that wording frightens me.

I think it should be tightened or at least altered, rather than left open to such potentially dangerous future consequences.

Perhaps:

 "If it's decided by the Underhusen that the current Speaker is incapable of properly carrying out their duties, they may choose to recall them at any time by introducing the respective bill into the Underhusen which will clearly state their reasoning behind the recall.  If this bill passes, then the Speaker Pro Tempore immediately assumes the role of Speaker."

Clearly, the grammar is up for altering to make it sound better, but overall it puts it more on the point rather than opening it up to seeing potential bills pop up for recalls because they simply just didn't like the person.

Obviously, such bills should require the typical supermajority to pass, since this should be a decision that most of the UH would agree upon.

I know you're using a rough suggestion, but that wording frightens me.

I think it should be tightened or at least altered, rather than left open to such potentially dangerous future consequences.

Perhaps "If it's decided by the Underhusen that the current Speaker is incapable of properly carrying out their duties, choose to recall him at any time by introducing the respective bill into the Underhusen which will clearly state their reasoning behind the recall.  If this bill passes, then the Speaker Pro Tempore immediately assumes the role of Speaker."

"Any Skrifa with an articulable reason" is what I used.

I took it from New Hampshire Criminal Law, which uses a term called "articulable suspicion" (as does most criminal law in the US). Basically, so long as you can put down on paper why you did something, it's okay.

Same idea here. So long as a Skrifa can put down on paper (or in a bill, in this case) why the Speaker should be recalled, and the rest of the UH votes for it, it should be fine. But they shouldn't just be able to say "yeah I don't like him" and recall him. It needs to be an actual reason.

Yeah, I see no problem with the proposed change. I wasn't introducing something ready for vote, I was merely giving a rough idea of the law I had in mind.

I know you're using a rough suggestion, but that wording frightens me.

I think it should be tightened or at least altered, rather than left open to such potentially dangerous future consequences.

Perhaps "If it's decided by the Underhusen that the current Speaker is incapable of properly carrying out their duties, choose to recall him at any time by introducing the respective bill into the Underhusen which will clearly state their reasoning behind the recall.  If this bill passes, then the Speaker Pro Tempore immediately assumes the role of Speaker."

"Any Skrifa with an articulable reason" is what I used.

I took it from New Hampshire Criminal Law, which uses a term called "articulable suspicion" (as does most criminal law in the US). Basically, so long as you can put down on paper why you did something, it's okay.

Same idea here. So long as a Skrifa can put down on paper (or in a bill, in this case) why the Speaker should be recalled, and the rest of the UH votes for it, it should be fine. But they shouldn't just be able to say "yeah I don't like him" and recall him. It needs to be an actual reason.

That's a much better wording, actually.  I can stand behind this since, regardless of the reasoning behind this proposal and bill appearing, there does need to be a better fail-safe in place for if a Speaker is either not doing their duties to the best extent, or they're potentially dangerous/malicious for the UH.

We have solutions for inactivity, and for things like this we only have appeals, so it only makes sense that we have some form of recall as well.