Cabinet Dismissal / Apointment law

[Southern Bellz]

The one thing I have noticed is I have been in a position where I have had to appoint cabinet members and that is a very questionable gray area in our laws.But another thing I am worried about is the non vacant positions that are filled by inactive members. So far the only way legally to dismiss a cabinet member is impeachment, which requires gross misconduct, and I think being inactive is a bit harsh to call gross misconduct.So what do you guys think about this?

[Guest]

I agree on the appointing of vacant positions. That should be legalized somehow. I'm a bit hesitant about dismissal of cabinet members, at least not directly by the delegate, due to ministers being elected positions and delegate not. I agree that impeachment, as it currently stands, is quite a heavy tool (if I'm not mistaken the current impeachment procedure involves a jury and the full tralala). We could either downsize the current procedure or add an "impeachment-light". Either way, as the minister originally was elected by the assembly, he/she should also be dismissed by the assembly, in such a way that someone makes a well-argumented proposal to do so and the assembly votes on it. I know, this will take longer than a dismissal by delegate, but I want to avoid the possibility that a Delegate can randomly dismiss people he/she doesn't like.

[htz31361849782]

Maybe we should add something along the lines if a minster is absent or ceases to fulfill the requirements of their office that by a simple majority vote of the cabinet or the general assembly they can be removed and that the call for such action must come from the PM or the delegate. Of course the minster should have a time to respond before the vote is taken.For our current vacant offices that we handle it much the same way we do the EC.The other choice I see is a complete restructure of how things are going to happen.

[Todd McCloud]

Well, one thing it does say is the delegate may call for elections at any time. Perhaps that would be a more feasible option?Regardless, I believe we should consider the direction we want the government here to go. Do we want to have ministers, or a judicial / legislative system? I am biased, but I do happen to like the latter... when the people in those bodies are active to keep it going. One thing I've learned, however, is any body has to be expedient while at the same time not lapsing by rushing to any judgment, but also have a sort of 'out' for the inevitable time when we have to deal with inactive people.

[BKB]

Should a Cabinet member?s activities be deemed dishonourable or unacceptable by an official Regional Assembly Representative, the member may bring an impeachment motion against the offending Cabinet member.

Thats the one we have in FRA. If you change gross misconduct to merely unacceptable you can bascailly fire whoever you want.

As for a time frame, a week without prior notification is surely enough?

[Todd McCloud]

Inactivity is a huge problem throughout the board, not just here. But, we're looking at reviewing some of our rules around here, something that I think is pretty cool, to be honest. The way I believe activity should be treated is with a fairly hard stance: if some real-life politician went AWOL, why should he or she be kept on? And also, I don't know what other legislative bodies are like, but as far as the US congress goes, the voting process does not stop if a few politicians are absent from the vote. If we're going the three branch approach as is apparent in the US system, I would recommend that. Have a process to keep people active. Also... in regards to what I've noticed with legislative bodies in feeders, it's usually best to have around 4-7, as too less tends to not stay fresh, but more than seven tends to fall victim to inactivity. Buuuut, that's just my two cents. You don't have to take my word for it! *high-fives LeVar Burton*

[Guest]

Ok, I will take the liberty to phrase a few items I have seen here in this thread.

Appointment of unoccupied positions, Charter, between article 11 and 12:

The Delegate may appoint a minister if the position for that ministry remains vacant after a regular or special election, or becomes vacant after a minister steps down voluntarily, or is removed from office by impeachment or motion of no confidence.

While a minister position is vacant, the Delegate may exercise the duties of this minister, or, the Delegate may authorize another minister to exercise the duties belonging to the vacant position.

Removal of inactive minister, Charter, between articles 12 and 13?, alternatively as part of article 6; rather not as new law as, or the explicit mention has to be removed from above statement about appointment

Any member of the Assembly may table a motion of no confidence in a minister, in case of concerns about the activity of the minister or other issues hindering the minister to fulfill their office according to the duties laid out in the charter, other than gross misconduct. The motion shall be put to vote after a week of debate by the chair of the assembly, or, if the motion is against the chair of the assembly, by the prime minister.

I think this will give us a lot more flexibility in handling things.

Also, I found a mention of UN somewhere in the charter. We should kill it.

EDIT: hrruugh. I thought we killed the month-long voting of charter amendments...I'm fairly sure I proposed this at some stage. Maybe it didn't make it.