Pursuant to Article IV, Section 4 of the Charter of the South Pacific the following officials are who have been in office for more than six months are subject to annual retention votes:
Admiralty
None
Heliseum has not held office within the Admiralty for more than six months and is therefore exempted from the current retention votes.
Vrigny and LordNwahs have not held office within the CitizenshipCommittee for more than six months and are therefore exempted from the current retention votes.
I’d imagine draft is specific to bills in that sentence, given I’m not sure what a draft of an appointment is either, but regardless it does read to me that retention votes have debate periods as well.
I suppose the question now is according to Article IV Section 4 of the Charter, does the vote itself need to start on the 15th, or does the debate period start the 15th? If the vote itself needs to start the 15th, does that mean that the supremacy clause of Article I Section 3 of the Charter overrules the Legislative Procedure act to have the votes start today even without the debate period?
For what it’s worth, since this is a debate thread, I will explain my “no” votes.
I voted against reconfirmation for all High Court roles. This is in line with my long standing belief that the Court is not a necessary institution in TSP. We continue to have it anyways, but consider it a protest vote against a deeply outdated institution that puts too little faith in TSP voters to decide issues through legislation while also taking important criminal decisions and relegating them to an even smaller, more secretive, and less accountable group of players than any other “less fair/just” other solution we could come up with.
I voted against anjo’s reconfirmation to the CRS. From my perspective, anjo hasn’t really been around for over a year. It hurts the legitimacy and credibility of the CRS to have a member who is so inactive (publicly, at least). In areas of the Discord I can access, they have 19 messages in the past calendar year. One of which is a resignation from CitComm and 6 of which are !payday pings. They have more forum activity, but still most of it is CitComm processing posts, although there are 3 RP posts from last October.
I also voted against Griffindor’s reconfirmation to CitComm. From my perspective, the acceptance of Feux’s citizenship application wasn’t a communication error - it demonstrated extreme poor judgement and Griff has tried to avoid even apologizing for that communication error. Especially now that we have 2 new CitComm members, there is no reason not to hold Griff accountable for such a colossal mess up, for which they are unrepentant.
This is such a weird take and it’s rather discouraging that you keep inventing nonsensical reasons rather than simply submitting a bill to abolish the Court and arguing for it on its own merits. If you think the Court should be abolished then actually submit a bill to the Assembly, if as you claim that is the right venue to decide issues through legislation, rather than punishing Justices when by all accounts they haven’t done anything to warrant non-retention.
