[2247.MR] Recall resolution against im_a_waffle1

Based on Section 1, Article XI of the Charter of the South Pacific

(1) Any official of the Coalition may be recalled by an Assembly resolution passed with a three-fifths majority of those voting.
a. Recalls should only be initiated for dereliction of duty, abuse of authority, or violations of the law, and not for purposes of political rivalry.
b. Upon initiation, recall resolutions must be debated for three days and receive a motion and second before being put to vote.
c. Upon passage, the recalled official will immediately be removed from office.

I call the assembly to vote for the recall of the Minister of Engagement, im_a_waffle1 for dereliction of duty.

Since im_a_waffle1’s appointment to the ministry I see no improvement and work done for the Ministry of Engament. im_a_waffle1 has done absolutely nothing for the ministry. We can see some work in the card project part but other departments like the outreach and promotion ones are completely abandoned.

We can also notice that im_a_waffle1 has no agenda and strategy for the ministry.

Finally, we can see that im_a_waffle1 has completed none of his campaign promises.

With all these being said, shall the assembly debate this recall resolution

1 Like

Yeah. It takes time for these things. Were only like a month (or even) less into the term. As someone who is masked on Discord to see the #moe-card-project, I can tell you this: that channel has boomed with activity in the past few weeks.

We’re early on into the term. Doge Land can still show the South Pacifican public that they are competent for office.

As of now, no support.

1 Like

The responsibilities of the Minister of Engagement are established clearly in the Charter.

(9) The Minister of Engagement will be responsible for recruiting and integrating new players into the Coalition’s government and community, maintaining public infrastructure such as dispatches and other guides, setting unified presentation standards, and providing graphics to the government and citizens of the Coalition.

Progress on the card project is welcome, but I too would like to hear more about what progress and decisions have been made in other areas.

1 Like

No support.
I see no abuse of rights nor lack of personal ideas & capabilities for Waffle to initiate engagement. It needn’t be codified.

Indeed, there is some activity in the card project but the other departments have no improvement since im_a_waffle1’s appointment. Not even a single message.

1 Like

The recall resolution was not started for abuse or lack of personal ideas but for dereliction of duty. It’s clear that im_a_waffle1 has not done enough work for the ministry in the past month and lack responsibilities.

1 Like

Precisely, which is what convinces me that a recall is necessary.
However, I’ll engage your legal grounds: What exactly do you want the MoE to engage in during the “Season 3 Card” month?

Messaging on Discord does not mean that nothing has happened. MoE has done a lot of behind-the-scenes work that you don’t directly see.

Still no support.

With respect, whatever one thinks about this recall the fact remains that “a lot is happening behind the scenes” is not an acceptable excuse when you are one-fourth into a term. A minister still has to account for their work and that includes both keeping legislators informed and answering in good faith and detail any questions they may have.

At the risk of sounding like a disgruntled loser of the last election, I’ll throw my two cents in here.

The minister ran on increasing activity within the Ministry which has not happened yet (even I noted is because the ministry is largely automated). The card program, in particular, seems to be the main piece of their platform, and the donation of their card deck has yet to occur. Other campaign pieces have yet to occur either, and since we are only a month into the term, I don’t think we can necessarily engage in a recall based on activity not being where we want to see it after only a few weeks.

While I don’t think this situation rises to the recall level, I am troubled by the minister lashing out at those who seek information about the internal discussions of the MoE. There is no reason that the Minister is attempting to pass the Buck off to others within the Ministry.

I hope that the Minister is able to reveal more of the internal discussions of the Ministry and apologize to those members that were just asking questions of their elected Minister.

Sure. That’s why when Doge Land has time, they should take a peek (if they haven’t done so yet) in this thread or other Cabinet ones to see questions from Legislator.

I agree that there is a troubling lack of activity on the Minister of Engagement’s end after 1/4 of their term has passed, but it’s inportant to remember that they only serve for 4 months.
None the less, the recall will have my support if no significant progress is made within a week.

This is one of the most telling parts of this whole business, I think. It’s not the fact that the MoE has remained inactive for me, but rather that every attempt to garner information or ask that duties be performed more fully has been met with increasing hostility. The South Pacific has a basic right to be able to question their government, and it is the codified responsibility of those government officials to restore trust in the populace by being open and honest, and in this case, even trying to do better. It’s not the lack of work getting done for me, it’s the lack of giving a damn and the inability to participate in civil discussion.

1 Like

So, unless I’m missing something, the argument is that waffle has done some stuff … just not enough for everyone’s liking. Is that correct?

1 Like

I gave Griffindor a strong raking over the coals for their previous term as MoE, but I’ll say I broadly agree with this.

It would be good to see more MoE public updates promising action on specific clearly communicated objectives. Public communication is important, both for accountability and because the perception of activity and progress itself creates activity and progress! It’s unreasonable to be in a Cabinet role of any kind and say “I don’t care about public communications” because you can’t effectively promote the activity of any Ministry without providing clear and inspired public updates on your Ministry’s activities!

I personally would probably vote against a recall today, but I would encourage the Minister to start providing clear and regular public updates and believe that kind of public communications is a clear space for the PM to step up to assist

1 Like

They have taken a peek at the Office of the Cabinet thread, answered some of the questions asked and ignored the rest until the following week. In addition, they have been hostile to those asking questions, which is conduct unbecoming an elected official of the Coalition.

I’d like to see doge respond to this recall, and defend themselves.

1 Like

That’s the essence, yes.

The other justified issue people have with incumbent Waffle is the lack of PR. This should have been expected because it’s Waffle. You know who you’re voting for.

Nevertheless, since I am not a participant of the GC anymore, my oath of not holding an executive office no longer applies.
As such I applied for staff in two ministries. If MoE chooses me in the staff I will attempt to fix the lack of PR Waffle has shown through some mechanism. However, I don’t think this will happen for the following reason.

Knowing them, they will probably just resign.

How is that the essence?

It’s explicitly stated here by the O.P.:

So, something is being done. People (here) are unsatisfied with the content of what is being done (the focus on Cards), despite the fact that it has had results in increasing Card activity in TSP.

Being unsatisfied (rightly) with how Dodge handles interaction, which some have expressed, isn’t related [as in, hasn’t been mentioned] as to why the recall has begun on this thread.
Once again, Dodge being “uncivil” and unresponsive to Legislator & Cabinet questions should have been expected by voters.

I disagree. A singular focus on cards without a broader agenda on the wide issue of engagement does not constitute a faithful discharge of one’s duties. This isn’t a matter of not doing enough, it’s a matter of much that is noticeable and not being adequately responsive to constituents’ concerns about it.

Our elected officials are elected by, and accountable to, legislators. They have no business being uncivil and unresponsive to us.