Vote of No Confidance (VONC) - Hitai de Bodemloze

[Iskar]

Opposed. And strongly so.

Hitai did an excellent job handling a delicate situation and this VonC rests on a narrow and lacking understanding of the constitution.

As Brewster pointed out it is a disgrace that this is even being considered.

[Gaius Baltar]

.....this VonC rests on a narrow and lacking understanding of the constitution.

You should elaborate. Perhaps you could add the detail that is lacking.

[Iskar]

You should elaborate. Perhaps you could add the detail that is lacking.

Will do, see comments on the opening post below:

Supporting Statements:

In the citizen referral thread (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ral-Pikestance), defendant stated in post #5 in reference to the second of the statements;

Clearly the material is not seen as offensive, or breaking the TOS or even as unrepresentive of a citizen, but as “rude”. So the issue here again as stated by the defendant is “politeness”, not a breach of stated standards, because there is no standard for politeness or rudeness that could be reliably outlined or upheld for either the TOS of for the ideas of citizenship.

In post #7 of the above thread, the defendant acknowledges that the material does not violate the TOS, but represents a breech of the “standards of citizenship”.



Here a shift has occurred as the statement can no longer be a breach of the TOS, but now are not,”quite so borderline”. Here we have the first hint of overreach that exemplifies this entire episode.

The reasoning for the verdict itself is irrelevant. Whether or not you like the verdict reached has nothing to do with abuse of authority or neglect of duty. The proper consequence for not liking a verdict is not voting for that candidate in the future.

In post #8 of the above thread, the defendant copies over reasoning for further judgement of the statements made in the citizen referral.



Most crucially here, he references an abandoned proposal for a critical part of this interpretation. In his own words, this represents a “broad consensus” for the terminology in question. However, the thread has at most 5 active participants, 2 of which note that there are problems with the constitutional wording, and therefore the interpretation of the term. As this interpretation was used to remove the curator from office, I submit the use of this terminology and the stated support is deceptive and unrepresentative of its intended use. Furthermore, in the defendants own words, “ the term…is vague…”, suggesting that any use would be controversial. Obviously the use of the term, “broad consensus” suggests widespread support, but subsequent discussion in the Curia has suggested that this interpretation would be questionable.

When directly questioned about the actual numbers of participants in the thread, and how they could be used to achieve a “broad consensus”, the defendant was unable to respond meaningfully and became defensive and uncooperative.

In its current form the Constitution states any officer with a Curial warning is removed from office and the distinction between warnings and censures was removed in the latest amendment to section IV (now III as we scrapped II in that process as well). As such I agree the constitution is not crystal clear but the most reasonable and closest interpretation is that anything listed as a possible Triumvirate verdict is a warning.
It should also be noted that the relevant paragraphs are not ambiguous but simply somewhat unclear. As such Hitai had to act on the best possible interpretation the Censores could marshall: A Curial decision on the matter would not have helped as Curial votes don't have retroactive effect, so the imminent situation had to be dealt with under the then-current state of the Constitution, hence an interpretation by the acting elected officials was necessary. That is also what we elect officers for: To take responsibility and action where the necessarily limited scope of the written regulations fails the unlimited scope of possible situations.

After enacting curial action against the Curator based upon this flawed reasoning, the defendant then assumed the role of “senior censor”, even though the line of succession is clearly stated in the Constitution.

According to the defendant again in post #8,..

So the defendant acknowledges that atthias is the Censor who should fill the role mandated by the Constitution. However, he references here, “the spirit of the law”. This is one of the most perplexing parts of the material, and if taken in itself, might not cause to much concern. But taken together with the unlikely sequence of events adds to the procedural overreach of this entire issue. Almost certainly this situation would not have occurred without the deceptive and flawed use of the term “broad consensus”, for the terminology used to remove a curial officer from their rightful duties.

No justification or support for the ideas of “spirit of the law” are provided. It is unlikely that any thread or post could be referenced to support this idea, so this again points to a deceptive and unsupportable statement that contributes to the judicial and procedural overreach of this entire situation.

The spirit and letter of the Constitution have long been the two legs our curial practice stands on and Hitai was correct in his interpretation of the term as actually referencing the senior censor. The technical discrepancy between spirit and letter was furthermore resolved by the technically indicated Censor (atthias' term being closest to completion) agreeing to the interpretation and delegating that duty to Hitai, the senior Censor. Had Hitai made a grave procedural mistake in what followed one might argue that atthias would be accountable for that by delegating the duty, but no such thing occured and in fact barely any issue of "day to day tasks" has come up yet since the appeal has been posted.

Summary:

1. Defendant used a questionable interpretation to enact curial procedure to remove an elected official.
2. Defendant used deceptive reasoning and support for crucial terminology needed for action #1 above.
3. Defendant used deceptive reasoning to assume role of senior censor.

The judicial and procedural overreach demonstrated here should not be tolerated by the Curia. Adherence to the rules set out by the Constitution is often brought up in curial matters, but here we have outright fabrication of constitutional interpretations and procedures. One cannot have it both ways.

The Curia should act in orderly self-interest and support the motion for a vote of no confidence.

You call into doubt the verdict of the Censor by claiming there should be objective standards for Citizenship beyond the ToS, although the fact such standards are entirely subjective is the precise reason why we have Censors in the first place.

You also call a reasoning deceptive that was transparent and open at all times. This contradicts any notion of deception.

Finally you ignore the function of officers as elected interpretors and enactors of constitutional stipulations.

This VonC really has no leg to stand on. Your apparent sincerety in the erroneous claims you make is the only thing saving this from being frivolous.

[Elfdude]

Ugh, Opposed.

This is not a case of dereliction of someone's duties.

[Gigantus]

Summary:

1. Defendant used a questionable interpretation to enact curial procedure to remove an elected official.
2. Defendant used deceptive reasoning and support for crucial terminology needed for action #1 above.
3. Defendant used deceptive reasoning to assume role of senior censor.

The judicial and procedural overreach demonstrated here should not be tolerated by the Curia. Adherence to the rules set out by the Constitution is often brought up in curial matters, but here we have outright fabrication of constitutional interpretations and procedures. One cannot have it both ways.

Opposed, vehemently

1. It's the definition of the rule that is open to interpretation, given that the crucial part of it has no definition within the rules.
2. Same
3. I don't see a reason why a censor may not willingly transfer his role in a proceeding to his (only one) fellow censor, especially if it furthers the spirit of the governing rule in this case, eg the longest continuous serving censor instead of the 'most advanced in his term' censor

The points raised are reason for a review of the relevant sections governing the referral system, nothing else.

[Commissar Caligula_]

Oppose

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

Oppose.

[Hader]

I feel as though I should oppose, simply because I wish to see Hitai's diabolical plan come to fruition. I've known for quite some time that the only thing capable of bringing the curia down was a minor semantics issue during a uniquely rare situation of curial offices that could easily be addressed, so this is just exactly what was needed to tear apart the fabric of the curia and TWC.

[Quintus Hortensius Hortalus]

Opposed. All listed issues are interpretations which are valid and sound. Although I might not agree with them all the triumvirate can and shall have their own interpretation as long as they are not arbitrarily which they are not.

And citizens not taking part in a proposal are either not caring or do not support.

[Gandalfus]

What was Hitai supposed to have done better in this regard?

Opposed

[Gaius Baltar]

What was Hitai supposed to have done better in this regard?

I understand your reluctance. But for someone who is tasked with applying the constitution the multiple leaps of logic that occurred in this situation are mind-boggling.

In Hitai's own words, " I have admitted that we didn't follow the Constitution word for word.."

So, I would have to ask you, why create such as huge disruption over a comment that doesnt even warrant a TOS notice?

[Flinn]

opposed as well

[La♔De♔Da♔Brigadier Graham]

Arbitrary use of Vonc, if ever I have seen it.....obviously opposed, with bells on.

[Finlander]

Opposed

[MIKE GOLF]

Opposed.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Opposed.

[Tango12345]

This, frankly, should be abandoned, especially as the decision that led to it has been upheld by the curia.

[Halie Satanus]

Indeed.

[PikeStance]

VZ, My Friend, this is for you,

[Gaius Baltar]

This is an active proposal. Additional charges are pending and the OP will be updated.