Art Verbotten
Group: citizens
(850 posts total)
(last post: March 14, 2008 - 13:16)
Citizen #19:
Art Verbotten | Hello GV,
Why my associates on this Court let this post idle of 6 days I do not know.
I informed the council a while back that my schedule was erratic but I would try to keep up with what was posted, especially with regards to this board.
I’m sorry for not seeing this post earlier.
FYI-I suggest that my fellow Justices pay attention to what is posted. You do not need my permission to answer questions like this, and I believe we will see quite a few of them given the infancy of our legal and legislative systems in this Republic.
Anyway, your question was:
> Lisa Skovalia was appointed Vice-Dean of the Provisional Governing Council by then-Dean Michael Pope. Chris Gruber is now the Dean of the Provisional Governing Council.
> The Provisional Constitution has this to say:
>Art. III, Sec. 2: If it has not already done so, the Council shall immediately elect a Dean of the Council of Metáiriâ Island who shall preside over all Council business and who, immediately upon taking office, shall appoint a Vice-Dean of the Council of Metáiriâ Island who shall serve at the pleasure of the Dean and whose specific duties shall be determined solely by the Dean, and who may be dismissed by the Dean on whim. The Dean and/or Vice-Dean may be dismissed by a simple majority vote of the Council at any time.
This says that the Dean must immediately appoint a Vice Dean who can be hired or fired upon whim. Did Chris do this? If not, NO. If yes, Yes.
> It was my intent when writing this clause that the incoming Dean would appoint a new Vice-Dean or keep the incumbent in office, implying a renewal of Vice-Deanship at the start of each term.
That intent is not implied except with your note here. While the author’s comments are helpful in making rulings while this document is young and the ideas are easy to tweak, 10 years from now that intent is long gone and what’s left is the language of the article which does not seem to imply anything of the sort.
The words you have written here, which are what the Court will use to decide the lawsuits that this law might generate, is that the Dean must announce his Vice Dean and that he, and the council with a majority, can rid itself of that appointment.
That’s a problem waiting to happen if you ask me. I’ll explain in a moment.
> However, the letter of the law says something somewhat different: that no reappointment is necessary for the sitting Vice-Dean if the new Dean so chooses. The new Dean can keep the sitting Vice-Dean as long as he likes.
What other article of the provisional constitution are you referring to here?
Where is this “letter of the law” that you speak of?
If all you are saying is that the Vice Dean has no term limits, just say so.
The article above suggests that the Vice Dean may be some sort of “civil service” style position. If this position falls under the guidelines of some other institution of the government, you need to reference that within Article III sec. 2.
It seems to me that if this is the case, you have conflicting interest in this position. Civil Service posts are initially designed to create continuity and stability in a system that has to continue functioning with a dynamic leadership position. If that is the case, why would you want to give the Dean the power to remove this person upon his “whim”?
IMO-Based on Article III sec. 2 as it is currently written, when Michael stepped down as Dean, the Vice Dean stepped down with him. I see no continuation of that position referenced within the text you provided for me. If there is text concerning this matter it may well be on conflict this article.
Not having a copy of the Provisional Constitution, and not exactly knowing where to find one, I cannot dazzle you with some additional neglected reference in some unheralded article of that document that makes all this stuff flow together in legal wonderment.
Anyway, when Chris took over as Dean, he should have announced “officially” his appointment as Vice Dean as it specifically tells him to do in this law. If he didn’t do this then, he can do so at his “whim” anytime within his term as Dean. Until he does so, the position is left vacant, and the Dean can be considered negligent in his official duties as stated in the provisional constitution.
Now those problems I mentioned earlier.
Worst case scenario. Hypothetical
Dean and Council are at odds, possibly over the Vice Dean’s performance.
Council unwilling to sack Dean over this, but he refuses to sack Vice Dean to clear up issue.
Council majority votes to oust Vice Dean.
Dean immediately reappoints same person back to Vice Dean.
Decision is thrown into the Court’s lap.
Courts response is the author of this bill should have been found guilty of bad law writing and been caned.
Court then rules in favor of Council citing it being more Democratic and suggests that the council amend article with the following changes:
1. Remove the term “whim” from text and replace with “formally announced” reasons to sack VD.
2. Make sacked VD ineligible to return to post for 2 weeks or some predetermined time frame and only with consent of both the council and dean.
Those are my ideas on this matter.
Chief Justice Verbotten
|
