D. N. Vercáriâ
Group: citizens
(4498 posts total)
(last post: March 15, 2008 - 16:51)
Citizen #26:
Dieter N Vercáriâ | > > Here's the message that I mentioned,
> > Wittenberg message #17922
> >
> > > It is my opinion, as compiler of the Provisional Constitution that Lisa Skovalia's Vice-Deanship has never been broken even though a new Dean is in office.
> > >
> > > High Cort, what are your thoughts?
> >
> > Longwinded disclaimer: I suppose I can't speak on behalf of the Provisional High Court without an consultation and the assent of other Court members, so I'm stating an opinion from the point of view of an average foreign-tongued reader of the Provisional Constitution.
>
> We need the view of a Justice speaking unofficially which you can do freely.
> It was what was asked. We owe them this much.
> This is what you are here for.
>
> > So as far as I understand the Articles III, Sec. 2 - Sec. 9, nothing is explicitly said about the term of service of officers that are appointed by the Dean, except that s/he has a right to hire and fire these officers at whim, and that they also can be removed on demand of the Council. Which possibly is to say, that as long as an incoming Dean doesn't say otherwise, the crew of the outgoing Dean will still be appointed officers of the Dean after the election, at least those that are mentionend in the Provisional Constitution (Vice-Dean and Provisional Secretary).
> >
> >
>
> The law as I read it states specifically that the newly elected Dean needs to immediately appoint a Vice Dean. The spirit that I sensed for this was that of "haste".
>
> This is a direct order from the constitution and based on the language, not some half assed request to get around to whenever the paint friggin dries. If the attitude of the law is that, then they need to change the language drastically.
>
> That the Dean needs to appoint someone immediately after being sworn it, implies to me that the position is vacant needs immediate staffing.
>
> Are we reading the same article here?
Yes. But it's confusing me that Art III, Sec. 2 is intertwined with Sec. 1 which IMO is talking about measures that are to be taken immediately after the declaration of independence.
Thus Sec. 2 seems to suggest something that *the first Dean ever* shall have to do immediately. No section of Article 3 mentions what is supposed to happen in case of regular Dean elections (Section 4 a just mentions the 6-months term of the Dean).
> I see nothing mentioned regarding continuity of the vice dean's post.
But the opposite thereof isn't mentioned as well. So maybe we'll have to add this bit of lacking precision by reading something into Article III that actually isn't there.
> If that's what we want to happen, we need to construct the position legally to be that way and eliminate the Dean being able to remove this person at a whim.
>
> Perhaps it would make more sense if you stopped looking at this law and envisioning Chris and Lisa in those positions and imagine Michael and Miestra in them.
Hey now, no funny allegations, please! I just envisioned an abstract Dean and an abstract Vice-Dean. :-D
- D. N. Vercáriâ |
