Debate:The Secretary of State Nomination Acceptation Act

Law:The Secretary of State Nomination Acceptation Act

Date Introduced to the Hopper: Oct 15, 2015 at 6:54am
Author: Marti-Pair Furxheir

Marti-Pair Furxheir Oct 15, 2015 at 6:54am

I am really not sure if this bill makes sense.. I feel like I should put something in law, but what? So I mark it as a precendant. Does that make sense?

Ián Tamorán Oct 15, 2015 at 11:56am

Quote: Oct 15, 2015 at 6:54am Marti-Pair Furxheir said:
I am really not sure if this bill makes sense..

Does anything Talossan make sense?

Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun Oct 15, 2015 at 7:04pm

Precedents (I never know where to stress that word, I keep forgetting it!!) are not established by writing legislation that says “We establish precedent XYZ”. Precedents are established by... well... preceding a situation, with the exact same situation and an outcome.

as always: #justsayin'

Munditenens Tresplet Oct 15, 2015 at 7:42pm

I wasn't around during that time, but assuming that the facts are true and everything, I don't have a problem with this bill. I agree with Epic with regards to precedents, but I think that passing a bill that seeks to correct a historical record, with all of the WHEREASes and such, would definitely assist future Talossans if similar situations were to arise; in other words, expressly stating that a precedent should be set is unnecessary given the rest of the bill and its background.

I would suggest that the first thing that the Ziu resolves (the first THEREFORE) would be to recognize that for the entire 29th Cosa, MPF was the Secretary of State, that way the methods by which the "record" is updated to reflect the recognition make a bit more sense. In fact, the other parts could be simplified by stating something to the effect of, "The Secretary of State is directed to implement any and all changes to recognize this..." or something.

Sir Alexandreu Davinescu Oct 15, 2015 at 9:36pm

It seems a bit of a problem to say that someone is not resigned even after they're resigned, unless a replacement is chosen. How can I be beholden to all the responsibilities and wield all the powers of an office even after I've resigned?

Sir C. M. Siervicül Oct 15, 2015 at 9:41pm

Quote: Oct 15, 2015 at 9:36pm Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:
It seems a bit of a problem to say that someone is not resigned even after they're resigned, unless a replacement is chosen. How can I be beholden to all the responsibilities and wield all the powers of an office even after I've resigned?

I agree. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, the Organic Law doesn't have an explicit prohibition of slavery, but I'm still uncomfortable with condemning public officials who have resigned to involuntary servitude if a replacement is not immediately at hand. ;)

It is possible for an official to resign effective on the qualification of their replacement. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor did that when she retired from the Supreme Court of the United States. Maybe we should just recognise that that's what M-P intended to do during the 29th Cosa.

Marti-Pair Furxheir Oct 16, 2015 at 4:56am

Quote: Oct 15, 2015 at 9:36pm Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:
It seems a bit of a problem to say that someone is not resigned even after they're resigned, unless a replacement is chosen. How can I be beholden to all the responsibilities and wield all the powers of an office even after I've resigned?

The way I see it, there are 2 types of resignations, and in Canada (well, in Québec), that is recognized...

The first type is: "That's it, I quit", or a hard resign. In Québec, you are required by law to provide advance notice of at least 2 business weeks if you have worked there less than 5 years, 3 weeks if 5 to 10 years and 4 weeks if more than 10 years. Your boss still pays you for that period and you still have to work... The boss may of course wave it and let you leave earlier.

The second type, a soft resign, which occurred in this case is: "I know you want to assign my position to someone else, so I offer my resignation when a replacement is nominated". This second type is a very different beast and USUALLY, it is present when an employee wishes to accept a new position inside a company, where his former position is fundamental. I am NOT talking about a promotion, but about a transfer...

For example, my mother worked in a public local health center (CLSC) as a nurse doing vaccination. They needed X number of nurses for that. A position opened as a school nurse which she wanted to take. She had to first apply to that position and when she got it, she had to resign from her position as a vaccination nurse.

But here is the thing: the 2 weeks from above do not apply, she still works for the same employer! Therefore, she can't start her new position until her previous one is filled, which requires announcing it, waiting for internal candidates to apply, then, if none manifest themselves, you need to hire from outside which may take more than 2 weeks during which you are nominated to your new job (it's yours), but still need to do the old one.

Worse... you might have to do both! You might have to work 2 days per week on your new post to learn the ropes, while still working 3 days per week on the old one, but that's rare...

So, what happened with the 29th is that I explained I was stepping aside for Daviu to return, and resumed my position of deputy SoS. I didn't leave my post completely, I simply stepped down as SoS and became once again the Deputy SoS. But I did that because I had promised Daviu I would, not because back then he asked for it...

And so, my boss never showed up... he never resumed his duties, so less than 2 months later, the PM put me back as the actual SoS.

My contention today, is that since slavery indeed isn't legal. the PM couldn't nominate Daviu against his will and until a replacement is chosen (or the SoS does a hard resign), I content that the previous SoS is still in duty...

Sir Alexandreu Davinescu Oct 16, 2015 at 6:21am

Legally, the second one isn't a "resignation," right? It's announcing an intent to resign, effective on a specific condition. This bill would make it so that someone could try to resign, but never be allowed to actually resign if no replacement is found. That is to say, someone could be required to fulfill the duties and endure the responsibilities of a job even after they tried to quit!

How about Sir Cresti's suggestion?

Marti-Pair Furxheir Oct 16, 2015 at 10:40am

Quote: Oct 16, 2015 at 6:21am Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:
Legally, the second one isn't a "resignation," right? It's announcing an intent to resign, effective on a specific condition. This bill would make it so that someone could try to resign, but never be allowed to actually resign if no replacement is found. That is to say, someone could be required to fulfill the duties and endure the responsibilities of a job even after they tried to quit!

How about Sir Cresti's suggestion?

I am fine with Sir Cresti's suggestion...

Ián Tamorán Oct 16, 2015 at 11:15am

I trust that the "hard resign" (That's it: I quit) would still be possible? If not, then we would have legalised slavery.

Marti-Pair Furxheir Oct 16, 2015 at 12:25pm

Quote: Oct 16, 2015 at 11:15am Ián Tamorán said:
I trust that the "hard resign" (That's it: I quit) would still be possible? If not, then we would have legalised slavery.

Of course...

Notation of Completion by MT