Non confidence vote for speaker fhtagn

[Wisconsin+17]

Given that Speaker fhtagn closed the recent vote on S3, and tabled S1 when S1 and S3 were both still active,

I am now calling for a vote for non-confidence in Speaker Fhtagn.

Please vote here if you want to remove Speaker fhtagn.

You have 48 hours to discuss this motion.

[Wisconsin+17]

The rules are pretty clear. The vote to extend debate was sustained within the time limit of the vote.

Ergo, Bill S3 is still alive. Fhtagn is certainly free to attempt to break the rules, but that has consequences.

This is not the first time that fhtagn has broken rules to override sustained opposition. Perhaps she should ask herself why she's getting sustained opposition.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right now she can't until this is debated and voted on. Standard is 48 hours for discussion 24 hours to vote on this.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Motions of non-confidence have the highest priority. As well they should. Until the motion of non-confidence is disposed of, the rest of the business of the chamber cannot continue.

The reason for this is because, that's the whole point of a motion of non-confidence. If it passes, then the government falls. If it fails, then business carries on.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How else would the chamber of delegates remove a Speaker? This is the correct protocol.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not at all. I asked for another day of debate, which is why I filed the motion to extend debate. We then would have voted on the legislation and business would have carried on.

Why did you choose to dismiss a sustained motion, fhtagn?

[Wisconsin+17]

If the vote is called and two delegates want to continue discussing the topic, then I don't see what is the problem with a motion to extend.

When I was Speaker, Nev asked for more time on two bills, both of which I granted the requested time (indeed, I gave him an extra day). After that day I called for the vote, which was then held.

Fhtagn called the vote here I came on and asked to get more input from Fremont, to extend for a day and then hold the vote. If I were asking for an indefinite period, then yes, I can see the issue. But I was not.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nev asked for a day. I gave him what he requested plus another day, which he did not post. Then I called for the vote.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the intent is to work with the other delegates, why didn't Speaker Fhtagn simply accept the sustained motion, and call the vote tomorrow after we had time to discuss it today?

[Wisconsin+17]

Since we've all had a chance to discuss, I'm calling a 24 hour vote on Speaker fhtagn.

[Wisconsin+17]

AYE!

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seconders matter now? I thought that was the whole point here.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that fhtagn's actions in ignoring seconded motions when it was convenient to her is a serious issue that warrants discussion.

That is why I created the thread so that I could explain my actions to my constituents here. I'm glad you brought this up with me so that you could express your grievances.

Ultimately I am responsible to you. I didn't just do this on a whim, but only after attempting to discuss things with fhtagn and being overruled from what was, at least I thought, a reasonable request. I asked for another day to bring in additional discussion, Celtic Empire seconded my motion and fhtagn simply ignored the motion.

Now, that's not cricket, is it? A day won't kill anybody. I agree with getting some votes in but I wanted another citizen of fremont to comment as we only had one person at the time.

[Wisconsin+17]

You're free to start one, Mr. Cuber.

I'd like to apologize to fhtagn, and pull this.