S-18.3-8: Gubernatorial Appointments Act (Statute)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: YoungTexan

[tmthforu94]

Why 250 posts?

[thumb21]

This legislation is common sense except for the 250 posts requirement that the governor pointed to. There are alot of people bellow that threshold that are qualified. I propose this amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: YoungTexan

[CatoMinor]

I can get behind Delegate Thumb21's amendment.

[Wisconsin+17]

I oppose this act on the grounds that I believe that these are reasonable powers for the Governor to possess.

The rationale for this act is to avoid another Fairbol situation, but there were multiple avenues by which that situation could have been dealt with without resorting to this bill. With an absentee governor, the correct process would have been to attempt to impeach the governor for lack of activity.

[tmthforu94]

This bill would help prevent one of the MANY terrible decisions made by failed Governor Fairboi during his brief and disastrous tenure from happening again. I will sign this if it reaches my desk.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It seems to me that we already possess the remedy for a Fairbol situation, and that this bill is superfluous.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why do you consider this urgent? TM is doing an excellent job at present. I can understand the desire to prevent future occasions, but at present were not in any danger of such a situation arising.

Governors in many state legislatures possess the ability to appoint people as needed to fill positions. I don't see how this action in particular is an abuse of their constitutional authority.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd be more comfortable with a waiver clause on citizen nominations and keeping the door open on NPC nominations with approval of the delegates.

Would you accept these amendments as friendly?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This would take care of Fairbol situations while at the same time retaining these privileges in case we might need them in the future.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agreed. With my amendments, it would be easy enough for the CoD to block bad faith nominations. We have not always had the participants that we do now and it can be difficult to find people willing to serve in these positions. Ergo why NPCs have sometimes been the way to go, and why this was permitted in the first place.

[fhtagn]

There are only a small number of executive appointed positions in the South, and all of them actually require someone to execute the duties. It's stupid to argue that the Governor should be allowed to appoint NPCs, and waste the Chamber's time trying to vote out a character that shouldn't have been allowed to be appointed in the first place.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was surprised as well that this was actually permitted. All the time I've been here I've not seen it done. The only rationale I can see for it is if participation levels were such that these spots became difficult to fill.

Either way, I think it's possible to bar a Fairbol situation while retaining both of these powers. Also, I think a waiver at least allows the CoD the option to appoint someone with fewer than 100 posts.

[fhtagn]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was surprised as well that this was actually permitted. All the time I've been here I've not seen it done. The only rationale I can see for it is if participation levels were such that these spots became difficult to fill.

The main ones are the Elections Secretary and Attorney General (and I guess Southern Constitutional Taskforce but that was only recently that it became big again).
You cannot have an NPC for any of those because they actually have duties that an NPC cannot carry out, even with low participation levels.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have we ever not had an Elections Secretary? Like I said, I'm trying to understand why these things were permitted in the first place as I wasn't there for the constitutional discussions that put them there.

I don't have a great desire to keep them, but I'd like to understand why first before we eliminate them.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I understand the rationale behind barring NPCs. You seem to believe that just because someone is discussing something that they automatically don't understand what you are saying. This is actually a distressingly common belief. People can fully understand what you're saying and still disagree.

If you notice I've never asserted that your disagreement was due to not understanding what I said. I think the core of our disagreement is that you want to bar a Fairbol like situation and don't see a valid purpose for NPCs.

In this case, all I'm looking for is to why the law permits these things in the first place. Neither you nor fhtagn seem to know the answer to this. "I don't know" is a valid argument. I'd like to know if possible.

Also fwiw, stating that something is stupid isn't an argument. It's an opinion, sure, but it doesn't actually convey any information.

[fhtagn]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have we ever not had an Elections Secretary? Like I said, I'm trying to understand why these things were permitted in the first place as I wasn't there for the constitutional discussions that put them there.

I don't have a great desire to keep them, but I'd like to understand why first before we eliminate them.

Nowhere does it explicitly state they are allowed, but it also doesn't state anywhere it isn't allowed. So trying to understand why is not only going to go nowhere, but is irrelevant because it was already pointed out why having NPCs in roles that actually have duties can't work.

At this point it's painfully obvious you're not trying to come up with something productive from this, just wasting time. I've been present when you've done this exact same thing in previous sessions.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

*sigh*.  Really?

Consider the following facts. One, I missed three votes. The strategy that I employed last year is not conducive to missing votes. Wouldn't it be much more obvious to conclude that this is a different session with entirely different goals? I have no incentive to delay anything. I have no incentive to delay this bill, for which I've not actually done anything save debate for a couple of hours on the principles of the bill.

Which I should add is my *job*, which technically I have not done much of this term.

I have not made a point of order or called to extend debate or called to delay the vote on the bill. For a reason, I'm happy to vote on the bill, as is.

YT wants to call a vote now I will second it, but I don't think a little debate is out of order. Once again, debate!=opposition.

[thumb21]

Assuming my amendment was adopted, seconded.

[Wisconsin+17]

Great. Happy to vote on this for YT.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Does the Chamber wish we take this to a final vote?

[Wisconsin+17]

I believe so. I think we have three votes now for a final vote, Mine, YT and Thumb.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Delegates have 24 hours to object to a final vote.

[CatoMinor]

With no objections, may we begin the vote Mr. Speaker?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Final vote
48 hours
[] aye
[] nay

[thumb21]

Aye