Judicial Review Discussion Thread-Jointly held offices

Curufinwe

Socialist Elf
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
926
This is a discussion thread for the Judicial review on jointly held offices, see here for the relevant questions.
 
How does impartiality affect this case? Donsig this is starting to look like :spam:, and FYI, you posted the poll wrong. :nono:
 
I think it's fairly clear that our ruleset permits only one person to hold a given office at a given time. This is from the language used and the lack of specific information about handling shared offices. In addition, specific language exists to resolve tie-votes through run-offs as needed. One office, one citizen.

What is obviously permitted is the office holder delegating duties to a deputy or other citizen to assist them. Note that only duties are delegated, never responsibilities. Ultimately, it is the citizen elected to that office who is responsible for all duties of that office. This gives the citizens one place to go if there are questions or concerns.

-- Ravensfire
 
Fellow citizens, as we are waiting breathlessly for the current CC to complete, do you have anything further to say on this JR?

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender
 
I submit that the intent of the CoL was one person one office and not sharing offices.

/this is what started all this mess this month and it seems to be the easiest to rule on.
 
ravensfire said:
Fellow citizens, as we are waiting breathlessly for the current CC to complete, do you have anything further to say on this JR?

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Once again I'd like to point out that it is not fair to expect these proceedings to continue until after the final determination concerning who will preside over them.
 
Preamble Article D.3 said:
The candidate with the highest vote total is the winner of an election poll, regardless of whether such vote total is a majority of votes cast or not.
a. Should two or more candidates tie for the most votes, as many runoff elections shall be held as needed to resolve the election, as further defined by law.

IMO the above statement (prominently 3.a.) can be interpreted as only one citizen can hold any one office. If that was not the case specific instructions would not have been given in order to resolve the issue of a tie vote.
 
I agree with Methos that is what i said on the JR during my brief Stay as Chief Justice (it got sent to me, but i just PMed back what i thought and said i was resiging to him)
 
Top Bottom