Pursuant to Article C, Section 5 of the Concordat, discussion is immediately opened regarding the reconfirmation of all sitting Arbiters of the Conclave.
This discussion shall have the duration of 3 days ending on 2025-07-04T19:20:00Z
It is that wonderful time again - Arbiter reconfirmation season! With Dremaur having been sent away from this body to join their ranks just days ago, he does not need to be reconfirmed. Thus, we deliberate on the following Arbiters:
Serge is Libertanny, correct? When he CTEd he lost Vizier, since CTEing counts under the Conk as leaving the region, therefore relinquishing all government roles (including Arbiter). Why’s he on the roster, in that case? Out of genuine curiosity and concern.
Yes, however my point still stands. CTEing counts as leaving the region, rendering Citizenship void (unless he came back within the 12 hours as per Cit Act)
Also, there is an argument to be made that since this thread is open, we are technically confirming/reconfirming Serge to the Conclave. But also there is a JR on the issue that I am opening tonight
The issue is less if citizenship was maintained, and more if E.2.2. has any circumstance explicitly provided for by law which would allow Libertanny to keep their position as an Arbiter without renomination.
Citizens who leave the Region shall also surrender all governmental roles, except in circumstances explicitly provided for by law.
So while citizenship was maintained, unless the Conclave returns a different interpretation of the law as a result of the JR request I put up (namely that either CTEing does not constitute leaving the region, or that maintenance of citizenship does have a material impact on the term “leave the Region”), Libertanny surrendered their position as an Arbiter by CTEing – rectifying this would require a renomination from the Delegate rather than a reconfirmation from the Magisterium.
I agree with previous thoughts in this thread that at this point it’s a distinction without a real difference, but I also think that the prescribed process should be followed.
§ E.2.2 of the Concordat says that Citizens who “leave the Region”, shall “also” surrender all governmental roles.
Without substituting my opinion for what the Conclave will rule on the JR eventually, my view on this is that while under § E.2.1 Libertanny never “left” the region to begin with, more importantly the “also” in § E.2.2. requires Citizenship being actually revoked under § E.2.1 for it to apply. And thus the “except in circumstances explicitly provided for by law”, pointing to § 4.1 of the Citizenship Act (providing the 12 hour window to fix things), also makes that no governmental roles were surrendered.
I’m noticing several Magisters abstaining on confirming most of the Arbiters, but there’s nothing said in this thread that expresses any reservations about the reconfirmations (other than Lib’s CTE). Why is this?
For my part, I’ve abstained on all votes because I’m organising the votes. While it is not necessary to abstain when organising the vote, I felt it to be appropriate in this instance.
I didn’t view it as particularly objectionable or controversial to abstain, so I chose to abstain to do the minimum on my end in ensuring that a quorum of voting Magisters is met while not affecting the outcome.
For me, it’s because I personally don’t have any views on the Arbiters other than Drem, or I might have some negative views from conversations with outside parties (however not enough for me to vote NAY).
As for my AGAINST on Lib’s reconfirmation, same reason why I voted against confirming him back to the Praesidium following his CTE. Yes, I understand he wasn’t entirely at fault, however the assumption of being signed in instead of actually checking makes me less inclined to trust him.
Just because I’m a curious bird, I’d like to get in to this a bit. We’ve had, insofar Conclave terms can be “busy”, a fairly notable term. The first criminal trial in years (Jo), the first appeal in ever (also Jo), multiple Reviews, and a civil suit against the Delegate. Several JR’s are still outstanding. Compared to previous Conclave terms, you could consider this one especially eventful. Did nothing about all that spark any interest, questions, .. as Magister?
I’m asking because (a) more Magisters than usual are abstaining; (b) without explicit reasons apparent in this discussion thread; and (c) you indicated you don’t really have any views on the Arbiters. Which, given the rather eventful last few months at the Conclave, was interesting to me.
The Delegate isn’t voting (or abstaining)? So I don’t know what that has to do with anything?
