On Tuesday, May 23, 2000, repa(a)att.net wrote:
I like the idea of a recall, but here is some things I
have questions about:
Hi, James,
Thanks for asking, my responses below.
(1) Hearing of the accused or recalle? (is that a
word?), sort out what is fact or fiction.
I think the word is "official subject to recall", but I guess that is really a
phrase :-). They aren't "recalled" until it has already happened.
As for a hearing, it will take place as part of the recall election process, in which the
individual and his or her opponents both put forth their sides of the issue directly to
the voters. You and I would be the jurors, so to speak.
(2) A disinterested party should be appointed to tally
votes for a recall.
The author settled instead for the following statement:
(3)(d) Votes in recall elections are subject to verification by either the
Advisory Board Secretary or Election Committee, if there is one.
i.e. the ability to request verification.
(3) A recall of an elected official should be more than
a simple majority and should be a quorum of represented
counties, nothing less that what is spelled in the
recall provisions.
Basically, this is another election. Why should we restrict ourselves in this way? If we
elect someone with a simple majority, why can't we remove them with a simple majority?
If we elect them without a quorum, why can't we remove them without a quorum? They are
supposed to be serving *us*, and if we decide we no longer want them, why should we make
it hard on ourselves to remove them?
In any case, it's already difficult to get this process going; collecting 20%
signatures will not be a simple task.
(4) Motion to recall should be made formally, spelling
out in exact terms, conditions and circumstances the
recall is to be made. One of those so and so
really 'ticked me off' type recalls won't do. We need
to identify our emotions and separate them from
important issues that actually need addressing.
That is specified:
(2)(b) Recall of an Advisory Board Member is initiated by delivering to the
Advisory Board Secretary a petition alleging reason for recall. Reasons for
recall are to be limited to: violation of bylaws, improper handling of
information or legal/ethical violations.
(5) Recall notification should be made in advance of
making the actual recall. This would allow the recallee
(there's that word again) to either explain, deny or
affirm the conditions, circumstances or events.
Recall begins when the requisite number of petitions is delivered. Before that time, the
official subject to recall will be asked many questions by his or her constituents about
this action. While it's a nice idea that the recallee provide a response to the
"charge" before any petitions are gathered (I assume this is what you meant), I
suspect that most of them are going to ignore it (i.e. view it as pesky) until most of the
required signatures are gathered, anyway.
Once the number of signatures are gathered, there will be ample time before the recall
election for the official subject to recall to respond.
(6) Is recall appealable and to whom?
The constituents of the official subject to recall, i.e. you and I, are the final word, as
it should be. Who is higher than us?
S R C A
cott obert ranston nderson
phssra(a)physics.emory.edu
USGenWeb Coordinator,
http://www.usgennet.org/usa/oh/county/guernsey/