Judgement 46 (Jim Shea) Fri, 01 Oct 1993 13:27:49 -0500 "Proposal 445 does not `directly alter the actions which are required of and/or forbidden to the Speaker', but merely determines who the Speaker *is* under certain conditions; therefore, Proposal 445 passed despite the current Speaker's refusal to consent thereto." Judge: Michael (accepted 1/10/93) Judgement: TRUE (received Sun, 3 Oct 1993 12:49:37 +1300) ----- Justification: Rule 396 says that a "proposal which would directly alter the actions which are required of and/or forbidden to the Mighty Speaker" only passes against the Speaker's will if a two thirds majority is achieved. Arguments against this decision have been put forward by Dave Bowen in two places, in CFJ 28 and proposal 499. I will briefly deal with those here. Firstly the claim is that: > "Proposal 445 does indeed alter the actions which are > forbidden to the Speaker in that remaining in office for a period of > longer than four consecutive weeks, an action that was previously > permitted, would now be forbidden." [ from CFJ 28 ] To say that "remaining in office" is an action seems to me to be specious at best. Compare it with the other actions that are required of the speaker: tabulating votes, making random determinations when necessary etc. All of these are discrete and well-defined. Compare it with an action forbidden to the speaker, electioneering at Proposal time; again this is a well-defined action. "Remaining in office" is not. Secondly the folowing claim is made: > ... proposal 445, by mandating a transfer of the Speakership under > new circumstances, requires the Speaker to carry out actions at a > time e would not previously have had to do so. Thus proposal 445 > does "alter the actions require of the Speaker" and therefore does > require the consent of the current Speaker. I claim that the actions referred to here (presumably those actions required by rule 402) are only _indirect_ consequences of the proposed rule change, thus escaping the jurisdiction of 396 which requires that a proposal of this type '_directly_ alter the actions which are required ....' Moreover, one might also consider it possible to argue that altering the time at which an action is necessary does not constitute altering that action per se. If both the action and the frequency of the action are unchanged, then is it possible to claim that the action is altered?