Inside the GUM – Chronicles about an incompetent Chair

What road shall the GUM take                                                                                                         What shall happen to the GUM

On March 13th, 2012, Bradley of Dullahan was elected the 10th Chairperson of the Grand Unified Micronational, defeating his only opponent, myself. Today, a bit over a month later he was elected by the Quorum, he was overthrown by a Motion of No Confidence, introduce by Andre Sammut.

First off, lets start talking about Bradley. Bradley of Dullahan may have had good ideas, that is true, but his lack of leadership, experience and above it all, lack of knowledge about GUM proceedings was astonishing and was making many member-states to reconsider if their decision to elect him were the right one. Now, why do I claim Bradley was not doing a good job? Well, let me tell you, His Grace tried innumerous times to reform the constitution without a concrete reason, even though the constitution was revised six weeks ago. He violated the Constitution displaying a fair amount of biasness and favoritism towards certain situations. He did not have much knowledge about conventions and went as far as openly admitting that he did not read the Constitution. He also pressured the Supreme Judge and went as far as overriding his decisions(using Quorum) so Nemkhavia could remain in the Advancement Council, even though precedent dictated otherwise. He was incapable of controlling Quorum and its delegate, resulting in petty arguments and lack of professionalism sometimes. As Mr. Sorgel said: “You[Bradley] are more a kindergarten teacher while you should be a principal”. Under Bradley’s governance, we also had to re-vote in almost every single issue, not to mention that he often contradicted himself.  Hilariously and sadly, Bradley asked Quorum if a member was a full member or not, which could have been seen easily in the GUM main article, he also openly admitted that it was “hard” to determine if a motion had passed or failed.

On today’s Quorum, Bradley and Crown Prince Jonathan of Austenasia had a rather silly discussion regarding the Constitution. Bradley defended that he wanted by all means to reform the Constitution due to a minor issue: Observer states can not attend Quorum. This was after Jonathan explained to him several times(about one in every Quora), that he couldn’t amend the constitution without doing a whole Constitution Revision, which was unnecessary considering it was revised less than six weeks ago.  After done with the discussions, which lasted about half a hour, the topic was Motion by member-states. After Hugh McFlarane was done with his motion to start Quorum a little bit later, Mr. Sammut with his courage and honesty proposed a motion of No Confidence against the Chair for the reasons displayed above. While it is true that since the feedback session, Bradley has tried to improve, trying is not enough, the GUM is not the place for the most important person to be a “weak/incompetent”  one. The motion was discussed between delegates with Bradley trying to defend himself, but not being able to as all the reasons were true. Shortly afterwards, Crown Prince Jonathan motioned the GUM to declare no confidence in the Chair and with 7 supports against 6 oppositions, the motion passed. As the motion passed, the 10th Chairman of the Grand Unified Micronational was the 1st Chairman to be made to resign through a vote of no confidence. The Vice-Chair, Will Sorgel, became Acting Chair, and we wait now, silently, to see what shall happen to the GUM.

8 Responses to “Inside the GUM – Chronicles about an incompetent Chair”
  1. Bradley of Dullahan says:

    A bit a onesided view and not realy something I would continue on, though might I note that Im His Grace the Duke of Dullahan im a foreign politician,, you dont call me just Bradley in a newsletter..

  2. This is a terribly biased commentary, filled with inaccuracies. Allow me to begin with the title — Bradley of Dullahan was not incompetent. He was somewhat unfamiliar with organisational conventions, but was capable of learning them. He was, as Alex Whitmarsh described him, “bumbling”, but this by no means warranted a no-confidence vote.

    Second, I highly doubt that many member states were reconsidering their decisions to elect Bradley. Most member states are annoyed to no end by your rudeness and your over-inflated ego. It is clear to me that you are using this column as a method of soothing said ego following your loss of the Chairmanship in March. You cannot simply discount the fact that your bid for Chairmanship met with resounding opposition, and I doubt that any of Bradley’s later shortcomings would change that greatly.

    Furthermore, Bradley did not “pressure” the Supreme Judge. Nemkhavia was allowed to remain on the Advancement Council, and the precedent regarding extraordinary elevation reversed, by a motion which was passed by a vast majority of Quorum. Bitterness over the fact that your and your nation’s influence dropped dramatically following your departure from Nemkhavia does not give you the right to attack Nemkhavia or Bradley.

    Finally, Bradley was unable to defend himself because he was given ten minutes to do so, not because he was unable to refute the arguments against him. This organisation must set clear rules regarding motions of no confidence and caucuses, to ensure that such a “low blow” cannot be delivered to any elected official in the future.

    In short, your arguments are all easily refuted, you support Bradley’s ouster not because there was any good reason behind it but because you are bitter that he defeated you, and that bias prevents you from reporting on this incident accurately.

    • Lucas Mello says:

      Bias? It is an opinion/analysis article, not relating an event. Filled with inaccuracies? As always, you are entitled to your stupid opinion. Mr. of Dullahan was not incompentent? Incomptent as defined by the dictionary is: Someone devoid of those qualities requisite for effective conduct or action, which Mr. of Dullahan was.

      I don’t care if you highly doubt it or not, I spoke with several delegates and they told me that. People are annoyed with my ego? I tried to search for a fuck to give, it was not found. You think I did out of jealousy? Hm, great, as I said earlier: you are entitled to your stupid opinion, I didn’t do this because I lost, I am not the kind of person that if I lose other can’t win.

      Yes he did pressure. Quorum only passed such motion not because it was right, but because it was Nemkhavia. Mine and my nation’s influence dropped? Haha, you never cease to amuse me, Hakimoto, ever.

      As I said 10 times to Marka, the discussion could had been prolongated for hours, Bradley was unable to refute our claims because they were true. Set rules on caucuses? You can’t do that, you can’t moderate what I or any other delegate for the matter talk in private, if the GUM does such pass such motion, the Grand Duchy of Koss will leave the organisation.

      In short, you are entitled to your stupid opinion, and I did everything I did FOR the GUM, not for me, FOR the GUM. When you have real arguments, I will be happy to respond to those, but don’t come here thinking you are some pro on micronationalism who has experienced in everything, you have much experience as Westsylvania.

    • “Bumbling” doesn’t warrant a lack of confidence? Since when does the Nemkhav delegation derive the right to implement what people have confidence in and do not? For Sandus, “bumbling” is certainly grounds for a lack of confidence. The GUM is an organisation with tough, intelligent people. We need someone of a strong nature to be our head and guide. Lethler was that man, M. Tierney and Mme Caesar were those as well. Without them, we suffer together.

      Many member-states may share those opinions of M. Mello, M. Hakimoto, but most member-states, remember, shared the opinions of M. Mello is removing M. Dullahan from power. This article has nothing to do with M. Mello’s failed election in March, only to do with M. Dullahan’s failed term from March to April. Seeds of discontent grew from the first moment I confided in one of Sandus’ allies that I was afraid Bradley did not have the needed power; it seems my discontent was shared by many others.

      Ten minutes is all a competent individual needs. It’s taken my 10 minutes to destroy the awful arguments of Nemkhavia against Sandus in the past week, and it will surely take us just that amount of time to explain as to why M. Dullahan deserved to be voted out by a vote of no confidence. I am amazed that the Nemkhav Federal government continues to harass those who voted lawfully and honestly on such an important matter, especially seeing that the President of the Federation has said that he had lost confidence in M. Dullahan too — something that proves Nemkhavia’s inability to vote according to the truth as per the wording of the motion.

      You and Nemkhavia continue to argue the same petty “democracy” argument. He was given the time to respond, the same amount of time we had to prove that he had lost our confidence for a reason. And, should Nemkhavia had attended the Wednesday Quorum, we could have worked towards setting up rules regarding those motions. I am amazed at Nemkhavia’s inability to competently work with other member-states and take some sort of responsibility for itself for its failures, transgressions and aggressions.

      M. Mello, mind you M. Hakimoto, did not propose or motion the vote of no confidence. You have no evidence or grounds to even consider he acted out of such bitterness. I am constantly amazed at Nemkhavia’s “democratic rights” crusades, but then there is the fact that you have just contradicted yourself by stating that M. Mello should not be able to have written or published this article. I believe it is absurd as to how self-righteous the Nemkhav government is when it can’t even be competent to its own image in theory or in practice.

  3. Putting aside the substance of the article, I would like to remind you, Lucas, that disparaging comments on someone’s opinion (“stupid opinion”) don’t have any place here. While you may not agree with someone’s opinion, I won’t tolerate belittling. Please keep that in mind in the future.

    – Henry

Check out what others are saying...
  1. […] Mello, the former Vice-Chairman of the GUM, said in an article on the St. Charlian Observer that he supported this […]

  2. […] Mello, the former Vice-Chairman of the GUM, said in an article on the St. Charlian Observer that he supported this […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: