On Tue, 2 Jul 2013, Charles Walker wrote: > If an officer is required to perform a specific action (e.g. award N > Yaks to Walker) and the office changes hands, does that specific > requirement go along with it? Or is the new officer NOT GUILTY if e > fails to award me those particular Yaks? What if the office changes > hands one day before the end of the time limit? What about a month?
Without looking, my hazy grasp of the precedents is: 1. Whoever holds the office when the time limit hits is the guilty party. 2. If someone takes over the office just before a time limit hits, e and doesn't do it, e has still broken the rule. But e may escape guilt if e has not had a reasonable time to get caught up (under the "knowledge" clause, or possibly guilty/discharge). Especially if e might not even learn e was elected until after the time limit passes. The complicated one: 3. Person A holds an office. Time limit expires. Person A has committed the crime. If Person B takes over the office (before the duty is done), e is now under a SHALL (do the duty) but with no specific time limit, so can't be punished for not doing it. (If e refuses to do it, it's still a SHALL, so someone can deputize to get it done). -G.
