Membership Administration Amendment Bill

New alternative. This should cover some of the Speakers concerns as it clarifies the role of the Speaker in the process without hurting their role in the RA. This has received support of Cabinet members present, besides Zyvet who was unavailable.

The Vice delegate may block applications for Security Reasons. It is expected that the Delegate and Speaker and other people who have concerns could raise these with teh Vice Delegate if they wish for an application to be denied for certain reasons. This also allows for political denials, for enforcing persona non grata and for assisting in protecting the sovereignty of the region and checking the membership of the RA.

It includes a 3 day limit. If the Vice Delegate does not expressly approve of an application within that time it will be automatically considered approved. 3 days is a reasonable time frame for the Vice Delegate to respond and not too long to hinder the administrative process of the RA.

The Regional Assembly would have an automatic vote on a blocked application. A majority vote would be required for the Vice Delegates block to be upheld, if it fails, the Speaker would admit the member into the ranks of the Regional Assembly. This proposal deals with some concerns that members have (at least from what I understand from cabinet members, although I have not been approached directly other than in this thread) about the Delegates role in the process.

Ultimately however, it is still largely a political decision. And is not likely to satisfy everyone's concerns. Please indicate what you think about this proposal:

Membership Administration Amendment Bill

1. Section 6.1 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

Section 6.1: Regional Assembly Membership Act
2. Any person with an account on the regional forum and a nation in The North Pacific may apply for Regional Assembly membership, using their regional forum account, by providing the name of their nation in The North Pacific, and swearing an oath as follows:

I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of [INSERT YOUR TNP NATION], pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for membership in the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific.

Click to expand...

3. A copy of the laws applicants are pledging to obey must be available to them at all times.
4. An application for Regional Assembly membership ceases to be valid if at any time the applicant's declared nation in The North Pacific nation is not located in The North Pacific.
5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants and verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty. The Vice Delegate will have 3 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants and verify that they do not pose a threat to regional security.
6. The Speaker will reject applicants who fail an evaluation by either forum administration or the Vice Delegate.
7. If an applicant is rejected for failing an evaluation by the Vice Delegate, the Regional Assembly will immediately hold a majority vote on whether to uphold the rejection
8. The Speaker will accept all other applicants with valid applications.
9. The Speaker will process applications within 14 days. If an applicant has not been accepted or rejected within that time, they will be automatically accepted to the Regional Assembly.
10. Regional Assembly members may not vote in any vote which began before they were last admitted.
11. The Speaker will maintain a publicly viewable roster of Regional Assembly members.
12. The Speaker will promptly remove any Regional Assembly members whose removal is ordered by the Court, or whose nation in The North Pacific leaves or ceases to exist.
13. The Speaker's office will promptly remove any Regional Assembly members who fail to log in to the North Pacific forum for over 30 consecutive days; or who have not voted for 20 consecutive days and have missed four consecutive Regional Assembly votes to enact, amend or repeal laws, as determined by the time they closed.
14. Regional Assembly members that have submitted a notice of absence, in accordance with any regulations set by the Speaker, shall be exempt from the provisions of the above clause for the stated duration of their absence.

Click to expand...

2. Clauses 13 to 34 of Chapter 6 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific are renumbered 15 to 36 respectively.

Click to expand...

Here is our reasoning for this bill:

Currently there are very limited legal means for denying a Regional Assembly application. This became apparent in the recent application of King Durk the Awesome: several members noticed there that, even if TNP wanted to deny the application, this would only be possible if he were proxying or a judicial penalty were in place. We believe that it is necessary to expand the means available and allow the Executive to block applications, for instance in the case of individuals that have been declared PNG and for other security related matters.

This bill introduces the possibility of a Regional Assembly application being blocked by the joint decision of the Delegate and Vice Delegate. The reasons for this joint approval system are twofold. First, allowing the Delegate alone to be able to block applications at discretion would be very prone to abuse; indeed a Delegate could start blocking applications for political reasons, say around election time. The need to also secure the approval of the Vice Delegate to exercise this power ameliorates this risk. Second, involving the Vice Delegate in the process brings in the perspective of the Security Council, the body entrusted with the security of the region. Sharing the authority to block applications between the Delegate and Vice Delegate works as both a stringent check of power and a way to more effectively counter security risks to the region.

It is important that we maintain The North Pacific an open, democratic, and transparent region. For this reason, we have made allowances for the democratic control on the joint Delegate-Vice Delegate authority in this matter. Under the proposed bill, ultimate control of Regional Assembly applications remains in the hands of the Regional Assembly at large. This is achieved by a mechanism similar to the method used to check upon the Delegate’s power to veto legislation: the Regional Assembly may override a block on an application by a majority vote.

We believe that the bill enhances the mechanisms we have available to reinforce our sovereignty and maintain the region and the Regional Assembly secure. The proposed mechanism ensures that this is done in a way resistant to abuse and under strict democratic control. In the end, a person is denied membership in our Assembly only if doing so is viewed as acceptable by a democratic majority of our members.

I think this Bill has been exquisitely-well drafted and thought out; it has my full support

Loks good. My only suggestion is a minor clarifying amendment, amending 12 to read:

12. Regional Assembly members that have submitted a notice of absence, in accordance with any regulations set by the Speaker, shall be exempt from the provisions of the above clause for the stated duration of their absence.

Click to expand...

Arguably, under the current wording, if someone declared an absence and never returned, they would remain a member of the RA indefinitely. Explicitly limiting immunity from removal to a stated period of absence obviates any such problems.

Just as a note on format, an amendment to this section of the Legal Code is currently being voted on, so any final proposal will need to either be updated to take that into account, or be reduced to simply stating the specific clause to be amended.

Now, content-wise, I believe the relevant clauses are 4-7. Have I overlooked anything?

4. An application for Regional Assembly membership is invalidated if at any time during the application process the nation in The North Pacific declared in the application is no longer in the region.

Click to expand...

I would rephrase this to, "A posted application for membership in the Regional Assembly ceases to be valid if at any time the applicant's declared North Pacific nation is not located in The North Pacific."

5. The Delegate may, with the agreement of the Vice Delegate, block any application for Regional Assembly membership. The Regional Assembly may override such a decision by a majority vote.

Click to expand...

Do we want it to be application, or applicant? As written, someone could continue to apply over and over again, and the two would have to block each and every application individually. Change it to applicant, and the person would not be able to apply again unless the decision were overturned.

Speaking of overturning, how would this transfer between delegacies? Could a person reapply under a different Del/VD team? Could a different Del/VD "remove" their office's consent for blocking an applicant?

Do we want to specify the grounds under which applicants may be blocked? The inclusion of both executives is a good start, but suppose Del and VD were both strongly on one side of, say, the R/D spectrum - they could block applicants from the other side of the spectrum, which could unduly interfere with voting or election results. I think it might make some sense for there to be an explicit abuse clause, which would allow us to bring people up on charges of gross misconduct if they exploit this power.

6. The Speaker will accept applicants with valid applications who are verified by forum administration not to be using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty; and either have not had their application blocked, or such a block has been overridden by the Regional Assembly.

Click to expand...

Punctuation woes - try "The Speaker will accept applicants with valid applications who are verified by forum administration not to be using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty, and who have not had their application blocked, or whose block has been overturned by the Regional Assembly."

And if the previous is changed from "application" to "applicant", the penultimate clause would then read "and who have not been blocked from applying".

7. If the applicant does not fail verification or have their application blocked within 14 days, they will be automatically accepted to the Regional Assembly.

Click to expand...

This part significantly changes the way the RA applications work, and is actually incompatible with the above - it indicates that the D/VD have 14 days to decide on blocking an applicant, which throws into question the Speaker's power to actually accept people - what happens if the Speaker accepts and then within 2 weeks the D/VD say "yeah, no"?

In general, to fix the weirdish phrasing, I would prefer something like, "The Speaker will process all applications within 14 days. If the applicant is not accepted, rejected, or blocked within 14 days, they will be automatically accepted to the Regional Assembly."

However, the weakness remains - a speaker could in essence override the D/VD power simply by acting quickly to accept someone. Given this, and given that it's the Speaker who presides over the RA, would it perhaps make more sense to have the decision made by Delegate and Speaker, or perhaps even Vice Delegate and Speaker (to give the Vice a bit of a more defined role)?

Yikes! Am I the only one who thinks the application of this proposed law raises serious issues with respect to the Bill of Rights?

Great Bights Mum:

Yikes! Am I the only one who thinks the application of this proposed law raises serious issues with respect to the Bill of Rights?

Click to expand...

Hmm. Could you elaborate on this, please?

Why the edit, Sanc? Less sarcasm? I'm disappointed in you.

Anyhoo, I think she's referring to the "each Nation has the right to a vote" business. Never did a thing for democracy, if you ask me.

To McM: could you give me a sampling of reasons that the Del/VD would WANT to deny a nation's RA rights besides politics?

Iro:

Why the edit, Sanc? Less sarcasm? I'm disappointed in you.

Anyhoo, I think she's referring to the "each Nation has the right to a vote" business. Never did a thing for democracy, if you ask me.

To McM: could you give me a sampling of reasons that the Del/VD would WANT to deny a nation's RA rights besides politics?

Click to expand...

Firstly, I edited to provide more clarity, and to make the question more pointed. I've never felt a need to hide sarcasm, I dunno why I'd start now. But this isn't at all relevant to the debate, so if you want to take a pot shot at me, do it elsewhere.

Secondly, there is no right to vote. "[E]ach Nation has the right to a vote" is seen absolutely nowhere in the Bill of Rights. Reading it before you try to quote it might be helpful. If the law entitles you to a vote, then you get a vote, but there is no universal right to it.

And while I can't answer for McM, one reason is a security aspect, like what was expressed following Durk's application, that currently cannot be applied under existing legislation.

If this makes it on the books, the first time a Delegate denies an RA application, it is going to Court. The BoR issues raised will be abuse of power by a government authority, and denial of equal and fair treatment. This proposal will not pass muster.

Never mind the separation of power issues raised by enabling a Delegate and his VD to stack the RA. This is a power the RA should not want to cede to the Delegate.

GBM, the RA still has the ability to override with a majority vote. If a Delegate was doing as you suggest, I think the controversy of it would get the majority required.

Silly, I am on my phone right now. I will respond to your questions in full when I am on my computer next.

I cannot express how opposed I am to this bill. The strength of TNP lies within our freedoms, our respect for our laws, and, however flawed it may be, our faith in our judicial process.

This bill cannot pass.

The Delegate may, with the agreement of the Vice Delegate, block any application for Regional Assembly membership. The Regional Assembly may override such a decision by a majority vote.

Click to expand...

The implications of the politics around this cannot be underscored. McM used King Durk as an example for the need to introduce this bill. But unlike other regions, one is not auto-guilty. Durk has admitted his role as the puppetmaster of Douria. Osiris is a treatied ally with TNP. After everything was over, Durk applied for RA membership. Yes, I see the conflict here. But, in my opinion if we are not excited to have Durk back in the RA fold we need to use the legal court methods to remove him, not create a law that allows the delegate/VD to bar anyone they wish from entry into the RA.

Not only this, the potential member would need to wait for the RA bureaucracy before coming to a vote. If we pass this bill we kiss our rights goodbye. If this bill passes I do plan to request this be reviewed by the court.

Laws should be applied to us all equally, regardless if we don't like a person or if they are guilty of doing things we don't like. If this bill passes, we throw away that concept.

Format note is understood. I will edit the OP accordingly once the other vote is dealt with.

SillyString:

4. An application for Regional Assembly membership is invalidated if at any time during the application process the nation in The North Pacific declared in the application is no longer in the region.

Click to expand...

I would rephrase this to, "A posted application for membership in the Regional Assembly ceases to be valid if at any time the applicant's declared North Pacific nation is not located in The North Pacific."

Click to expand...

What other kind of application is there besides a posted one? The rest of your wording is fine in that regard, doesn't change the clause much at all.

SillyString:

5. The Delegate may, with the agreement of the Vice Delegate, block any application for Regional Assembly membership. The Regional Assembly may override such a decision by a majority vote.

Click to expand...

Do we want it to be application, or applicant? As written, someone could continue to apply over and over again, and the two would have to block each and every application individually. Change it to applicant, and the person would not be able to apply again unless the decision were overturned.

Click to expand...

Applicant makes sense, edited. Good catch

SillyString:

Speaking of overturning, how would this transfer between delegacies? Could a person reapply under a different Del/VD team? Could a different Del/VD "remove" their office's consent for blocking an applicant?

Click to expand...

That is my aim with that section. Times change and so do Delegates, I think a Delegate should be able to assess an application on its merits at the time that the application is made. Of course this means that we could end up with someone applying every time a new Delegate takes over, it might be better to change it so that the Delegate could remove the block on the applicant if they wish to, allowing them to reapply. I am open to suggestions in that regard.

SillyString:

Do we want to specify the grounds under which applicants may be blocked? The inclusion of both executives is a good start, but suppose Del and VD were both strongly on one side of, say, the R/D spectrum - they could block applicants from the other side of the spectrum, which could unduly interfere with voting or election results. I think it might make some sense for there to be an explicit abuse clause, which would allow us to bring people up on charges of gross misconduct if they exploit this power.

Click to expand...

They could block applications for that reason. A reasonable person would expect reasoning to be provided by the Delegate and Vice Delegate if an application is denied. That is not to say that we have not had some unreasonable Delegates. I am open to your suggested abuse clause if you have something specific in mind? The Regional Assembly also retains the important override power with a simple majority as a check on that.

SillyString:

6. The Speaker will accept applicants with valid applications who are verified by forum administration not to be using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty; and either have not had their application blocked, or such a block has been overridden by the Regional Assembly.

Click to expand...

Punctuation woes - try "The Speaker will accept applicants with valid applications who are verified by forum administration not to be using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty, and who have not had their application blocked, or whose block has been overturned by the Regional Assembly."

Click to expand...

Pedantic! I can see why you are the deputy speaker. Edited.

SillyString:

6. The Speaker will accept applicants with valid applications who are verified by forum administration not to be using And if the previous is changed from "application" to "applicant", the penultimate clause would then read "and who have not been blocked from applying".

Click to expand...

It may be simply tiredness, but I'm not following? Explain for me please

SillyString:

7. If the applicant does not fail verification or have their application blocked within 14 days, they will be automatically accepted to the Regional Assembly.

Click to expand...

This part significantly changes the way the RA applications work, and is actually incompatible with the above - it indicates that the D/VD have 14 days to decide on blocking an applicant, which throws into question the Speaker's power to actually accept people - what happens if the Speaker accepts and then within 2 weeks the D/VD say "yeah, no"?

Click to expand...

Doesn't 6 state that the Speaker may accept an application if the Delegate/Vice Delegate have not blocked it? The alternative would be for us to explicitly state that this requires the Delegate/VD to expressly approve of an application. The Speaker can approve an application that has not been blocked and satisfies forum verification process.

SillyString:

In general, to fix the weirdish phrasing, I would prefer something like, "The Speaker will process all applications within 14 days. If the applicant is not accepted, rejected, or blocked within 14 days, they will be automatically accepted to the Regional Assembly."

Click to expand...

I do not see this as an improvement. If others disagree, I will go with your wording on the matter.

SillyString:

However, the weakness remains - a speaker could in essence override the D/VD power simply by acting quickly to accept someone. Given this, and given that it's the Speaker who presides over the RA, would it perhaps make more sense to have the decision made by Delegate and Speaker, or perhaps even Vice Delegate and Speaker (to give the Vice a bit of a more defined role)?

Click to expand...

I think the provisions allow for the Speaker to approve applications that have not been blocked, it may be necessary to clarify how this should occur. The Delegate/Vice Delegate can block the application, or approve of it, and the Speaker would then act accordingly. It is my opinion that the Speaker presides over the Regional Assembly traditionally as an impartial position, responsible for maintaining the membership rolls, moving/closing votes and maintaining the decorum of the Regional Assembly members in the debates and enforcing the rules of the assembly.

As I said, this ultimately would be a political decision based on security reasons and other related batters, or it would be based on the verification process provided by the Administrators. We did not feel that it would be appropriate for the Speaker to make a political decision in this matter, and felt that such a decision was better made by the head of the Executive in the Delegate, and the Vice Delegate bringing in the Security Council's advice and what not in that area. The Regional Assembly still retains final say, and with a majority vote can overturn the decision, and the Speaker could be involved in that sphere. I do not see why the Speaker's involvement is necessary or more desirable than the Delegate's in this decision making process.

@Silly String - I think I got most of the changes that you suggested, if I've missed anything, remind me please.


@Punk D, absolutely this is a big change. It is ultimately a political decision, as I said in the OP. To have not said so would have been misleading. This bill needs to be carefully considered before we move it to a vote.

As a side, it's been a while I think since we have had 10 posts within 24 hours in a Regional Assembly post, if nothing else, at least this has achieved some discussion

punk d:

Laws should be applied to us all equally, regardless if we don't like a person or if they are guilty of doing things we don't like. If this bill passes, we throw away that concept.

Click to expand...

This isn't really an issue here - the law does apply to all equally. If it were a law saying "Durk cannot join the RA", it would be unequal application, but a block can be used against anybody. Choosing to block one person and not another is no more unequal application of the law than is bringing one person up on charges and not the other.

mcmasterdonia:

What other kind of application is there besides a posted one? The rest of your wording is fine in that regard, doesn't change the clause much at all.

Click to expand...

Well, presumably someone could try to apply in some weird way, like a TG or a PM? I dunno. That word can be struck if you like.

mcmasterdonia:

That is my aim with that section. Times change and so do Delegates, I think a Delegate should be able to assess an application on its merits at the time that the application is made. Of course this means that we could end up with someone applying every time a new Delegate takes over, it might be better to change it so that the Delegate could remove the block on the applicant if they wish to, allowing them to reapply. I am open to suggestions in that regard.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... tricky. On the one hand, if future D/VD teams can overturn prior blocks, that's akin to saying that a block expires after every election... while not allowing that will of course impart an undue level of permanence to a previous decision.

What about saying that revoking a block requires also the unanimous consent of both parties? So one person can't just change their mind and undo everything, but it's not impossible to change things either?

mcmasterdonia:

They could block applications for that reason. A reasonable person would expect reasoning to be provided by the Delegate and Vice Delegate if an application is denied. That is not to say that we have not had some unreasonable Delegates. I am open to your suggested abuse clause if you have something specific in mind? The Regional Assembly also retains the important override power with a simple majority as a check on that.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the check's a good thing. This is rough, but perhaps something like, "A block on an applicant will only be placed in the interests of TNP security"?

mcmasterdonia:

Pedantic! I can see why you are the deputy speaker. Edited.

Click to expand...

So when you try to hurl the word 'pedant' at my feet, as if it were dirty, something to run away from, something that I should be ashamed of, it won't work, Minister, because I will pick up that label and wear it as a badge of honor.

Ahem, sorry, bit of a West Wing moment there.

mcmasterdonia:

SillyString:

And if the previous is changed from "application" to "applicant", the penultimate clause would then read "and who have not been blocked from applying".

Click to expand...

It may be simply tiredness, but I'm not following? Explain for me please

Click to expand...

Of course - if it is an application which is getting blocked, the clause should read "and who have not had their application blocked", while if it is an applicant being blocked - as I believe you agreed with - it should instead read "and who have not been blocked from applying".

mcmasterdonia:

Doesn't 6 state that the Speaker may accept an application if the Delegate/Vice Delegate have not blocked it? The alternative would be for us to explicitly state that this requires the Delegate/VD to expressly approve of an application. The Speaker can approve an application that has not been blocked and satisfies forum verification process.

Click to expand...

This also significantly changes how the process functions - inactive delegates and VDs aren't an unheard-of occurrence, and sheer failure to get around to this would place a significantly increased strain on the Speaker's office.

mcmasterdonia:

SillyString:

In general, to fix the weirdish phrasing, I would prefer something like, "The Speaker will process all applications within 14 days. If the applicant is not accepted, rejected, or blocked within 14 days, they will be automatically accepted to the Regional Assembly."

Click to expand...

I do not see this as an improvement. If others disagree, I will go with your wording on the matter.

Click to expand...

I think it's a big improvement, for two reasons. Firstly, it stays in line with the original wording on the clause, and keeps the explicit mention of whose responsibility processing applications is - it's the Speaker's. Second, it eliminates the oddity of the original version presented, which implies quite heavily that all applicants must wait 14 days to be accepted. The rewrite provides a clearer reading of the way the process is intended to work.

mcmasterdonia:

I think the provisions allow for the Speaker to approve applications that have not been blocked, it may be necessary to clarify how this should occur. The Delegate/Vice Delegate can block the application, or approve of it, and the Speaker would then act accordingly.

Click to expand...

Like I said above, I dislike the idea of inserting mandatory executive-branch input into every RA application that's filed. The legislature is not the purview of the executive; it is, in my opinion, quite absurd to institute that level of oversight for something that will, the vast majority of the time, only serve to gum up the works and also waste the D/VD's time.

mcmasterdonia:

It is my opinion that the Speaker presides over the Regional Assembly traditionally as an impartial position, responsible for maintaining the membership rolls, moving/closing votes and maintaining the decorum of the Regional Assembly members in the debates and enforcing the rules of the assembly.

Click to expand...

This is true, but it is also the Speaker's role to ensure that the RA's time is not wasted, that good legislation is encouraged and poor legislation is improved, and to in other ways guide the functioning of the body in ways that improve and strengthen the region as a whole. The Speaker's role in the RA is more than simply paper-pushing and bookkeeping.

mcmasterdonia:

We did not feel that it would be appropriate for the Speaker to make a political decision in this matter, and felt that such a decision was better made by the head of the Executive in the Delegate, and the Vice Delegate bringing in the Security Council's advice and what not in that area. The Regional Assembly still retains final say, and with a majority vote can overturn the decision, and the Speaker could be involved in that sphere. I do not see why the Speaker's involvement is necessary or more desirable than the Delegate's in this decision making process.

Click to expand...

I don't agree. Membership of the legislature is not something which concerns the Delegate-Executive at all - legislative functioning is not its concern.

In my view, the ideal combination would be the Speaker and the Vice Delegate. The VD functions as a member of both the executive and security branches, and it is the latter role which gives the position a vested interest in RA applications. The Speaker oversees and guides the RA, and has a definitely vested interest in the makeup of its membership.

Including the Speaker as one of the two deciding voices would allow the RA admittance process to continue to function as normal most of the time - by admitting an applicant, the Speaker would implicitly be saying that there is not a unanimous agreement to block the application in question, and the other party - whether that's Del or VD - would not have to worry about adding yet more busywork to their roles. This particular clause would only come up when someone worrisome applied, allowing for consultation between the two, and a decision to be made together.

"Someone worrisome???" I am positively reeling from the implications. WHO is worrisome? A raider? A defender? Or maybe someone who talks funny, dresses weird, or has an avatar of a different color than the powers that be?

5. The Delegate may, with the agreement of the Vice Delegate, block any applicant for Regional Assembly membership. The Regional Assembly may override such a decision by a majority vote.

Click to expand...

Ehhhh - Too much potential to be used as a political tool to stack the RA.

This is going to come out harsher than it sounds but, the following is about as bad a use of logic as one will see...ever.

sillystring:

This isn't really an issue here - the law does apply to all equally. If it were a law saying "Durk cannot join the RA", it would be unequal application, but a block can be used against anybody. Choosing to block one person and not another is no more unequal application of the law than is bringing one person up on charges and not the other.

Click to expand...

Bringing charges does not equate to guilt nor do charges come with restricting voting rights as would be done with the blockage of any potential RA member. Would the block be based upon an unbiased empirical test or the subjective opinions of two people? Based on the text, it would be the latter, and there is no way to ensure that each applicant would be treated equally before the eyes of today's del, tomorrow's vice del, or next year's delegate.

Further, blocking someone from entering the RA convicts them, it doesn't 'charge' them with a crime. In order for the potential RA member to actually get their voting rights they would need a majority of other RA members to vote for them. Your analogy is apples and oranges.

At least McM was clear in saying it is a 'political decision' because it is and that's what we need to decide.

Folks, let's not mince words here. We've got a choice here. We can empower the Del and VD to block applicants they see fit to block for whatever reason. Or we can trust our judicial process to root out the people who mean to or are doing us harm.

I encourage all members of this body to vote against this bill should it make it to the voting floor.

Bringing charges does not equate to guilt

Click to expand...

Correct. Bringing charges is exercising a power granted under the law, as would be blocking an applicant. Choosing to bring charges is subjective, as is choosing to block an applicant. That does not mean that the law does not apply to everyone.

there is no way to ensure that each applicant would be treated equally before the eyes of today's del, tomorrow's vice del, or next year's delegate.

Click to expand...

And there is no legal requirement to do so, which is the entirety of what I am responding to - not the desirability of subjective interpretation.

You said:

Laws should be applied to us all equally, regardless if we don't like a person or if they are guilty of doing things we don't like. If this bill passes, we throw away that concept.

Click to expand...

The law applies equally, just as the law allowing charges to be brought applies equally. Selectively choosing to exercise that right does not represent unequal scope of the law.

Further, blocking someone from entering the RA convicts them, it doesn't 'charge' them with a crime.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. It says that the two in change of making that call have chosen to exercise their power. The RA has an override mechanism.

In order for the potential RA member to actually get their voting rights they would need a majority of other RA members to vote for them.

Click to expand...

Fun fact - there is no right to vote.

I'm not kidding. Check the Constibillocode.

GBM: Yes, "someone worrisome", which would be defined as "anybody the two responsible for making that call determine to be a risk". If this is done in an attempt to stack the RA, if the RA does not agree with their decision, then it can easily vote to override.

I'd also note, there are only two people I can think of in recent memory where invoking this power would have been considered - Durk's recent application during his coup of Osiris, and a hypothetical application by Milograd during or after his coup of TSP. Both involve individuals whose treasonous actions against two of TNP's closest allies is completely unquestionable - these are exactly the type of people we ought to be able to deny.

Govindia.

Govindia has a permanent forum ban and is ineligible for RA membership. If that were not the case, I don't know if there would be an agreement between either the Del/VD or the Speaker/VD to block his application, nor do I know if the RA would support such a block.

I personally would, because he represents an actual threat to members of the community, and to me that definitely merits a block, but I am merely one opinion. Anyone who disagreed would be free to vote differently.

I fail to see the problem.

Had the government used a power like the one proposed in this bill to exclude Govindia from the RA, I'd have a hard time calling that anything but good foresight - after all, he did get permanently banned from the forum.

EDIT: I'll have more to say about the content of the bill sometime later.

This may seem off-topic, but it is related to the conversation: what exactly did Govindia do to earn a lifetime ban?

More on-topic, I tested the waters regarding this subject earlier. Without going into detail here, the tightening up of citizenship/membership requirements is something that must obviously be done with extreme care.

Ash:

This may seem off-topic, but it is related to the conversation: what exactly did Govindia do to earn a lifetime ban?

Click to expand...

It's explained here.

Thanks for your input all. I introduce the following alternative for consideration

This would require the Speaker to get the express approval of an Admin and the Delegate in order to admit a member to the regional assembly. The key difference however is that the Delegate may not block the application on their own, in order for the application to be blocked the Delegate must approve a block to the Regional Assembly. The RA would then by majority vote determine whether the application should be blocked or not.

Obviously, this would require the Delegate to explain why the RA application should be denied, or else it is unlikely that the RA will simply follow the whim of the Delegate (It is my experience that never happens without clear explanation and argument ). This should also ease concerns about the Delegate simply blocking applications because of military alignment or for election purposes, I do not feel that the Regional Assembly would allow that to happen.

Let me know what you think

Membership Administration Amendment Bill

Section 6.1 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

Section 6.1: Regional Assembly Membership Act
2. Any person with an account on the regional forum and a nation in The North Pacific may apply for Regional Assembly membership, using their regional forum account, by providing the name of their nation in The North Pacific, and swearing an oath as follows:

I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of [INSERT YOUR TNP NATION], pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for membership in the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific.

Click to expand...

3. A copy of the laws applicants are pledging to obey must be available to them at all times.
4. An application for Regional Assembly membership ceases to be valid if at any time the applicant's declared nation in The North Pacific nation is not located in The North Pacific.
5. The Delegate may either approve of or bring a motion to block an application for Regional Assembly membership. A motion to block must be approved by the Regional Assembly by a majority vote.
6. The Speaker will accept applicants who are verified by forum administration not to be using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty, and whose valid application has either been approved by the Delegate, or for which a motion to block has not been approved by the Regional Assembly.
7. If the applicant does not fail verification or have their application approved or blocked within 14 days, they will be automatically accepted to the Regional Assembly.
8. Regional Assembly members may not vote in any vote which began before they were last admitted.
9. The Speaker will maintain a publicly viewable roster of Regional Assembly members.
10. The Speaker will promptly remove any Regional Assembly members whose removal is ordered by the Court, or whose nation in The North Pacific leaves or ceases to exist.
11. The Speaker will promptly remove any Regional Assembly members who fail to log in to the regional forum for over 30 consecutive days; or who have not voted for 20 consecutive days and have missed four consecutive Regional Assembly votes, as determined by the time they were commenced, and excluding election votes for all purposes under this clause.
12. Regional Assembly members that have submitted a notice of absence, in accordance with any regulations set by the Speaker, shall be exempt from the provisions of the above clause for the duration of their absence.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I am totally against this version of the bill. At this point, it would be more effective to put the entire process of admitting RA applicants in the hands of the delegate. Now, not only would the Speaker have no discretion in whether to deny applicants or not, he would have to ask permission from the delegate to even admit them! It adds an administrative step to the application process which, for 99 out of 100 applicants is useless.

Why should the delegate be involved in this process anyway? The delegate's job is the manage the executive branch, and lead the region. There is nothing involving security or RA membership policy in his portfolio. If applications are going to be blocked, it should be by joint agreement of the Speaker (whose job it is to admit/deny RA applicants), and the Vice Delegate (whose job it is to provide for the security of our region).

Not only would such a system make much more sense on the face of it, but it would also be administratively simpler and more efficient. By requiring the Speaker to agree to a block, you can allow the Speaker to continue to admit applicants he doesn't have a problem with in the same manner that we do now, and most applicants would see no difference in how quickly they are admitted.

I am, however, in favor or an automatic vote by the RA to override a block. Most people don't follow the application thread, so it would be necessary to vote every time an application is blocked, in order to ensure the RA is informed. Since such a vote would be non-legislative, it won't take up any extra time, because the two-vote rule would not apply.

I thought the first version was better.

And as the current Vice Delegate, I wouldn't have agreed to an RA block on Govindia, GBM. I stand by my longstanding view that he should have been banned ages before he was but that's an OOC issue relating to moderation.

JAL would have got a block and rightly so. I wouldn't even have to think on that one. Milograd is less clear cut but still I think I would have agreed to a block.

I will note that the RA should seemingly have the right to moderate it's membership, no? We impose limits on who can be an RA member with no complaints.

Why not allow the RA to vote for removal of someone for 12 months and after that period they can reapply and if the RA chooses it can subsequently remove them for another 12 months? Just a thought.

The speaker could arguably act as the RA's conscience and veto any such vote that is unjust? I don't know just a possible alternative.

New alternative. This should cover some of the Speakers concerns as it clarifies the role of the Speaker in the process without hurting their role in the RA. This has received support of Cabinet members present, besides Zyvet who was unavailable.

The Vice delegate may block applications for Security Reasons. It is expected that the Delegate and Speaker and other people who have concerns could raise these with teh Vice Delegate if they wish for an application to be denied for certain reasons. This also allows for political denials, for enforcing persona non grata and for assisting in protecting the sovereignty of the region and checking the membership of the RA.

It includes a 3 day limit. If the Vice Delegate does not expressly approve of an application within that time it will be automatically considered approved. 3 days is a reasonable time frame for the Vice Delegate to respond and not too long to hinder the administrative process of the RA.

The Regional Assembly would have an automatic vote on a blocked application. A majority vote would be required for the Vice Delegates block to be upheld, if it fails, the Speaker would admit the member into the ranks of the Regional Assembly. This proposal deals with some concerns that members have (at least from what I understand from cabinet members, although I have not been approached directly other than in this thread) about the Delegates role in the process.

Ultimately however, it is still largely a political decision. And is not likely to satisfy everyone's concerns. Please indicate what you think about this proposal:

Membership Administration Amendment Bill

1. Section 6.1 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

Section 6.1: Regional Assembly Membership Act
2. Any person with an account on the regional forum and a nation in The North Pacific may apply for Regional Assembly membership, using their regional forum account, by providing the name of their nation in The North Pacific, and swearing an oath as follows:

I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of [INSERT YOUR TNP NATION], pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for membership in the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific.

Click to expand...

3. A copy of the laws applicants are pledging to obey must be available to them at all times.
4. An application for Regional Assembly membership ceases to be valid if at any time the applicant's declared nation in The North Pacific nation is not located in The North Pacific.
5. All applications will be subject to evaluation by the forum administration. Applications may be subject to evaluation by the Vice Delegate within three days of their submission.
6. The Speaker will reject applicants who are verified by the forum administration not to be using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty.
7. The Speaker will reject applicants whom the Vice Delegate determines pose a threat to regional security, at which time the Regional Assembly will immediately vote on a motion to confirm the rejection.
8. The Speaker will accept all other applicants with valid applications.
9. The Speaker will process applications within 14 days. If the applicant is not rejected within 14 days, they will be automatically accepted to the Regional Assembly.
10. Regional Assembly members may not vote in any vote which began before they were last admitted.
11. The Speaker will maintain a publicly viewable roster of Regional Assembly members.
12. The Speaker will promptly remove any Regional Assembly members whose removal is ordered by the Court, or whose nation in The North Pacific leaves or ceases to exist.
13. The Speaker's office will promptly remove any Regional Assembly members who fail to log in to the North Pacific forum for over 30 consecutive days; or who have not voted for 20 consecutive days and have missed four consecutive Regional Assembly votes to enact, amend or repeal laws, as determined by the time they closed.
14. Regional Assembly members that have submitted a notice of absence, in accordance with any regulations set by the Speaker, shall be exempt from the provisions of the above clause for the stated duration of their absence.

Click to expand...

2. Clauses 13 to 34 of Chapter 6 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific are renumbered 15 to 36 respectively.

Click to expand...

Any practice that blocks RA members prior to being convicted of a crime is a practice I cannot support. The changes make the RA override vote automatic (a plus) and immediate (another plus), but I have extreme reservations around this practice as a whole. I hope my fellow RA members do too and I look forward to voting on this matter.

Having discussed this bill in cabinet this morning, I can confirm the latest draft has my continued support.

This looks a lot better, in my opinion, and is something I would support when it goes to vote. For those who are worried about abuse, note that this only permits applications to be blocked for security reasons, which eases my mind considerably. Plus, this gets the blocking of applications out of the hands of the delegate (who already has a large portfolio) and into the hands of the vice delegate (who really ought to have more to do anyway).

I will quibble with the wording here in clause 5:

5. All applications will be subject to evaluation by the forum administration. Applications will be subject to evaluation by the Vice Delegate within three days of their submission.

Click to expand...

With it worded this way, if a Vice Delegate failed to evaluate an application within three days, he would be breaking the law. Also, there's no clear path laid out on how to proceed if he doesn't, i.e. nothing saying that the application can still be accepted. I would make the following change:

5. All applications will be subject to evaluation by the forum administration. Applications will may be subject to evaluation by the Vice Delegate within three days of their submission.

Click to expand...

That way, it's clear that if an application *isn't* evaluated by the Vice Delegate within three days, it is still a valid application and can be accepted by the Speaker. It also shields the Vice Delegate somewhat from being prosecuted for inactivity.

"security reasons" is still a very vague area and open to wide interpretation, and some of these "security reasons" would still arguably be political reasons. A reasonable Vice Delegate would explain to the Regional Assembly why the block has occurred, and without such a reasonable explanation it is our view that the RA would not simply support the block.

Our thoughts on the three day rule (or what we were intending to say), was that the Vice Delegate could deny an application within that time frame (Rather than leaving it up to 14 days and slowing down the process), so if after 3 days the Vice Delegate has not blocked it, the Speaker could consider the application to be automatically approved by the Vice Delegate. Though there has been some disagreement on the wording for that clause.

I'd like to point out, this draft has some of the same issues as the first one - it fails to incorporate the recent amendments to the legal code, and if passed as-is, would revert them.

Might I suggest a presentation which is more explicit about which clauses, specifically, are to be amended or renumbered?

SillyString is right - clause 13 of this draft (clause 11 of the current legal code) should read as follows:

13. The Speaker's office will promptly remove any Regional Assembly members who fail to log in to the North Pacific forum for over 30 consecutive days; or who have not voted for 20 consecutive days and have missed four consecutive Regional Assembly votes to enact, amend or repeal laws, as determined by the time they closed.

Click to expand...

Updated.

I move this to a vote!

mcmasterdonia:

I move this to a vote!

Click to expand...

Yes! This!

I support this legislation as amended.

Um... couple issues, and suggested tweaks.

5. All applications will be subject to evaluation by the forum administration. Applications will be subject to evaluation by the Vice Delegate within three days of their submission.

Click to expand...

The non-symmetry here bugs me. Maybe, "Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants and verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty. The Vice Delegate will have 3 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants and verify that they do not pose a threat to regional security."

6. The Speaker will reject applicants who are verified by the forum administration not to be using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty.

Click to expand...

Um. I believe the meaning of this clause is backwards. Working off the suggestions for 5, and maintaining symmetry, how about, "The Speaker will reject applicants who fail an evaluation by either forum administration or the Vice Delegate."

7. The Speaker will reject applicants whom the Vice Delegate determines pose a threat to regional security, at which time the Regional Assembly will immediately vote on a motion to confirm the rejection.

Click to expand...

And again based on 6, shorten to "If an applicant is rejected for failing an evaluation by the Vice Delegate, the Regional Assembly will immediately hold a majority vote on whether to uphold the rejection." Or something like that - the number needed got lost somewhere.

8. The Speaker will accept all other applicants with valid applications.

Click to expand...

Works for me.

9. The Speaker will process applications within 14 days. If the applicant is not rejected within 14 days, they will be automatically accepted to the Regional Assembly.

Click to expand...

Minor tweaks: "The Speaker will process applications within 14 days. If an applicant has not been accepted or rejected within that time, they will be automatically accepted to the Regional Assembly."

This proposal is now in formal debate. Formal debate will close on August 31.

Silly's changes have been edited into the OP.