Officials Amendment Bill

r3naissanc3r

r3naissanc3r

TNPer
-
-
Officials Amendment Bill

1. Article 3, Clause 5 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

5. The Delegate may appoint executive officers to assist them and may dismiss these officers freely. Executive officers may be regulated by law.
Click to expand...

2. Article 6 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

Article 6. The Security Council

1. Any person who meets any endorsement and influence requirements determined by law may apply to become a member of the Security Council.
2. The Security Council may approve applicants by a majority vote. The Regional Assembly may admit an approved applicant by a majority vote. If the Security Council does not approve an applicant or does not act on them within thirty days, the Regional Assembly may admit the applicant by a two-thirds majority vote.
3. The Regional Assembly may remove a member of the Security Council by a two-thirds majority vote.
4. The Security Council will monitor the region’s security and report on it to the public, and enforce decisions of the Regional Assembly to remove the Delegate.
5. The Regional Assembly may establish a line of succession beyond the Vice Delegate among the members of the Security Council by a majority vote. If a new member is admitted to the Security Council, they will be added at the end of the current line of succession. If a member is removed from the Security Council, they will be removed from the line of succession.
Click to expand...

3. Article 7 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

Article 7. General Provisions

1. Constitutionally-mandated elected officials are the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, Justices, and Attorney General.
2. Government officials are the constitutionally-mandated elected officials, and any officials appointed by them as permitted by law.
3. The executive category consists of the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Attorney General, and government officials appointed by government officials in the executive category.
4. The legislative category consists of the Speaker, and government officials appointed by government officials in the legislative category.
5. The judicial category consists of the Justices, and government officials appointed by government officials in the judicial category .
6. All government officials must maintain membership in the Regional Assembly while in office.
7. All government officials will swear an oath of office. The content of these oaths will be determined by law and be legally binding.
8. No person may simultaneously serve in more than one constitutionally-mandated elected official positions.
9. No person may simultaneously serve in government official positions in more than one of the executive, legislative, or judicial categories.
10. Government bodies may create rules for their own governance subordinate to this constitution and the laws.
11. Procedures to fill vacancies in constitutionally-mandated elected offices may be established by law.
12. No law or government policy may contradict this constitution.
Click to expand...

4. Chapter 5, Section 5.2, Clause 9 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

9. Any person with an account on the regional forum and a nation in The North Pacific satisfying the influence requirement and endorsement count requirement may apply to join the Security Council.
Click to expand...

5. Clause 23 of Chapter 6, Section 6.3 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby repealed.

6. Clause 24 of Chapter 6, Section 6.3 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,
23. The Regional Assembly may elect an Executive Officer should one of the roles defined by this act remain vacant for seven days.
Click to expand...

7. Clauses 25 - 41 of Chapter 6 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific are hereby renumbered 24 - 40 respectively.

8. No part of this bill shall take effect unless all parts take effect.
Click to expand...
----------------------------------------------------------
I use BBcode below to highlight the changes the bill makes, and include some inline commentary:
5. The Delegate may appoint executive officers to assist them and may dismiss these officers freely. Executive officers may be regulated by law.
Click to expand...
This is purely a stylistic change, amending "offices" to "officers" for consistency with the rest of this clause, as well as other delegation clauses in the Constitution.

Article 6. The Security Council

1. Any person who is a member of the Regional Assembly and meets any endorsement and influence requirements determined by law may apply to become a member of the Security Council.
2. The Regional Assembly may exempt a person from Regional Assembly membership or any requirements by a two-thirds majority vote, and may terminate an exemption by a two-thirds majority vote.
3 2. The Security Council may approve applicants by a majority vote. The Regional Assembly may admit an approved applicant by a majority vote. If the Security Council does not approve an applicant or does not act on them within thirty days, the Regional Assembly may admit the applicant by a two-thirds majority vote.
3. The Regional Assembly may remove a member of the Security Council by a two-thirds majority vote.
4. The Security Council will monitor the region’s security and report on it to the public, and enforce decisions of the Regional Assembly to remove the Delegate.
5. The Regional Assembly may establish a line of succession beyond the Vice Delegate among the members of the Security Council by a majority vote. If a new member is admitted to the Security Council, they will be added at the end of the current line of succession. If a member is removed from the Security Council, they will be removed from the line of succession.
Click to expand...
This change removes the requirement that applicants to the SC be RA members, and therefore also removes the provision for granting RA exceptions. It also adds the ability for the RA to remove SC members by a 2/3rds' majority vote, same as currently with recalls. The reason for this addition is that, as explained below, this bill has the effect of making SC members not be government officials.


Article 7. General Provisions

1. Constitutionally-mandated elected officials are the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, Justices, and Attorney General.
2. Government officials are the constitutionally-mandated elected officials, and any officials appointed by them as permitted by law.
3. The executive category consists of the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Attorney General, and government officials appointed by government officials in the executive category.
4. The legislative category consists of the Speaker, and government officials appointed by government officials in the legislative category.
5. The judicial category consists of the Justices, and government officials appointed by government officials in the judicial category .
1 6. All government officials must maintain membership in the Regional Assembly while in office. Candidates in any election must maintain membership in the Regional Assembly for the fifteen days before the opening of nominations and for the duration of the corresponding election period.
2 7. All government officials will swear an oath of office. The content of these oaths will be determined by law and be legally binding.
3 8. No person may simultaneously hold more than one elected office or simultaneously hold offices in more than one judicial, legislative or executive category. No person may simultaneously serve in more than one constitutionally-mandated elected official positions.
9. No person may simultaneously serve in government official positions in more than one of the executive, legislative, or judicial categories.
4 104. Government bodies may create rules for their own governance subordinate to this constitution and the laws.
5 115. No law or government policy may contradict this constitution.
6 126. Procedures to fill vacancies in elected offices may be established by law.
Click to expand...
This amendment has four effects. First, it defines who exactly is an official. Second, it specifies which of those officials count as "elected". Third, it defines which offices exactly fall into which of the three categories of government. These three definitions are then used for the other purposes of this section, such as oath taking, office incompatibilities, etc. Fourth, this section makes SC members no longer be government officials.

9. Any Regional Assembly member person with an account on the regional forum and a nation in The North Pacific satisfying the influence requirement and endorsement count requirement may apply to join the Security Council.
Click to expand...
This is related to the previous change to the SC, no longer requiring RA membership for SC.

23. An Executive Officer may sustain multiple roles defined by this Act.
24. The Regional Assembly may elect an Executive Officer should one of the roles defined by this act remain vacant for seven days or in connection with the Regional Assembly removing the Executive Officer charged with that role.
Click to expand...
The first clause is redundant, under both the current Constitution and its amended form should this bill pass. The second clause in its current form appears to allow the RA to make their own appointments to mandated executive officer positions after a recall for one of these offices is successful; this is now removed.
----------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of this bill is twofold. First, it provides explicit definitions for what constitutes an official, an elected official, and an official in the executive, legislature, and judiciary. The second change is that it makes the Security Council no longer be officials of the government, and removes the requirements that SC members be members of the RA.

The reason for the first change is that there are several clauses in the constitution and the legal code that make mentions to "officials", and use the term to enforce various regulations. We have in the past repeatedly run into issues over who is an official for the purposes of one provision, or who counts as "elected" for the purposes of another, or whether someone is in one branch or another. We have also had at least two court decisions on this issue, both of them creating considerable commentary over their effects and unresolved ambiguities. I believe this amendment addresses these issues by providing explicit definitions for all these terms.

One of the reasons for the second change became apparent recently with the removal of Eluvatar from the Security Council, though the issue was known to several members before that incident. Currently Security Council members, by virtue of being government officials, are required to be in the RA. Even if they are granted an RA-membership exception under the corresponding constitutional clause, it is questionable whether this exception applies beyond their SC application to their actual membership of that body.

SC members are meant to be members with nations well-established in the region in terms of both influence and endorsements. A large part of their role as SC members is parking that nation of theirs in the region, making the region more secure by doing so. I do not see why we should require that SC members also contribute to the RA, and consequently force them to meet the RA activity requirements. Given that their inactivity in and/or removal from the RA has no effect on the status of their nation in the region, it seems to me that by requiring SC members to be in the RA we are only hurting the security of the region. By making SC members no longer be government officials, we are resolving this issue.
 
Sectioin 4.1 of the Legal Code should also be amended. Its current use of the phrase "government officials" as to who has to post an oath of office muddies what the law originally intended, i.e., all offices and positions whatsoever.
A reversion of the language to include "positions" would then continue the practice of having SC members post an oath of office as the last step of becoming a member of the SC, and reinforce that anyone holding any office or position has to post an oath of office including temporary appointments.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Sectioin 4.1 of the Legal Code should also be amended. Its current use of the phrase "government officials" as to who has to post an oath of office muddies what the law originally intended, i.e., all offices and positions whatsoever.
A reversion of the language to include "positions" would then continue the practice of having SC members post an oath of office as the last step of becoming a member of the SC, and reinforce that anyone holding any office or position has to post an oath of office including temporary appointments.
Click to expand...
The law defines an oath for RA member and an oath for government officials. I take your point that SC shouldn't be left out, but there are other positions that require oaths that are not mentioned:

Army oath
Election Commission oath
Security Council oath

So I'm basically saying all oath takers either need to be classed as government officials, as this proposal is doing, or have other wording that mandates their oaths too.

I think r3n has put together an excellent proposal, but would like to see these roles taken into consideration too. After all, even a diplomat is appointed by an executive officer, yet they don't take an oath.
 
Chasmanthe:
Grosseschnauzer:
Sectioin 4.1 of the Legal Code should also be amended. Its current use of the phrase "government officials" as to who has to post an oath of office muddies what the law originally intended, i.e., all offices and positions whatsoever.
A reversion of the language to include "positions" would then continue the practice of having SC members post an oath of office as the last step of becoming a member of the SC, and reinforce that anyone holding any office or position has to post an oath of office including temporary appointments.
Click to expand...
The law defines an oath for RA member and an oath for government officials. I take your point that SC shouldn't be left out, but there are other positions that require oaths that are not mentioned:

Army oath
Election Commission oath
Security Council oath

So I'm basically saying all oath takers either need to be classed as government officials, as this proposal is doing, or have other wording that mandates their oaths too.

I think r3n has put together an excellent proposal, but would like to see these roles taken into consideration too. After all, even a diplomat is appointed by an executive officer, yet they don't take an oath.
Click to expand...
I believe my earlier post directly suggest a way to address it by changing the phrase "government officials" to something that is broader such as adding "and positions" which gets us past the definitional issues. Under the earlier legal code,"offices and positions covered everything and section 4.1 needs a similar wording to resolve the limitation problem.
 
Sanctaria made the suggestion of including SC members in the list of officials, and just explicitly excluding them from RA membership. Combined with the explicit definitions that are being added for "elected officials" and the branches of government, I think this should work better. It would also address Grosse's concerns, as SC members will then still be required to take the officials' oath.

Please see the amended draft below.

Officials Amendment Bill

1. Article 3, Clause 5 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

5. The Delegate may appoint executive officers to assist them and may dismiss these officers freely. Executive officers may be regulated by law.
Click to expand...

2. Article 6 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

Article 6. The Security Council

1. Any person who meets any endorsement and influence requirements determined by law may apply to become a member of the Security Council.
2. The Security Council may approve applicants by a majority vote. The Regional Assembly may admit an approved applicant by a majority vote. If the Security Council does not approve an applicant or does not act on them within thirty days, the Regional Assembly may admit the applicant by a two-thirds majority vote.
3. The Regional Assembly may remove a member of the Security Council by a two-thirds majority vote.
3. The Security Council will monitor the region’s security and report on it to the public, and enforce decisions of the Regional Assembly to remove the Delegate.
4. The Regional Assembly may establish a line of succession beyond the Vice Delegate among the members of the Security Council by a majority vote. If a new member is admitted to the Security Council, they will be added at the end of the current line of succession. If a member is removed from the Security Council, they will be removed from the line of succession.
Click to expand...

3. Article 7 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

Article 7. General Provisions

1. Constitutionally-mandated elected officials are the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, Justices, and Attorney General.
2. Government officials are the constitutionally-mandated elected officials, any officials appointed by them as permitted by law, and members of the Security Council.
3. The executive category consists of the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Attorney General, and government officials appointed by government officials in the executive category.
4. The legislative category consists of the Speaker, and government officials appointed by government officials in the legislative category.
5. The judicial category consists of the Justices, and government officials appointed by government officials in the judicial category .
6. All government officials, with the exception of members of the Security Council, must maintain membership in the Regional Assembly while in office.
7. All government officials will swear an oath of office. The content of these oaths will be determined by law and be legally binding.
8. No person may simultaneously serve in more than one constitutionally-mandated elected official positions.
9. No person may simultaneously serve in government official positions in more than one of the executive, legislative, or judicial categories.
10. Government bodies may create rules for their own governance subordinate to this constitution and the laws.
11. Procedures to fill vacancies in constitutionally-mandated elected offices may be established by law.
12. No law or government policy may contradict this constitution.
Click to expand...

4. Chapter 5, Section 5.2, Clause 9 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

9. Any person with an account on the regional forum and a nation in The North Pacific satisfying the influence requirement and endorsement count requirement may apply to join the Security Council.
Click to expand...

5. Clause 23 of Chapter 6, Section 6.3 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby repealed.

6. Clause 24 of Chapter 6, Section 6.3 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,
23. The Regional Assembly may elect an Executive Officer should one of the roles defined by this act remain vacant for seven days.
Click to expand...

7. Clauses 25 - 41 of Chapter 6 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific are hereby renumbered 24 - 40 respectively.

8. No part of this bill shall take effect unless all parts take effect.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for working on this, r3n. I noticed that the Attorney General is now lumped in with the executive branch instead of the judicial branch - I consider this a welcome change.
 
This is fine, except that an Election Commissioner is therefore technically sometimes a government official of the executive category, and sometimes a government official of the judicial category.

I suppose that can always be fixed later when we figure out for sure (a) are they government officials and (b) what category are they in, if any?
 
Chasmanthe:
This is fine, except that an Election Commissioner is therefore technically sometimes a government official of the executive category, and sometimes a government official of the judicial category.

I suppose that can always be fixed later when we figure out for sure (a) are they government officials and (b) what category are they in, if any?
Click to expand...
Under the terms of this bill, they would certainly be government officials, sometimes executive and sometimes judicial. Honestly, I'm ok with that as it stands.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Under the terms of this bill, they would certainly be government officials, sometimes executive and sometimes judicial. Honestly, I'm ok with that as it stands.
Click to expand...
If you're fine with it, COE, then I'm fine with it. :)
 
I get why we're making it clear that Security Council members aren't absolutely required to have RA membership, but I'm not entirely sure why we're giving them a blanket exemption from RA membership. It seems to have been important to The North Pacific in the past for officials as a general rule to be RA members, with the RA granting specific exemptions on a case by case basis for the Security Council. I think that should be retained. Otherwise we're legislating blanket permission for Security Council members to not be at all involved in the community but to be responsible for in-game security of the region and I think that's problematic.

I'm fine with the exemptions but I think as a general rule Security Council members should be RA members, and we should continue allowing the RA to make exemptions on a case by case basis.
 
It's not exactly a blanket exemption allowing them all to not be involved in the community. Remember that every applicant will still need to be approved by the while Regional Assembly, and that they may be recalled at any time.

Look at the position Elu is currently in: first, he needs an exemption from the RA, then he needs to be approved by the SC, and then goes BACK to the RA to actually be admitted. Presumably, anyone who would be granted an exemption would be approved - there's no need for two votes. If you think SC members should generally be RA members, then you would generally not vote to admit applicants who weren't RA members under this legislation. Functionally, the RA can impose any kind of requirements on SC applicants that it collectively wishes, simply by denying applicants who don't pass muster.
 
And the Security Council. I mean, the guys aren't going to just let any randomer join.
 
That's true, but my concern is that often RA membership won't even come up once we've removed it as a legal requirement. Instead we'll end up with people thinking, "I like Eluvatar. Eluvatar is good. Aye." Voting on an RA exemption by necessity requires us to think about that person not having RA membership and whether or not we find that acceptable.

I could be in favor of streamlining the process by allowing the vote for an RA exemption and the vote for approval to be incorporated into the same vote as GBM tried to do in Eluvatar's case, but I don't think we should just remove the general RA membership requirement. I think it's going to set a precedent that erodes the importance of RA membership and that might start with the Security Council but it might not stop there.
 
That's a slippery slope argument. Removing RA membership requirements from SC applications does not make it any more likely that RA membership requirements will be removed from anything else.

Each Security Council member is considered individually by the RA. I don't think it's very likely that we'll admit someone who isn't deserving of it, RA-member or not.
 
Yeah, I'm ok with removing the RA requirement for SC members - it'd take some pretty sweeping changes for that to get extended further, because not being in the RA means you don't get to do things like vote.
 
Even if it's not extended further, I feel that once RA membership is no longer required as a general rule for Security Council members it will no longer be a consideration for the RA when voting on Security Council nominees. I too would like to think that people will continue to consider it but it's been my observation during my time in NationStates that many people don't put a great deal of thought into voting in general -- whether it's WA voting, election voting, or often legislative voting. I think RA members would be much more likely to put thought into a nominee's RA membership if the question before them directly involves the nominee's RA membership.

I also don't think Security Council members should be treated as exceptionally as this amendment is treating them. The general standard in TNP is that officials will also be RA members. I can see good reason to make exceptions in specific individual cases, but I don't see any good reason to set the Security Council apart as somehow different from other officials or to require less of them. We are legally sanctioning them to have high endorsements and high influence and granting them the respectability of an office to enable them to have these in-game benefits that put them very close to the Delegacy; we can and should expect an active community commitment from them in return for that just as we expect it from our other officials, with exceptions only being made here or there.

I think RA membership should always be a consideration in every vote on Security Council membership and I don't think the Security Council should be treated as somehow exceptional, so I'm opposed to this amendment in its present form.
 
Cormac. from the time we first started developing the framework for a Security Council, (and it was originally Tresville's idea during the tail end of his presence in TNP and the game), it has always been intended to allow those long-serving residents of TNP to play a role in its function to enhance the security of the region, and to recognize that those long-time residents might not wish to be part of the Regional Assembly. The trick has been to figure out a way to do this.

When the changes were made a couple of years ago to increase the involvement of the R.A. in the S.C. admission process, it was recognized that there would still be the need to exempt those long-timers who wanted to serve on the S.C., but who did not wish to engage in the day-to-day minutiae of the R.A.

What's different now is that some of us on the S.C. who have been long serving members of TNP want to step away from that day-to-day stuff. This is particularly the case for some of us who are former Delegates, and who are admins here, as these are factors that can distract from heavy involvement with the R.A.

Eluvatar isn't the only one who wants to step away from the R.A.; I have already said that I wish to do the same as well once we've finished any legal changes that are needed to address the changes in the influence requirements for the S.C. due to the in-game changes that have just taken place.

So I would ask that some of those who might have an issue with exemptions to put themselves in our shoes, and consider more carefully the substantial work and contributions the members of the S.C. have made to the region.
 
Chasmanthe:
This is fine, except that an Election Commissioner is therefore technically sometimes a government official of the executive category, and sometimes a government official of the judicial category.

I suppose that can always be fixed later when we figure out for sure (a) are they government officials and (b) what category are they in, if any?
Click to expand...
No, it is supposed to change. The reason is that it doesn't matter what category the ECs are in, and I'd rather keep the language simple.

Cormac, there is a fundamental difference between the Security Council and other government offices. Membership in the SC is related primarily to an in-game function of those members: park your nation in TNP and have high endorsements and influence. Contributions to the community are not necessary for an SC member to be doing their job well. This characteristic is unique to SC members. For this reason, it is very unlikely that this amendment will be used as precedent to extend the RA membership exception to any other office.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
So I would ask that some of those who might have an issue with exemptions to put themselves in our shoes, and consider more carefully the substantial work and contributions the members of the S.C. have made to the region.
Click to expand...
Grosse, I do understand what you're saying and I sympathize. I do think that the RA can and should grant exemptions on a case by case basis, and I would be in favor of granting one to both you and Eluvatar given your long history of dedication to The North Pacific. I would be less inclined, however, to grant an exemption to Security Council members who have a shorter record of service and dedication. This amendment in its current form grants a blanket exemption to the Security Council and allows any current member to detach themselves from the community as much as they want without any input from the RA, and that is what I oppose.

r3naissanc3r:
Cormac, there is a fundamental difference between the Security Council and other government offices. Membership in the SC is related primarily to an in-game function of those members: park your nation in TNP and have high endorsements and influence. Contributions to the community are not necessary for an SC member to be doing their job well. This characteristic is unique to SC members. For this reason, it is very unlikely that this amendment will be used as precedent to extend the RA membership exception to any other office.
Click to expand...
I don't entirely agree with this assessment. The responsibility of the Security Council is not merely to park and keep high endos, it's to assist in the security of The North Pacific. This may at some point require a Security Council member to take the Delegacy. When he or she does, do we really want someone who is completely detached from the community and who has no remaining investment in the community in the Delegacy? Isn't that person far more likely to coup than a Security Council member who still has roots in the community and friends who are part of it?

I do think, as said above, there are times when exemptions are appropriate -- Grosse and Eluvatar, to cite them as an example again, have such a long history of service and dedication that they've demonstrated a permanent investment in TNP's community. But I think a blanket exemption allows others who have not demonstrated a similarly permanent investment to detach themselves from the community and I think by allowing blanket detachment from the community on the part of the Security Council, we're increasing the risk of a coup perpetrated by one of its members in the future.
 
I don't find that terribly likely. The RA will be able to recall members of the SC, and it can set the order of succession. I find it highly unlikely that the person up for the delegacy in the order of succession would ever be allowed to be someone with no ties to the community.
 
SillyString:
I don't find that terribly likely. The RA will be able to recall members of the SC, and it can set the order of succession. I find it highly unlikely that the person up for the delegacy in the order of succession would ever be allowed to be someone with no ties to the community.
Click to expand...
It's not just the order of succession that's the problem. Security Council membership sanctions all Security Council members to be in a position to coup should they choose to do so, regardless of the order of succession, and without anyone being overly -- or perhaps at all -- suspicious when they achieve a high endo count.

Note: I'm not saying any current Security Council members would coup. But I am saying that our legislation needs to address not only current circumstances but potential future circumstances, and I don't think this path of allowing Security Council members to be detached from the community is a path we want to follow.
 
And having to be in the RA will do absolutely nothing to mitigate that potentiality. Literally nothing at all. It'll do just about exactly as much as requiring all SC members to have a pink avatar.

Edit: Or, more seriously, to disclose their WA nation. It sounds like it ought to matter, but it doesn't matter the slightest bit.
 
It at least requires them to get on the forum and actually have a look around. A blanket exemption will literally allow Security Council members to completely detach themselves from the community and any responsibility to it whatsoever, and allowing them that much in-game power coupled with detachment from the community is a recipe for security risks.

I do agree with you that RA membership isn't sufficient and won't do much. But at least it's something, and at this point with influence decay and the increased power of the Delegacy that comes with it, the Regional Assembly should be looking at tightening security -- not loosening restrictions. With influence decay, if we end up with a rogue Delegate we're in a much more serious predicament than we were before influence decay and the most likely candidates for rogue Delegates other than elected Delegates and Vice Delegates are members of the Security Council. We should be tightening rather than loosening restrictions on Security Council membership.
 
Given that they'll still have to go through a vote of the SC and of the RA, and given the weakness of the RA requirement in the first place, this does not constitute loosening restrictions.

And I don't agree with you that restrictions need to be tightened because of influence changes. For TNP to respond by de-democratizing and becoming more repressive would be quite unfortunate.
 
Cormac Stark:
I don't entirely agree with this assessment. The responsibility of the Security Council is not merely to park and keep high endos, it's to assist in the security of The North Pacific. This may at some point require a Security Council member to take the Delegacy. When he or she does, do we really want someone who is completely detached from the community and who has no remaining investment in the community in the Delegacy? Isn't that person far more likely to coup than a Security Council member who still has roots in the community and friends who are part of it?

I do think, as said above, there are times when exemptions are appropriate -- Grosse and Eluvatar, to cite them as an example again, have such a long history of service and dedication that they've demonstrated a permanent investment in TNP's community. But I think a blanket exemption allows others who have not demonstrated a similarly permanent investment to detach themselves from the community and I think by allowing blanket detachment from the community on the part of the Security Council, we're increasing the risk of a coup perpetrated by one of its members in the future.
Click to expand...
You are confusing the means by which SC members do their job with the reasons they may have to do so.

Parking and gathering endorsements and influence is the primary way, and the only one for many SC members, by which they assist in the security of TNP; the means. And as I said in my previous post, using these means does not require involvement in the community, as they are in-game functions. To the contrary, the main means for the execution of all of our other offices are actions taken offsite and in direct interaction with the forum community. This is a salient distinction.

Why SC members choose to assist in security instead of using their nations to coup the region is a different issue. It may be because they are dedicated to the forum community; it may be because it grants them political influence or furthers their political interests; or it may be because they are dedicated to the in-game region itself, independently of the forum community. Given the nature of the means by which SC members contribute, the reasons for which they do so are a lot more likely to be of a nature unrelated to the regional politics, or disconnected from activity in the forum community. Because of this, removing the RA requirement for SC members grants us valuable flexibility, efficiency, resources and scope. Removing the RA requirement for other offices would not offer us any of these, which is why this is a sensible move for SC members but not so much for other offices.

You argue that these gains come at increased risk that SC members may abuse their status. I disagree. Under the proposed amendment, we will continue to assess the reasons why they apply to join the SC and their continued commitment to these reasons in the very same way as we do currently. It is worth noting that the procedure we use for admitting members to the SC is uncharacteristically stringent, requiring dual approval by the SC and the RA; and this is for good reason given the nature of the office. Given this procedure, the RA membership requirement contributes very little to this assessment. In the past, when all you needed to do to get RA membership was to apply, it arguably contributed nothing. Nowadays, it adds a security check by the VD in the list of criteria; however it is incredibly unlikely that SC applicants under the new system will not be subjected to the same security check, even if not strictly required by law. Similar arguments can be made for the procedure for removing members from the Security Council, which is the same as the one for removing any other officer.
 
I am also moving for a vote on this bill.

Seeing that, besides Grosse's original posts, there have been no comments specifically on the text of the proposal, I plan to end formal debate tomorrow morning (EDT). I am allowing for a few hours in case there are any last minute corrections.
 
Point of order: doesn't Formal Debate begin after the proposal receives a second?

I like the changes. I think it could be improved by making it specific that SC membership does not preclude holding an additional office in one of the three branches.
 
That's already the case under this amendment, see the amended Article 7. The only restrictions of that kind are between the "constitutionally-mandated elected offices", and offices in the executive, legislative, and judiciary. The three branches are defined explicitly to not include the SC.

I am ending formal debate then. Below is the final draft.

Officials Amendment Bill

1. Article 3, Clause 5 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

5. The Delegate may appoint executive officers to assist them and may dismiss these officers freely. Executive officers may be regulated by law.
Click to expand...

2. Article 6 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

Article 6. The Security Council

1. Any person who meets any endorsement and influence requirements determined by law may apply to become a member of the Security Council.
2. The Security Council may approve applicants by a majority vote. The Regional Assembly may admit an approved applicant by a majority vote. If the Security Council does not approve an applicant or does not act on them within thirty days, the Regional Assembly may admit the applicant by a two-thirds majority vote.
3. The Security Council will monitor the region’s security and report on it to the public, and enforce decisions of the Regional Assembly to remove the Delegate.
4. The Regional Assembly may establish a line of succession beyond the Vice Delegate among the members of the Security Council by a majority vote. If a new member is admitted to the Security Council, they will be added at the end of the current line of succession. If a member is removed from the Security Council, they will be removed from the line of succession.
Click to expand...

3. Article 7 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

Article 7. General Provisions

1. Constitutionally-mandated elected officials are the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, Justices, and Attorney General.
2. Government officials are the constitutionally-mandated elected officials, any officials appointed by them as permitted by law, and members of the Security Council.
3. The executive category consists of the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Attorney General, and government officials appointed by government officials in the executive category.
4. The legislative category consists of the Speaker, and government officials appointed by government officials in the legislative category.
5. The judicial category consists of the Justices, and government officials appointed by government officials in the judicial category .
6. All government officials, with the exception of members of the Security Council, must maintain membership in the Regional Assembly while in office.
7. All government officials will swear an oath of office. The content of these oaths will be determined by law and be legally binding.
8. No person may simultaneously serve in more than one constitutionally-mandated elected official positions.
9. No person may simultaneously serve in government official positions in more than one of the executive, legislative, or judicial categories.
10. Government bodies may create rules for their own governance subordinate to this constitution and the laws.
11. Procedures to fill vacancies in constitutionally-mandated elected offices may be established by law.
12. No law or government policy may contradict this constitution.
Click to expand...

4. Chapter 5, Section 5.2, Clause 9 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

9. Any person with an account on the regional forum and a nation in The North Pacific satisfying the influence requirement and endorsement count requirement may apply to join the Security Council.
Click to expand...

5. Clause 23 of Chapter 6, Section 6.3 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby repealed.

6. Clause 24 of Chapter 6, Section 6.3 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,
23. The Regional Assembly may elect an Executive Officer should one of the roles defined by this act remain vacant for seven days.
Click to expand...

7. Clauses 25 - 41 of Chapter 6 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific are hereby renumbered 24 - 40 respectively.

8. No part of this bill shall take effect unless all parts take effect.
Click to expand...
 
GBM, procedures were amended a while back such that only the author of a bill may move it to Formal Debate, and no second is required following the closure of Formal Debate to bring the bill to a vote.

As r3n has ended Formal Debate, I schedule a vote on this to begin on the 27th.
 
When did Formal Debate begin? Who seconded it before it moved into formal debate? Is there some other thread all this happened in?
 
SillyString:
As r3n has ended Formal Debate, I schedule a vote on this to begin on the 27th.
Click to expand...
Pursuant to Section 1.3 of the Rules of the Regional Assembly, I formally object to the scheduling of this vote.
 
Great Bights Mum:
Point of order: doesn't Formal Debate begin after the proposal receives a second?
Click to expand...
Formal debate begins when the author of a legislative proposal moves for a vote. It lasts five days by default, but may be shortened at the request of the author of the proposal - but the author may not end formal debate themselves, merely request its end. It appears that SillyString wasn't quite clear on that obscure bit of procedure.

As such, I am removing this vote from the schedule. I recognize a request from r3n to end formal debate, but I think 11 hours is a bit too short a time to debate a proposal of this significance. Instead, I will allow formal debate to end at (time=1382842800), roughly 2 days after formal debate began. At that time, I will reschedule the vote. This is shorter than I would usually allow on a proposal without extensive debate preceding a motion to vote, but given pressing events that this legislation with resolve, I recognize the timeliness of this proposal, and the need for it to proceed to vote in an expedited manner.

Cormac's objection is not recognized, as the vote is no longer scheduled.
 
Great Bights Mum:
Who seconded it before it moved into formal debate?
Click to expand...

A bill never required a second to enter Formal Debate. It only needed to be seconded in the two days following FD's close.
 
Here's a possible compromise on SC ra-membership. Simply require non-RA applicants to pass 2/3 majority vote instead of a simple majority. That approximates the system we have now (where we grant exemptions by a 2/3 majority vote) without the hassle of an extra vote.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Here's a possible compromise on SC ra-membership. Simply require non-RA applicants to pass 2/3 majority vote instead of a simple majority. That approximates the system we have now (where we grant exemptions by a 2/3 majority vote) without the hassle of an extra vote.
Click to expand...
I would be satisfied with this compromise, though we also need to ensure that Security Council members once on the Security Council can't just arbitrarily drop RA membership on a whim. Otherwise we could have people retaining RA membership long enough to get a simple majority vote onto the Security Council and then dropping RA membership.
 
If they're active in the region, does it matter if they're making legislature? There's more to do in TNP then bicker with people that you'll eventually come to hate.
 
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for extending the debate. This is a significant amendment and deserves to have a full discussion. I felt it was being rushed to a vote because of Elu's situation.

Looking at the voting for Elu's exemption, it seem in the current climate exemptions are frowned upon. I am concerned because the RA might not want to pass an amendment that eliminates the very requirement from which they are reluctant to exempt someone.

Hopefully, such things will be taken into account by future RA members when they are called upon to approve an applicant. It's similar to when we removed the "trusted nation" language. It is the most important criteria, but it is now assumed rather than explicit.

As far the branches of government go, it seems odd that SC members are government officials but belong to no branch of government. I have always thought of the SC as primarily a military body, whose member nations are cultivated to defend the region. It should be in the same category as the NPA.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Formal debate closed ~12 hours ago, and a vote on this matter is scheduled for 2013-10-28.
Click to expand...
Given that no compromise has been reached on the exemption issue and given the current strong opposition to Eluvatar's exemption, I once again formally object to the scheduling of this vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top