[suggestion/discussion] change to rules on RA voting

Flemingovia

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
I have not really done the homework on this, and it is just a suggestion.

We have had a couple of RA rejections to discuss and vote on recently, and I have noticed an anomaly which I think ought to be fixed.

The Speaker has been absolutely correct and scrupulous in their practice ( :clap: ) as has CoE ( :clap: ) and this means that, when CoE rejects someone from the RA, a debate and voting thread have been immediately opened to uphold or overturn that rejection.

I think this is the only case in our laws where there is no delay between debate and voting. Now i can see why - it is compassionate and right that a RA decision is returned as quickly as possible. But the result is that the VD has no chance to explain their rejection, or debate to take place before voting opens.

I would suggest a short delay - 48 hours - between the opening of debate and the opening of voting. Al least then early voters in the the RA would have a bit of information to base their vote upon, as they do in all other cases.

RA rejections are important. They ought to be informed.
 
I actually agree with this. A 'grace period' in which the facts can be established for all of the RA to see could definitely be of use.
 
This probably makes sense.

I also think we should look into making more of the deliberations available to the applicant.
 
Eluvatar:
This probably makes sense.

I also think we should look into making more of the deliberations available to the applicant.
Click to expand...
No. I do not think i iwll be picking up that suggestion in this legislation.
 
I agree with flem.

I think discussions on allowing applicants to see deliberations are more of a question of transparency and privacy and deserve separate consideration.
 
I fully support a grace period. The change would be very simple to implement. It would probably look like this:

1. Chapter 6, Clause 7 of the Legal Code shall be amended as follows:
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, which will begin two days after the rejection.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Eluvatar:
This probably makes sense.

I also think we should look into making more of the deliberations available to the applicant.
Click to expand...
I do not believe I favor opening deliberations, but I would be amenable to allowing the applicant to write a summary of why they believe they should be allowed into the RA. That could be posted in the private areas for other RA members to see and take into consideration.

I don't think the law would need to change to do this, but i think it's good to allow a person a platform to give their side to any rejection.
 
This has my full support. I do believe that it would allow the VD time to put forth his case and at the same time, it would allow the applicant to put forth their own defense and account. So yes, this has my full support.

~ Tomb
 
I agree with the grace period, for sure.

I don't agree with the suggestion to allow denied applicants to see the deliberations. If their rejection is overturned, they'll be able to see the deliberations once they're admitted to the Regional Assembly. If their rejection is upheld, it seems bizarre to feel that they're entitled to see private deliberations of the Regional Assembly if we consider them such a threat that we won't admit them to the Regional Assembly. Many people playing NationStates are involved in other regions and the possibility of reprisal is a valid concern; it's bad enough that applicants can see how individuals voted, they don't also need to see their reasoning. That can and probably will lead to less candid deliberations.

For what it's worth, I have considered altering votes (from Aye to Abstain) on RA rejections based on concerns of anger or reprisal from the applicant, and I certainly wouldn't have posted my reasoning for my vote if they could have seen it.
 
I would argue that if you are concerned about anger or reprisals, you probably should be supporting the rejection from the regional Assembly.

I think the substantive issue has been favourably received, and I move to vote. Thank you to CoE - I have mainly adopted his legal wording:

I hereby move that Chapter 6, Clause 7 of the Legal Code shall be amended as follows:

7. If an applicant is rejected for failing an evaluation by the Vice Delegate, the Regional Assembly shall immediately debate the rejection and will hold a majority vote on whether to uphold the rejection, the vote beginning two days after the rejection.
Click to expand...
 
Cormac:
I agree with the grace period, for sure.

I don't agree with the suggestion to allow denied applicants to see the deliberations. If their rejection is overturned, they'll be able to see the deliberations once they're admitted to the Regional Assembly. If their rejection is upheld, it seems bizarre to feel that they're entitled to see private deliberations of the Regional Assembly if we consider them such a threat that we won't admit them to the Regional Assembly. Many people playing NationStates are involved in other regions and the possibility of reprisal is a valid concern; it's bad enough that applicants can see how individuals voted, they don't also need to see their reasoning. That can and probably will lead to less candid deliberations.

For what it's worth, I have considered altering votes (from Aye to Abstain) on RA rejections based on concerns of anger or reprisal from the applicant, and I certainly wouldn't have posted my reasoning for my vote if they could have seen it.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that the deliberations should not be private, not that the applicant should be allowed to see the private halls.
 
Why do we need this? The VD and SC are tasked with weeding out security risks. I doubt they would give the particulars in that regard. That is a discussion best left between the SC and the VD. A debate thread would likely turn into a forum to air grievances (past and present) against an applicant.

Eluvatar:
I'm saying that the deliberations should not be private, not that the applicant should be allowed to see the private halls.
Click to expand...
That would be consistent with the Bill of Rights:

BOR:
9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.
Click to expand...

I'm against this proposal. I trust the VD and SC to do their jobs with due diligence.
 
Falap, please read the actual proposal. Elu is rather confusing matters by bringing in a separate issue.

At the moment, when the Vice Delegate bars a RA applicant, the Regional Assembly has the right to overturn that bar. It is one of the safeguards we have against abuse of power.

This proposal does nothing to change the basics of the law. All it does is makes for 48 hours of debate BEFORE the voting thread is opened, rather than the two happening concurrantly, as at present.

This brings it into harmony with our usual practice, which is to have some debate BEFORE voting. That's all it does.
 
What is needed is a statement from the VD when the RA is notified of the rejection and that statement should be provided to the applicant for a response, and that response can also be posted in the discussion thread prior to opening the vote.

I personally don't like the appearance of "blackballing" that is potentially created without these two statements, and these two statements being posted before opening an vote.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
What is needed is a statement from the VD when the RA is notified of the rejection and that statement should be provided to the applicant for a response, and that response can also be posted in the discussion thread prior to opening the vote.

I personally don't like the appearance of "blackballing" that is potentially created without these two statements, and these two statements being posted before opening an vote.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
flemingovia:
I would argue that if you are concerned about anger or reprisals, you probably should be supporting the rejection from the regional Assembly.

I think the substantive issue has been favourably received, and I move to vote. Thank you to CoE - I have mainly adopted his legal wording:

I hereby move that Chapter 6, Clause 7 of the Legal Code shall be amended as follows:

7. If an applicant is rejected for failing an evaluation by the Vice Delegate, the Regional Assembly shall immediately debate the rejection and will hold a majority vote on whether to uphold the rejection, the vote beginning two days after the rejection.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I would like to ask if this is a motion to vote.
 
Flem, will you consider adding the requirement of a statement from the Vice Delegate and the opportunity for the applicant to respond with a statement prior to opening a vote?
 
This bill is now in formal debate. It will remain in formal debate for five days, after which a vote shall be scheduled.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Flem, will you consider adding the requirement of a statement from the Vice Delegate and the opportunity for the applicant to respond with a statement prior to opening a vote?
Click to expand...
I think this would be good practice, but I do not support codifying it into law. This opens up room for delaying tactics.
 
This makes perfect sense! I concur to this resolution. The recent rejections are kind of like the WA Security Council. We have commendations and condemnations in the WA too much, we don't have much else lately. (Of course, besides the occasional bill vote here in TNP)
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Grosseschnauzer:
Flem, will you consider adding the requirement of a statement from the Vice Delegate and the opportunity for the applicant to respond with a statement prior to opening a vote?
Click to expand...
I think this would be good practice, but I do not support codifying it into law. This opens up room for delaying tactics.
Click to expand...
And not codifying it would make this approach hit or miss in implementation. That is why I referenced "an opportunity" for the applicant, if they choose not to promptly submit a response before a vote opens, then their failure to have done so will not delay the vote.
 
I sort of trust the Regional Assembly to do a fair and just thing. If they feel they have not sufficient information to uphold the ban, they can ask. This happened in the current case where people requested that the VD explain reasons for the banning.

I prefer not to codify if it is not needed.
 
Though I agree with Grosse's sentiments on this one, I'll be supporting the bill come voting time regardless of whether they are included or not.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Crushing Our Enemies:
Grosseschnauzer:
Flem, will you consider adding the requirement of a statement from the Vice Delegate and the opportunity for the applicant to respond with a statement prior to opening a vote?
Click to expand...
I think this would be good practice, but I do not support codifying it into law. This opens up room for delaying tactics.
Click to expand...
And not codifying it would make this approach hit or miss in implementation. That is why I referenced "an opportunity" for the applicant, if they choose not to promptly submit a response before a vote opens, then their failure to have done so will not delay the vote.
Click to expand...
I think the delaying period that COE means is on the Vice Delegate's behalf. If the vote cannot start until they post an explanation, they could simply decline to do so and take their chances with a recall vote/charge of gross misconduct and delay the vote on that applicant indefinitely.
 
I agree with the proposal in the current form. However, I could support allowing the applicant to defend themselves, assuming it won't delay voting anymore than necessary.
 
As a matter of principle, i.e., due process, the Vice Delegate should be required to explain their reasoning. Without it, it makes any vote meaningless, and as I suggested earlier amounts to a "blackballing" system of deciding who is entitled to citizenship. The lack of a statement for their reasons for rejection also I would think offends the notions of democracy, accountability, and transparency guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. If we're going to address the timing problem, it makes little sense not to address this problem at the same time.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
As a matter of principle, i.e., due process, the Vice Delegate should be required to explain their reasoning. Without it, it makes any vote meaningless, and as I suggested earlier amounts to a "blackballing" system of deciding who is entitled to citizenship. The lack of a statement for their reasons for rejection also I would think offends the notions of democracy, accountability, and transparency guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. If we're going to address the timing problem, it makes little sense not to address this problem at the same time.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm not seeing it. But feel free to introduce legislation of your own if you feel that strongly about it
 
I agree that the Vice Delegate should always post an explanation of citizenship rejections. I don't think it's wise to force a vote on those rejections to wait until such an explanation is posted.

I think it is much preferable to exert public pressure than legal pressure in this sort of circumstance. If a VD lapses once over their entire term, no big deal. If they staunchly refuse to post a single explanation of any rejection, motion for a recall. No need to make a court case out of it.
 
You make the VD obligated to post an explanation when the decision is made to reject. That one shouldn't have been that hard to figure out. Then within that 48 hour period, the applicant can provide a response if they wish before the vote opens.
 
If the Vice Delegate does not post explaining their decision, it is very unlikely that the rejection would be upheld. Requiring that they explain it doesn't really leave us with much either. They could give a one sentence reply, they could choose to offer what they might consider and explanation, but which might not explain it at all.

I think we can safely leave it to Vice Delegate's to explain their decision. If they do not explain it properly, the RA will be able to overturn their decision and to remember their attitude when it comes to election season.
 
I agree with McM. Like I just said, I don't think legislative requirements are the right approach - it's very easy to imagine cases where they would cause needless problems. For example, an applicant might apply while the Vice Delegate is very busy, and they may need to post quickly to fail them before the 3-day window runs out without having the time right then to type an explanation of their reasoning.

Vice Delegates ought to post explanations of rejections, and I'm all in favor of recalling them if they refuse to. I see no need for legislating a requirement.
 
SillyString:
I agree with McM. Like I just said, I don't think legislative requirements are the right approach - it's very easy to imagine cases where they would cause needless problems. For example, an applicant might apply while the Vice Delegate is very busy, and they may need to post quickly to fail them before the 3-day window runs out without having the time right then to type an explanation of their reasoning.

Vice Delegates ought to post explanations of rejections, and I'm all in favor of recalling them if they refuse to. I see no need for legislating a requirement.
Click to expand...
I concur, if the Vice Delegate wishes to post within the window, they will. I fail to see why a Vice Delegate would intentionally harm their case by not posting ASAP.
 
Flemingovia:
Falap, please read the actual proposal. Elu is rather confusing matters by bringing in a separate issue.
Click to expand...
That is true. But he does raise an issue that's worth considering.

Silly String:
Vice Delegates ought to post explanations of rejections, and I'm all in favor of recalling them if they refuse to. I see no need for legislating a requirement.
Click to expand...
I see what you're saying. I'm unsure as to the depth of disclosure though. On the one hand, it's beneficial to know the history of an applicant (as it pertains to TNP security issues). On the other hand, can we separate personal issues from security concerns (which the Law dictates)? That's subjective, obviously.

Bottom line: if the VD is going to be required to disclose their reasons for rejection (within a 48 hour period), then the applicant should be able to respond within the same time frame. Yes Flem, I know. That's not what you're seeking. But you're suggesting a debate on the rejection. The applicant should be able to participate in that debate. But that raises my earlier concern that it will degenerate into a witch hunt. :2c:
 
falapatorius:
But that raises my earlier concern that it will degenerate into a witch hunt. :2c:
Click to expand...
I think there's risks to both sides, really - depending on the applicant and their involvement in any other regions, citizens opposed to their admittance could face repercussions for saying so publicly, and thus be reluctant to either debate or vote. And also depending on the applicant, it could easily turn into an unproductive dogpile of shouting.

I think what makes the most sense is to keep doing what we have been with discussions in the private RA area, and encourage the Speaker (or anyone else really) to open a thread in the Residents' Lobby which the applicant is able to participate in and where they can field questions/present arguments in their defense (and also strongly encourage the VD to post in both places).
 
Silly String:
I think what makes the most sense is to keep doing what we have been with discussions in the private RA area, and encourage the Speaker (or anyone else really) to open a thread in the Residents' Lobby which the applicant is able to participate in and where they can field questions/present arguments in their defense (and also strongly encourage the VD to post in both places).
Click to expand...
That does seem sensible. I'm still iffy about the whole idea though. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top