Government Officials
- Thread starter punk d
- Start date
Deputy Ministers are not government officials. 
Then what you are saying is they do not need Cabinet access??SillyString:Deputy Ministers are not government officials.
edit: is there any place in our laws where it lists who is and who is not a government officials? Because this does seem to fly in the face of the principle of separation of executive and judiciary. I do not think we have ever had the situation before where someone elected as a justice has tried to cling on to a government position....
have we?
Tomb
TNPer
To clarify, the reason that I requested access is because I was under the false assumption that Deputy Ministers have access to the Cabinet Chambers. I had it when I was Deputy Minister of Defense under Gracius Maximus, and so I was under the illusion that I had the rights to access the area as precedented. Anyways, I have gotten in touch with the Delegate, and she has clarified this. I'm in no way trying to cling to a government position, I just assumed incorrectly. Thank you very much.
~ Tomb
~ Tomb
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/pages/laws/#.idx_33 The link doesn't seem to work - ruling #34SillyString:Deputy Ministers are not government officials.
It would appear that this is still on the books (unless I missed a RoR) so Deputy Ministers are legally 'government officials' and stipulated by that position. I was able to hold both the AG position and MoD position simultaneously because the AG is listed as part of the same branch, but Justice and MoD/Deputy MoD are within different governmental branches.
Hmmm.
The relevant part of the ruling seems to be...
Seems to make it quite clear: Deputy ministers are government officials, and cannot serve simultaneously in the judiciary.
Of course, I am no longer a justice so I have no idea how the current court will interpret the law.
Pretzels, anyone?
The relevant part of the ruling seems to be...
Seems to make it quite clear: Deputy ministers are government officials, and cannot serve simultaneously in the judiciary.
Of course, I am no longer a justice so I have no idea how the current court will interpret the law.
Pretzels, anyone?
Gracius Maximus:http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/pages/laws/#.idx_33 The link doesn't seem to work - ruling #34SillyString:Deputy Ministers are not government officials.
It would appear that this is still on the books (unless I missed a RoR) so Deputy Ministers are legally 'government officials' and stipulated by that position. I was able to hold both the AG position and MoD position simultaneously because the AG is listed as part of the same branch, but Justice and MoD/Deputy MoD are within different governmental branches.
These are both incorrect understandings.flemingovia:
As can be seen in the linked ruling, the law at that time was substantially different from what it is now. In response to the ruling that was issued - a ruling many of us found problematic and which prompted r3n to draft his revision - the law was amended to its current form.
The ruling has no legal effect anymore, and cannot, because the text it was ruling on no longer exists. I would certainly like for it to be acknowledged as ineffectual by the court, but short of filing an R4R on that just as was done for 1.1, I can't force them to do so.
However, the only law in place is the current phrasing of the constitution.
Ivan, you were able to hold MoD and AG because both are executive government officials under the current law, and only one is elected. Under the prior ruling, that would not have been legal - especially because, at the time, AG was a judicial position and not an executive one.
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
This is probably not the best place for this discussion but since it is relevant, I would think that a R4R would be required to counter the opinion as stated even if the law was rewritten (which is the reason I implemented the project that you have done so much work on regarding reviewing the law).
Even with the law behind the decision changed, the ruling itself provides a clear opinion that deputies are government officials and that should be (whether it is or isn't has no bearing) the manner in which the government operates until such time as the ruling is retracted or overruled by a sitting Court.
Even with the law behind the decision changed, the ruling itself provides a clear opinion that deputies are government officials and that should be (whether it is or isn't has no bearing) the manner in which the government operates until such time as the ruling is retracted or overruled by a sitting Court.
Things have never been treated that way, though. The court has issued some terrible rulings, and the response has generally been to amend the laws such that the court's ruling no longer takes effect and to then treat the newly enacted law as overriding the awful ruling. This is not a TNP specific thing, either - all the court does is rules on what the meaning of specific text is, and not on what should be the law or what would be best or how things must be immutably. When the text substantively changes, their ruling loses all force.
That the legal change in question amended the constitution to counter a bad court ruling makes that case even more strongly.
That the legal change in question amended the constitution to counter a bad court ruling makes that case even more strongly.
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
I agree. But, one of the unfortunate aspects of that particular ruling is that the opinion does not specifically list which parts of the law it is referencing. It lists the offices, which still exist and were not substantially altered by the amendment. I'm not saying that I think deputy ministers should be considered government officials now, just that the Court has said so in the past and we do work on a precedent based system to some extent.SillyString:
Does so.Gracius Maximus:
I've tried to clean up the awful formatting a bit:
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
Not in the actual opinion, that is from what the Court considered for the opinion, which could have been any number of things along with the law at the time (briefs, previous rulings, etc.) all of which might have subsequently changed or been altered, but the opinion itself reads:
While some of the specific provisions listed within this part of the ruling have been renumbered because of subsequent laws, they have not largely changed from then to now in substantive manner.
All government officials are still required to swear an oath and recourse still exists within the BoR. Those are the primary implications within the actual opinion.
While some of the specific provisions listed within this part of the ruling have been renumbered because of subsequent laws, they have not largely changed from then to now in substantive manner.
All government officials are still required to swear an oath and recourse still exists within the BoR. Those are the primary implications within the actual opinion.
We had the same discussion recently, when we were considering whether Nierr (who is not a citizen) could serve as Deputy Minister. Here is the relevant thread: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7410051/1/
As Tomb said, the current status is that, depending on who makes the appointment, a Deputy Minister may or may not be a government official. If the appointment is made by the Delegate, the Deputy Minister is a government official. if the appointment is made by a Minister, then they are not.
The practice of who appoints the Deputy Ministers has varied in the past few terms. During my term, for instance, I made sure that Deputy Ministers were appointed directly by the Delegate, to make sure they are considered government officials. In subsequent terms, appointments tend to happen by Deputy Ministers, sometimes intentionally to take advantage of this loophole.
Besides separation of power and citizenship issues, there is another issue with respect to whether Deputy Ministers need to take an Oath of Office. Deputy Ministers who are government officials need to take the oath, and therefore are liable to commit Gross Misconduct. The other kind of Deputy Ministers don't need to take the oath, and therefore are not subject to the Gross Misconduct offense.
I think I've seen a draft that was being circulated a while ago, and which would address this issue. I think COE was the primary author, but I am far from sure.
As Tomb said, the current status is that, depending on who makes the appointment, a Deputy Minister may or may not be a government official. If the appointment is made by the Delegate, the Deputy Minister is a government official. if the appointment is made by a Minister, then they are not.
The practice of who appoints the Deputy Ministers has varied in the past few terms. During my term, for instance, I made sure that Deputy Ministers were appointed directly by the Delegate, to make sure they are considered government officials. In subsequent terms, appointments tend to happen by Deputy Ministers, sometimes intentionally to take advantage of this loophole.
Besides separation of power and citizenship issues, there is another issue with respect to whether Deputy Ministers need to take an Oath of Office. Deputy Ministers who are government officials need to take the oath, and therefore are liable to commit Gross Misconduct. The other kind of Deputy Ministers don't need to take the oath, and therefore are not subject to the Gross Misconduct offense.
I think I've seen a draft that was being circulated a while ago, and which would address this issue. I think COE was the primary author, but I am far from sure.
good god*. So what you are saying is that we have two sorts of deputy minister, both of whom are called deputy minister, and we pick what sort of deputy minister a person is depending on what is expedient?
*me.
*me.
Yes to the first part. The second part, about political expediency, less so.
As far as I know, the only case where this loophole was intentionally employed (or abused, depending on your viewpoint) was to allow Nier to serve as Deputy Minister without being a citizen.
In most cases, I'd imagine people are just not aware of the difference, and not much (any) thought goes into whether the appointment is made by the Delegate or respective Minister.
As far as I know, the only case where this loophole was intentionally employed (or abused, depending on your viewpoint) was to allow Nier to serve as Deputy Minister without being a citizen.
In most cases, I'd imagine people are just not aware of the difference, and not much (any) thought goes into whether the appointment is made by the Delegate or respective Minister.
Guy
TNPer
I don't think any government official should shy away from acting against an R4R, especially if the law has since changed.
The rulings in 4R4s set precedent, but are not in and of themselves binding on any gov't official. That is, you can act contrary to them without violating any court order or such -- you'd need to be taken to court again anyway for a specific finding against you.
The reason why you generally shouldn't do it if the law hasn't changed is that the Court will almost certainly find against you.
Given that the law has changed, the R4R holds no particular weight anymore. The law requires new interpretation by those enforcing it. If someone disagrees with their new interpretation, they'll need to sue the decision-maker, and then it'd be subject to a court proceeding.
The new law seems very clear, based off both its text and the intent when it was passed.
The rulings in 4R4s set precedent, but are not in and of themselves binding on any gov't official. That is, you can act contrary to them without violating any court order or such -- you'd need to be taken to court again anyway for a specific finding against you.
The reason why you generally shouldn't do it if the law hasn't changed is that the Court will almost certainly find against you.
Given that the law has changed, the R4R holds no particular weight anymore. The law requires new interpretation by those enforcing it. If someone disagrees with their new interpretation, they'll need to sue the decision-maker, and then it'd be subject to a court proceeding.
The new law seems very clear, based off both its text and the intent when it was passed.
Cormac
TNPer
- TNP Nation
- Cormactopia III
- Discord
- Cormac#0804
Perhaps we should shift away from the back and forth over the R4R and seek to make the law more clear. Specifically, we need to ask ourselves these questions:
1. Should non-citizens be permitted to serve as Deputy Ministers/Speakers?
2. Should Deputy Ministers/Speakers be permitted to simultaneously serve as Justices?
3. Should Deputy Ministers/Speakers be considered "government officials"?
The outcome of discussion on those three questions would give us guidance to amend the law to make it more clear, which is something that would be far more productive than this confusing back and forth over the R4R and which would place legislating back in the hands of the legislature, where it belongs.
To answer my own questions:
1. I believe non-citizens should be able to serve as Deputy Ministers, provided they are explicitly approved by the Delegate and not just a Minister. I do not believe non-citizens should be permitted to serve as Deputy Speakers because non-citizens are not permitted in the Regional Assembly.
2. I do not believe Deputy Ministers/Speakers should be permitted to simultaneously serve as Justice, because this significantly impairs the independence of the judiciary. A Deputy Minister/Speaker serving in the executive or legislature has a nearly automatic conflict of interest in any matter related to the executive or legislature.
3. It seems obvious to me that Deputy Ministers/Speakers are government officials, because if they are not, then what are they? It's ludicrous to suggest that they are not government officials when they are officials in the government. We should make clear that they are government officials, while further amending the law to make provisions for our preferences regarding the first and second questions.
Others' thoughts?
1. Should non-citizens be permitted to serve as Deputy Ministers/Speakers?
2. Should Deputy Ministers/Speakers be permitted to simultaneously serve as Justices?
3. Should Deputy Ministers/Speakers be considered "government officials"?
The outcome of discussion on those three questions would give us guidance to amend the law to make it more clear, which is something that would be far more productive than this confusing back and forth over the R4R and which would place legislating back in the hands of the legislature, where it belongs.
To answer my own questions:
1. I believe non-citizens should be able to serve as Deputy Ministers, provided they are explicitly approved by the Delegate and not just a Minister. I do not believe non-citizens should be permitted to serve as Deputy Speakers because non-citizens are not permitted in the Regional Assembly.
2. I do not believe Deputy Ministers/Speakers should be permitted to simultaneously serve as Justice, because this significantly impairs the independence of the judiciary. A Deputy Minister/Speaker serving in the executive or legislature has a nearly automatic conflict of interest in any matter related to the executive or legislature.
3. It seems obvious to me that Deputy Ministers/Speakers are government officials, because if they are not, then what are they? It's ludicrous to suggest that they are not government officials when they are officials in the government. We should make clear that they are government officials, while further amending the law to make provisions for our preferences regarding the first and second questions.
Others' thoughts?
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
Cormac:
1) I agree with you. I think Nierr is a special case and I'm unsure it is likely to come up again, but I do not think it should happen without Delegate approval. That said, I also do not think that the title of Deputy Minister is necessarily required for Nierr or anyone else to contribute as they do to the Ministry they are involved in.
2) I'm not sure I agree with this. Personally, I think that the Deputy Minister position is similar to a staff position. Tomb is Deputy Minister of Defence and Plembobria is Deputy Minister of Education. Theoretically, I could choose to not have Deputy Ministers and simply have Tomb as Chief of Staff and Plembobria as Some Other Title. In my opinion the position of Deputy Minister is not in itself a conflict of interest. If they are involved in a particular situation that comes up before the court - whether they are a deputy or simply a staff member, one would reasonably expect that they recuse themselves from the matter.
3) I'd agree. Though I'd question how this would work in relation to non-citizens and taking the oath. I've always found the significance placed on who/what is a government official to be a bit odd. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then it is a duck.
One relatively minor thing I wanted to point out with respect to the developing debate (I largely agree with the more substantial points made by Guy and Cormac, but right now I do not have time to elaborate on those):
Unlike Deputy Ministers, the status of Deputy Speakers as government officials is completely unambiguous. This is because Deputy Speakers are appointed directly by the Speaker, a "constitutionally-mandated elected official".
As a result, none of the issues we are discussing about Deputy Ministers apply to Deputy Speakers. Where we'd run into problems is if a Deputy Speaker decided to appoint their own deputy (a Deputy Deputy Speaker?).
Unlike Deputy Ministers, the status of Deputy Speakers as government officials is completely unambiguous. This is because Deputy Speakers are appointed directly by the Speaker, a "constitutionally-mandated elected official".
As a result, none of the issues we are discussing about Deputy Ministers apply to Deputy Speakers. Where we'd run into problems is if a Deputy Speaker decided to appoint their own deputy (a Deputy Deputy Speaker?).
Let's not point out that I did that once.
...Specifically in response to the aforementioned terrible ruling...
...Specifically in response to the aforementioned terrible ruling...
Sort of... I mean, in practice, yes - you'd need to bring someone to court to get a finding against them for violating a ruling; there is no "If you violate this ruling you have to walk the plank" built into them.Guy:
But we do also have a clause in the constitution that says:
So it's not really a question of whether anybody has to follow a ruling, since they do (even though they can only be punished with a criminal trial). It's instead a question of what happens when the text a ruling is based on changes substantially afterward, how much binding power it still has.
I have a question. Can charges of Gross Misconduct be brought against some deputies but not others?
Responding to Cormac's three points above.
1. Sorry to Nierr, but i do not think non-citizens should be Deputy ministers. Full stop.
2. Deputy ministers very often find themselves de-facto ministers for large chunks of a term, sometimes without many people noticing. I really am uneasy about them being justices as well. Deputy ministers positions of patronage at the gift of ministers, and Justices should not be the recipients of patronage. Nor should they be, in any way, government officials, because ....
3. ... i agree too. Especially if Deputies are to get cabinet access.
1. Sorry to Nierr, but i do not think non-citizens should be Deputy ministers. Full stop.
2. Deputy ministers very often find themselves de-facto ministers for large chunks of a term, sometimes without many people noticing. I really am uneasy about them being justices as well. Deputy ministers positions of patronage at the gift of ministers, and Justices should not be the recipients of patronage. Nor should they be, in any way, government officials, because ....
3. ... i agree too. Especially if Deputies are to get cabinet access.
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
Many of the responses in this thread contradict one another. If you agree that non-citizens can be Deputies then you cannot also agree that Deputies are to be considered 'government officials'.
Article 7 of the Constitution:
falapatorius
TNPer
Gross Misconduct applies to all Deputies that are citizens, although the threshold is slightly different with Deputies appointed by non-CMEOs. The Oath of Office (Section 4.1 of the LC) and the Oath of Citizenship (Section 6.1 of the LC) are legally mandated oaths and therefore fall within the scope of Gross Misconduct:Great Bights Mum:
Section 1.8. Gross Misconduct:
This is what happens when you try to bend the law to accommodate favoured individuals.Gracius Maximus:
No law is being bent.
I retract in favour of "creatively interpreted"
No law is being creatively interpreted either. The law is very clear - only CMEOs and their appointees are government officials.
then anyone else who takes an oath of office is inpersonating a government official. Sweet.
If you want to file charges on that claim, by all means feel free.flemingovia:
As far as I know, though, we have not criminalized excessive oath-taking. Nor, on a more reasonable front, have we criminalized impersonating a government official except insofar as such would fall under the limited definition of fraud.
The ruling tried to make clear what government officials are. It did. There were plenty of folks unhappy with the ruling.
But it was to avoid the discussion we're having here. I don't think subsequent law changes have really addressed it, because we're having the discussion right here.
It's mindboggling to think that a Deputy appointed by a Minister lives under different sets of rules than a deputy appointed by the delegate. I'd argue that since the Minister is appointed by the delegate anyone appointed by the Minister is essentially appointed by the delegate. Indeed, can't a delegate dismiss a deputy appointed by a minister?
To me, we should answer this question once and for all. Who is a government official and who is not.
As for the question of being a government official in two or more branches, I'm not a fan, especially if one of those roles is a Justice. I think it creates risk that's not needed.
But it was to avoid the discussion we're having here. I don't think subsequent law changes have really addressed it, because we're having the discussion right here.
It's mindboggling to think that a Deputy appointed by a Minister lives under different sets of rules than a deputy appointed by the delegate. I'd argue that since the Minister is appointed by the delegate anyone appointed by the Minister is essentially appointed by the delegate. Indeed, can't a delegate dismiss a deputy appointed by a minister?
To me, we should answer this question once and for all. Who is a government official and who is not.
As for the question of being a government official in two or more branches, I'm not a fan, especially if one of those roles is a Justice. I think it creates risk that's not needed.
You will never get away with it. Because Tomb.punk d:
Tomb
TNPer
I know that your world revolves around me (apparently), but you're fully aware that Justice Plembobria is currently serving as Deputy Minister of Education. Deputy Speaker Zyvet, who is directly appointed by the Speaker, is currently serving as Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. So there's no reason to make it appear as if I'm receiving special treatment, because I am not. I'm a TNP citizen serving my deputy ministerial positions actively just as deputy ministers are supposed to do. I really get no privileges added, and as you fully know, I don't have access to the cabinet chambers. This issue is not about me, as much you would love for it to be. It is rather about an area of our law that needs further clarification.flemingovia:
And before you go on distorting what I post further, let me point that I do support legislation in this area if someone decides to pursue it. This is a grey area indeed, and clarifying it would be better in the short and long run.
~ Tomb
I think that anyone who's badge has more than three stars on it should be considered a government official. Even Security Councilors, I suppose.
Wait, do they currently count as government officials?
Anyways, I don't think there is a problem with having a government official holding two government offices, if they can perform their duties to both offices adequately. Holding more than two does become... sketchy. Maybe there should be a limit of two government positions per person? But still, its not like someone who's, say, Minister of Education, Deputy Minister of Culture, and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs is too "powerful". They're just serving the region. They're not any closer to being able to coup or anything.
Assuming deputies are gov't officials, I don't know if Justices should be able to be deputies. Or hold any other gov't office, for that matter. On the one hand, we want unbiased Justices. On the other hand, how could a justice being, say, Minister of Education, make them biased in a way that would affect court decisions?
Sorry for rambling.
Wait, do they currently count as government officials?
Anyways, I don't think there is a problem with having a government official holding two government offices, if they can perform their duties to both offices adequately. Holding more than two does become... sketchy. Maybe there should be a limit of two government positions per person? But still, its not like someone who's, say, Minister of Education, Deputy Minister of Culture, and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs is too "powerful". They're just serving the region. They're not any closer to being able to coup or anything.
Assuming deputies are gov't officials, I don't know if Justices should be able to be deputies. Or hold any other gov't office, for that matter. On the one hand, we want unbiased Justices. On the other hand, how could a justice being, say, Minister of Education, make them biased in a way that would affect court decisions?
Sorry for rambling.
falapatorius
TNPer
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517