Delegate Directive #2: 24 October 2019

[Marcus Antonius]

Delegate Directive #2: 24 October 2019

Defining the Relationship Between the Government of The North Pacific
and
The North Pacific University​

1. The Importance of Education in the Region:

In service to a community it has always been right and vital that a place of knowledge and intellectual pursuit be maintained so that ideas, culture, and camaraderie among citizens and other friends of the region can thrive and develop solutions that help the greater community and world. The Executive Council of The North Pacific acknowledges this and desires that a dignified and fair relationship be forged between the institutions of learning and the institutions of government so that together their missions may be more rightly accomplished. Here forth shall that relationship be drafted so that together government and university may flourish and serve the people under their responsibility.

2. Freedoms of the University and the Academia:

2.1 It is understood that the University must be able to govern itself according to its own rules and traditions for those that can manage the academic pursuit are academics themselves who understand both process and quality of material.

2.2 The North Pacific University shall remain self governing under the charters and documents it ratifies in order to accomplish this. Its limits shall be set by the laws of the region. No document or protocol of any sort may contradict a statute of law in the region since the positive law that has been instituted through legal process holds precedent over any protocol of the university. The second article of the Bill of Rights is duly remembered:

“Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and
shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and
to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances.
The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and
limited under the Constitution.”

2.3 The university as an organized body with the means of self government is duly protected by this clause to make public the fruits of study, academic discourse, and the discussion of a variety of subjects.

2.4 The government though an overseer by no way shall infringe on this pursuit and entrusts the managing of content to the university itself. Through the university the government duly fulfills its calling to “encourage” expression of ideas.

3. Responsibilities of the University and the Academia:

3.1 Even with the significant degree of autonomy, the university stands as a representation of the government and its overarching mission to serve and give order to the region of The North Pacific. There is a mutuality of this relationship for as the government respects and promotes the university, the university must also work with and be in dialogue with the needs of the government.

3.2 As a representation of the region, the university must be responsible and maintain a level of accountability to the people of the region through the government. It does not exist for its own sake but to serve the people just as the government must.

3.3: The University Executive

3.3.1 The University Executive shall consist of the Chancellor and other senior executives established in the University Charter.

3.3.2 The University Executive (excluding the Chancellor) is responsible for the nomination of a Chancellor. This nomination shall be submitted to the Delegate who then may confirm or reject the nomination after discussion with the university’s governing body.
3.3.3 The term of the Chancellor shall run parallel to the delegate’s term, but his or her office is not vacated until a confirmation from the delegate has been reached.

3.3.4 Frequent meetings between university leadership and the delegate or a representative therein are encouraged so that the dialogue between these two mutual bodies may never crumble.

3.4 The Chancellor

3.4.1 The Chancellor in his or her duties must maintain a university system that is respectful both internally and externally. The respect and prestige of the body is dependent upon the quality of the content and conduct of academics within the university.

3.4.2 The Chancellor must not hesitate to dismiss or criticize content that is discriminatory, unacademic, or harmful to the university and even the region as a whole. The state of the government and the state of the university reflect on one another, and so both together must strive for transparency, respect, and the common good.

3.4.3 The Chancellor is formally appointed by the Delegate of The North Pacific and is required to take the Oath of Office.

3.4.4 The Chancellor may be removed by the University Executive by majority vote, by the Delegate of The North Pacific by proclamation, or by the Regional Assembly in accordance with the Constitution of The North Pacific.

3.5 The University Staff

3.5.1 The University shall employ Executive Staff to assist the Chancellor and the University Executive in the performance of their duties.

3.5.2 The University Staff shall be promoted to the region by the Executive Council of The North Pacific with applications housed within the Executive Staff application thread.

3.5.3 The Chancellor or their designee shall be responsible for the prompt processing of applicants to join the University Staff.​

 

[Dreadton]

This directive is in contradiction to the Charter. First, Section 3.1 contradicts the charter section 1.1. This directive, as written, places TNPU as a representative of the government, however the charter states that TNPU is a non-government agency. Second, this directive gives the Delegate control over the Chancellorship. The charter reserves that right to the council.

Is the government of TNP reasserting control and dominion over the University?

 

[Wonderess]

This directive is in contradiction to the Charter. First, Section 3.1 contradicts the charter section 1.1. This directive, as written, places TNPU as a representative of the government, however the charter states that TNPU is a non-government agency. Second, this directive gives the Delegate control over the Chancellorship. The charter reserves that right to the council.

Is the government of TNP reasserting control and dominion over the University?

This action is bringing the University once again under the protection of the government, and it is an extension yet autonomous entity within that framework. It is only fair that the government play some role in the governance of the University with this in mind. The council may still nominate a candidate while the Delegate simply confirms or rejects the nomination. I find the amount of power ceded to the government minimal but necessary as a form of check.

 

[Dreadton]

This action is bringing the University once again under the protection of the government, and it is an extension yet autonomous entity within that framework. It is only fair that the government play some role in the governance of the University with this in mind. The council may still nominate a candidate while the Delegate simply confirms or rejects the nomination. I find the amount of power ceded to the government minimal but necessary as a form of check.

But under the charter as written, the Delegate does not have that authority. Whether or not this is the best path for the university is not the issue. The issue is this directive contradicts the charter and succeeds it without following the procedures listed in the charter for such a change to take place. The charter requires a council vote in order for such a change. Where is that vote? Why have a charter if its not being followed?

 

[Marcus Antonius]

I say! This has become "political", again. Tsk! Tsk! ​

The Directive does take precedence over the Charter and it is what TNPU will be working to. The Charter is not redundant and can be amended by TNPU Council at any time. At least that is my view on it.

Remember TNPU operates on TNP Forums and Discord and still has to abide by the rules of these platforms.

As for voting, the TNPU Council voted this morning (UK time) and to date, of all six Council Members, 5 have voted in favour (including all the officers) for changing over to the Delegate's Directive.

The Directive is by no means a guarantee to protect TNPU's academic freedom, a change in the Law would be required to create a statute for TNPU, how much support would that glean?

I would imagine that If the Government, in the future, ever tried to impose restrictions on TNPU's academic freedoms then I would have thought a 'breakaway' would occur again and the Charter resurrected.

Personally, I have no problem with Universities under government oversight. In RL, here in the UK The University of London is run by Civil Servants in government buildings.

I hope this explanation alleviates concerns over TNPU.

Thank you

MARCVS ANTONIVS
Professor Marcus Antonius

 

[Dreadton]

It answers some and raises others.

How long has TNPU known about this decision? How much time between the government informing TNPU in its decision to reassert control over TNPU and the vote?

I will respond to your statement of TNPUs operations on the forums point once I am at a computer and not on my mobile.

 

[Marcus Antonius]

It answers some and raises others.
How long has TNPU known about this decision?

I assume you mean TNPU as a whole? Council and Senatus? I think I know what you could be alluding to.

How much time between the government informing TNPU in its decision to reassert control over TNPU and the vote?

There was no decision made by government to take over TNPU. In fact it was TNPU Council that approached the Delegate. This decision was made at the recent TNPU Council meeting. After the meeting the Delegate was contacted to discuss the best way for TNPU to return under Government oversight and still retain it's academic freedom.

I will respond to your statement of TNPUs operations on the forums point once I am at a computer and not on my mobile.

TNPU Council await your response.

 

[Dreadton]

Remember TNPU operates on TNP Forums and Discord and still has to abide by the rules of these platforms.

As for voting, the TNPU Council voted this morning (UK time) and to date, of all six Council Members, 5 have voted in favour (including all the officers) for changing over to the Delegate's Directive.

The Directive is by no means a guarantee to protect TNPU's academic freedom, a change in the Law would be required to create a statute for TNPU, how much support would that glean?

The purpose of TNPU being a separate entity was to allow us to speak on real life issues and not have those discussions binding on the government or its implied endorsement of those discussion.

We do operate on the forums and we abide by the ToS of the platform, we must as it has real world consequences if we do not. We operate under the laws of TNP, however that does not require that TNPU be subjected to the political will of the Delegacy, just that we must avoid actions that compromise the rights of TNP residents and citizens. TNP allows us to operate here, in my opinion, because it promotes the governments goal of promoting democracy and debate. We do operate under their suffrage in the fact that they are a platform that is hosting us. So the question becomes "Has the government changes its position in regards to real life debates vi a vi the original reasoning behind the ordinal schism, or will TNPU need to split with every change of government that assumes a contradictory opinion in relations to the discussion, debate, and presentation of controversial opinions?

How long has TNPU known about this decision?
How much time between the government informing TNPU in its decision to reassert control over TNPU and the vote?
Why the secrecy from the governing body in an institution that promotes the sharing of ideas?

 

[Marcus Antonius]

It answers some and raises others.
How long has TNPU known about this decision?

I assume you mean TNPU as a whole? Council and Senatus? I think I know what you could be alluding to.

How much time between the government informing TNPU in its decision to reassert control over TNPU and the vote?

There was no decision made by government to take over TNPU. In fact it was TNPU Council that approached the Delegate. This decision was made at the recent TNPU Council meeting. After the meeting the Delegate was contacted to discuss the best way for TNPU to return under Government oversight and still retain it's academic freedom.

Why the secrecy from the governing body in an institution that promotes the sharing of ideas?

Secrecy! Far from it my dear Dreadton. I will take the responsibility in my lack of informing you - a fellow Member of the Senatus of the series of events that transpired. I will grant that you should have been involved at the end of negotiations as a member of the Senatus and had a vote. This was an honest oversight. Remember the Council Members are also on the Senatus which you have recently joined . Also remember that the Council have had to work as an independent institution since June and without the support of the government, it has been hard work, with the promise of more hard work. TNPU still holds the right to organise itself as it sees necessary. TNPU still has academic freedom. And now TNPU can get the help it needs from the TNP Ministries. The Charter can be amended as and when necessary - this is not always going to happen quickly.

For your information - TNPU Council has now voted unanimously for the Delegates Directive #2.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I've had a several questions about this issue so will make a few comments.

1) I would have preferred to make an announcement with the directive all at once to answer these questions. But Marcus was excited and got the directive out while I was sleeping. Likewise the arguments had already started before I had awoken.

2) I did not at any time seek to reassert government involvement in the university. I did not even raise the subject. I was proactively sought out and it was put to me that the Council desired this outcome. I took time to consider it. The Executive Council discussed it. All who spoke on the subject either thought that the decision in the last term to 'privatise' the university was a mistake, or thought that bringing it back into the government would work better if there was a commitment to stick to this course, rather than say changing our minds again in two to three months. Ultimately the directive was drafted and the Council voted to adopt it.

3) The university does not sit under any Ministry. The Directive does not say that it sits under any Ministry. I believe the Directive is quite clear that the university will make its own rules and the Delegate's involvement is relatively limited. However, the executive will provide an avenue for the Chancellor or their designee to accept and process executive staff applications for the university. These details are still being worked out in terms of what exactly the staffing profile will look like.

Secondly, the Charter can be amended. Marcus has already begun to pursue amendments to bring it into compliance with the proposed directive.

4) The University shouldn't have been privatised to start with. That decision was made primarily based upon misunderstandings and in the face of pressure. Nobody is to blame for this; it is just what happened. The academic integrity or independence of the university was never threatened. This is about restoring unity and what is right.

Ultimately whether it is privatised or not will not be the sole determination of the success of the university. I believe the directive provides it with the best chance - with the ability to take on executive staff applicants, ability to make their own rules, and generally operate without too much oversight from the government. I believe this is the best of both worlds.

We have to be realistic about our expectations. If the University is able to utilise staffing arrangements to create interesting and engaging content - at least a few times a week, I think that will be a success we can build upon.

 

[Dreadton]

Ok, Thanks for the info. I believe that resolves this kerfuffle.