Formal Discussion - SC Removal

wizardofoz01

wizardofoz01

TNPer
First proposed by Heft:

Blue indicating addition, red strikethroughs indicating removal.

Art II Sec 4:
D - Provisions for military alliances, military co-operation, and joint military operations by treaty or agreement shall be established in the North Pacific Legal Code. Such provisions may provide for approval of deployments by the Security Council in appropriate circumstances as provided by law.
Click to expand...
Art III Sec 1:
A - Procedures for the election of the UN Delegate, the UN Vice Delegate, the Prime Minister, the other Ministers of the Cabinet, and the Speaker of the Regional Assembly, and the Security Council shall be as provided by this Constitution and by law in The North Pacific Legal Code.
B - Elections and referendums shall take place on The North Pacific Regional off-site forum. Elections for the UN Delegate, the UN Vice Delegate, the Prime Minister, the other elected Cabinet Ministers, and the Speaker of the Regional Assembly, and the Security Council, shall be held every three calendar months in the months of February, May, August, and November. Voting shall commence at 12:00 am GMT on the first day of the designated month and end at 11:59 pm GMT on the seventh day of the designated month. Voting in any necessary runoff election shall commence at 12:00 am GMT on the tenth day of the designated month and end at 11:59 pm GMT on the sixteenth day of the designated month. Nations take office when a certificate of results of an election are published.
.
.
.
F - The quorum requirement for Regional Assembly members in referenda on motions to approve, ratify or confirm actions, nominations or appointments, and on bills to enact laws, do not apply to the elections of the UN Delegate, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Ministers, or the Speaker of the Regional Assembly, and the Security Council for a full term, or for any necessary runoff elections.
Click to expand...
Art III Sec 2.1:
F - At all times during the term of office, the Vice Delegate shall have the second greatest number of endorsements in the Region which shall be exceeded only by the number of endorsements held by the Delegate. The Vice Delegate may be authorized, by a vote of the Security Council on grounds of regional securitypermission of the Cabinet, to temporarily assume the Delegacy under NationStates procedures whenever the Delegate may be unable to act or is not recognized within NationStates as the UN Member with the greatest number of endorsements within the Region or for other similar reasons of regional security. Upon the subsequent formal posted declaration of the Delegate that he or she is able to again act as Delegate of the Region within NationStates, the Delegate and Vice Delegate shall take any necessary action to cause the transfer of the Delegacy back to the elected Delegate.
Click to expand...

In addition the entirety of Article Four, Section Nine shall be removed.

Art IV Sec 9:
Section 9. Security Council.

A - The Regional Assembly shall elect a Security Council. The Speaker shall serve as the presiding officer of the Council. The Council shall have authority to endorse or otherwise approve such actions of an urgent or emergency nature that involve regional security other than the adoption of legislative bills and constitutional amendments as are specified in this Constitution and The North Pacific Legal Code. Any action by the Council does not supercede any requirement for approval by a referendum within the Regional Assembly, but serves as approval for action prior to such a referendum.
B - The Security Council shall be composed of not fewer than five members of the Regional Assembly, elected for three month terms at the same time as the Cabinet, Speaker, and the UN Delegate. The total number of Council members shall be determined by law, but shall not be less than five nor more than that whole number which equals ten percent of the total number of Regional Assembly Members at the time the nomination period for elections commence. The members of the Council shall be elected by plurality vote of the Regional Assembly in the manner prescribed by law.
C - Regional Assembly Members elected to serve on the Security Council shall arrange their affairs during their term of office on the Council so that they may participate in any matter brought to the Council upon notice not to exceed 24 hours. A quorum for the actions of the Security Council shall be not fewer than three Regional Assembly members as determined by law. The Speaker shall not have a vote in Security Council matters except in the case of a tie, but the Speaker shall count to the establishment of a quorum for a particular matter.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Given the events of the last few days in which the Delegate has twice acted to ban a nation without prior approval from the SC.

Furthermore, given that she indicates that she felt compelled to act and was even unaware as to whether the SC had come to a decision.

And finally noting that the current SC now appears to be discussing posting a decision after one of the bannings rather than beforehand.

It seems the SC cannot and does not do it's job, which is to act swiftly in an 'emergency' situation.

There seems therefore little point in retaining them and I therefore strongly support this proposal.
 
At first I did not want to see the SC go, but as Cathyy said the delegate had to act two seperate times with out the SC responding, and currently the SC is talking about the person who has been banned! To me this is a failure to react in time.
 
The fact that the SC was not properly involved in recent happenings does not justify the removal of the SC. Will the Government be banned if someone does not care about its decisions?
 
I would like to know why the current Delegate, now serving her second term, did not know of the many options available prior to the ejection of any nation.

If even she does not know the 'rules' how can we expect anyone else to?
 
The whole problem here is that the SC needs dedicated members who will respond without undue delay when requested to do so. Pardon the metaphor, but when your car's oil filter gets plugged up you don't get rid of the engine, you get a new oil filter.

I would propose that all SC members be required to sign in within 24 hours of a requested action (real or simulated) and post in an appropriate thread or get replaced on the fly (unless they have a valid reason in which case there needs to be a slate of replacements to act in their absence).

R
 
Cathyy:
Given the events of the last few days in which the Delegate has twice acted to ban a nation without prior approval from the SC.

Furthermore, given that she indicates that she felt compelled to act and was even unaware as to whether the SC had come to a decision.

And finally noting that the current SC now appears to be discussing posting a decision after one of the bannings rather than beforehand.

It seems the SC cannot and does not do it's job, which is to act swiftly in an 'emergency' situation.

There seems therefore little point in retaining them and I therefore strongly support this proposal.
Click to expand...
Really? If I didn't know better I'd think recent events have compelled a new use for the Security Council.
 
Upper Kirby:
Cathyy:
Given the events of the last few days in which the Delegate has twice acted to ban a nation without prior approval from the SC.

Furthermore, given that she indicates that she felt compelled to act and was even unaware as to whether the SC had come to a decision.

And finally noting that the current SC now appears to be discussing posting a decision after one of the bannings rather than beforehand.

It seems the SC cannot and does not do it's job, which is to act swiftly in an 'emergency' situation.

There seems therefore little point in retaining them and I therefore strongly support this proposal.
Click to expand...
Really? If I didn't know better I'd think recent events have compelled a new use for the Security Council.
Click to expand...
....care to elaborate?

The Security Council was the result of fear and paranoia towards the Delegate position. What purpose does it really serve, other than to fill some people's need for supposed checks on power? How does it actually protect us? At some point, we need to start trusting our Delegates to do their job, and stop acting like the Delegate is always one step away from booting us all to the RR.

Yes, a big problem is that the Security Council members simply aren't active, but that isn't a problem that will go away. It seems much more reasonable to get rid of an unnecessary body (moving its necessary powers to an already existant body such as the Cabinet) than to hope that next term we are lucky enough to have an active Security Council and the Delegate doesn't get put in a position like Eras just was.
 
As it stands now, the necessary (word used loosely) authorization from the security counsil is simply slowing our defenses down.
 
To speak on behalf of myself as a member of the SC --

It's all fine and dandy to say that a majority of us should respond within 24 hours of an event, but it is ludicrous to suggest that SC members as a whole are just not present.. There is no magic at work here: once someone gets elected to the SC, they don't magically just disappear because of that fact.

How many of you sign on to these forums multiple times a day, and thus can easily spot a regional security problem within the first few hours of its appearance on these forums? I usually read these forums at least once a day, and even I do not spot regional security issues the moment they crop up. It is equally ludicrous to suggest that any sort of Security Council contain members who must read these forums multiple times a day, every day, to scan for possible problems.

The fact of the matter is, in this situation, we were poorly notified. Indeed, we were not notified at all. I don't think that in any regional security problem I've ever been notified by the Delegate via a PM -- PM notifications show up in my email, and THAT is something I check multiple times a day.

I see why some people would rather the SC be removed and I understand that argument. However, in this case, the SC did not hold back FEC from making a decision. IF the SC is removed, I certainly hope in the near future someone will not be banned unjustly by a future Delegate, thus setting the stage for more proposals to reinstate an SC-like body.
 
I completely agree with you, it's all the SC members fault not the SC. Luckily the elections are coming around and we can give them the proper boot! (excluding Ator, Dig, and Byard.)
 
Just FYI, I cannot see the 'private' SC chambers.

As I did not know they existed, I could not complain about this :( I only realised when DD sent me a link to a thread for the SC that I could not see.
 
I say that the number of people in the SC should be decreased; perhaps to 3, or 4 with a tiebreaker just in-case. Furthermore, activity requirements should be placed on the SC.
 
Activity requirements are kinda already in place, they are constitutionally held to being available within 24 hours of an emergency. But for this type of position perhaps at least a once a week check in would be a good idea.
 
I agree with Wizard. None of us were notified. Now i've taken to PMing all the Security Council members myself, just to make sure they come in and vote. Also Nish, we are down to 5, we don't need any more downsizing.
 
mr_sniffles:
It was 7 since the RA list boomed to 70 for a period. If memory serves me well, it's supposed to be 5 or 10% of the RA, whichever is higher.
Click to expand...
Out of curiousity, if the RA number 60 people, then the SC would be made up of 6 people, correct? Would the single 'tiebreaker' be included with this? If so, then what would happen in the event of a tie?
 
Im going to read the constitutional sections about the SC again.. but it seems like a great, great idea in theory.. and I dont want to see it go.

My question beforehand, out of the five members, do only three aye's have to be given out of three votes, or do we have to wait for all five members to convene?

Another idea would be to not elect SC members, and instead give them their powers based on the idea that say.. the Minister of Defense, the Delegate, the Minister of Intel.. etc.. would know best, and be continually active.. so those positions would be automatically on the SC.

EDIT: Or even do that with those three, and then have two spots open for election, and the choice of the RA.
 
No, there is no waiting for all members to convene.

In practice, that would take too long anyway. If the quorum is met, and of those people, a majority decide to do something, it's done.
 
Keep in mind the nature of the SC's action are to respond rapidly to requests to authorize action. the practice is that once a quorum is reached (either 3 elected members, or two elected members plus the Speaker), the members who have appeared make a decision. As a general practice, that usually happens within 24 hours.
At one time, the SC relied on IRC chat, but that proved to be troublesome for a quorum. With the secure SC discussion forum, as I recall the benchmark has usually been that discussion and action is usually completed in 24 hours or less.
 
To the distractions brought up in the voting thread -

While it is custom to ask the proposer as to whether they would like the bill to move to a vote, ultimate authority rests upon the speaker as seen here:

Art 4.1
C - The Speaker shall preside over and act as debate moderator for the deliberations of the Regional Assembly. The Speaker shall keep discussions moving forward in an orderly and civil manner. The Speaker shall ascertain when the debate and deliberations on a bill have reached the point for a referendum, which shall be selected no later than 21 days from the date the bill is submitted for consideration. The Speaker shall have such authority as is necessary and proper to exercise the powers granted to, or to execute the duties imposed the Speaker under this Constitution or by The North Pacific Legal Code, or by the other laws enacted pursuant to this Constitution, and subject to such limitations on those powers and duties established under this Constitution.
Click to expand...

Quite frankly, I said during the campaign thread I was more likely to call to vote issues which might seem to lose and we've seen this proposal seem to come up again and again in the form of "no more bureacracy, we keep adding layers and layers of people who don't seem to care or are inactive, and just slow things down. yadda yadda yadda." Let this be the first test as to see whether this is true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top