Repeal TNP Law 25

Eluvatar

Eluvatar

TNPer
-
-
Pronouns
he/him/his
TNP Nation
Zemnaya Svoboda
Discord
Eluvatar#8517
I would like to propose the following simple bill:

TNP Law 25 is hereby repealed.
Click to expand...

Why do I do this?

Because I believe that TNP Law 25, almost as much as its predecessor TNP Law 17, strangles the University and makes it extremely difficult for anything to actually be achieved. In my opinion, the University should function on a system like the Guilds system Flemingovia has proposed.
 
At the moment, the Board of Regents consists of FALCONKATS, Monte Ozarka, John Ashcroft Land, HEM, Outer Kharkistania, and Blue Wolf II, with a vacancy that hasnt been filled. There's no hancellor because the Regents haven't gotten around to electing a new one.

As far as I know, FALCONKATS and Outer Kharkistania are here, JAL, HEM and Blue Wolf are colored crimson, and M.O. has disappeared. Now if someonr nominates themselves to fill the vacancy, and I'm sure the RA wold approve it, the three regents would be enough to make whatver structural changes they wish. The Board elects the chancellor; the internal organization of the university is up to thw University, and the only interface between the government and the University is that the RA elects the seven regents every six months, and the university may be a party to a proceeding in the Court.

The Univrsity's autonomy is such that I'm not sure a repeal, technically, would now make any differemce, since the University now has its charter and can change it as they wish.
 
HEM resigned from his Crimson post.

While he cited being too busy as his main reason, he had other reasons.

But yeah, he's still out because I doubt he'll come back to try and wrangle with an unruly university system when he has a region to run.

Blue Wolf is neither Crimson or z13, but yeah, you can still count him out.
 
"Law 25"? "Law 17"?

What the hell, are you going to make me read the entire legal code? :P

Edit: For convenience, here is a citation of #25. #17 has evidently been repealed already... where is it?

Section 1. Creation.
A - The North Pacific University is created as an autonomous, independent institution of learning, scholarship and knowledge of The North Pacific.
B - The University may contain one or more special institutes or schools for the training of personnel to be used in the diplomatic, security, law enforcement, judicial, military, or other functions of the Regional Government.
C - The University shall have standing to be a party in a proceeding in any regional judiciary entity.

Section 2. Mission Statement.
A - The goal of the University includes, but is not limited to, the creation of an environment where members’ experience and lessons learned may be shared in an instructional setting for the betterment of all players of Nationstates and the game itself. Further, the University may commission original research which includes, but is not limited to, any aspect of gameplay and the history of Nationstates and The North Pacific.

Section 3. The Board of Regents.
A - The Board of Regents of The North Pacific University is created as the governing body of the University. It shall consist of seven elected members. The elected members shall serve six month terms.
B - The Board of Regents shall elect its own chair, who may vote on any matter before the Board..
C - In the event of an emergency, or where such an action is deemed necessary or appropriate, the chair may refer an appropriate matter to the regional government[, when in the chair's judgment, such a referral is warranted.
D - The Board shall be elected in the first week of March and September by an election in the Regional Assembly. Regents shall be members of the Regional Assembly in good standing during their term. The Board of Regents shall be elected by plurality vote of the Regional Assembly. Vacancies on the board shall be filled by a special election in the Regional Assembly. In all instances, there will be a nomination period not to exceed one week, and a voting period not to exceed one week.
E - The Board shall have power to adopt and modify rules and policies concerning student admissions, course offerings, general faculty procedures, and degree certifications, as well as any other appropriate statements of rules and policy. The Board may adopt procedures for its business. The rules shall provide for who shall preside at deliberations of the board in case of the absence of its chair, and who may serve as Acting Chancellor in case of the Chancellor's absence or inactivity at any time during the Chancellor's term.

Section 4. Chancellor.
A- The chief administrator of the University is the Chancellor. The Chancellor shall be appointed by the Board of Regents during the first week of the months of June and December of each year, and shall serve a six month-term.
B - The Chancellor shall be a ex-officio, non-voting member of the Board of Regents. The Chancellor shall be a member of the Regional Assembly during their term of office.
C - The Chancellor shall be accountable to the Board of Regents for the administrative and operational functions of the University.
D - The Board of Regents shall have power to remove the Chancellor for cause, and that removal may be reviewed by appeal to the Court of The North Pacific.
Click to expand...

Just as a question, what law would replace it? This sounds like it pretty much defines the University - what happens to the University without it?
 
Grosseschnauzer:
At the moment, the Board of Regents consists of FALCONKATS, Monte Ozarka, John Ashcroft Land, HEM, Outer Kharkistania, and Blue Wolf II, with a vacancy that hasnt been filled. There's no hancellor because the Regents haven't gotten around to electing a new one.

As far as I know, FALCONKATS and Outer Kharkistania are here, JAL, HEM and Blue Wolf are colored crimson, and M.O. has disappeared. Now if someonr nominates themselves to fill the vacancy, and I'm sure the RA wold approve it, the three regents would be enough to make whatver structural changes they wish. The Board elects the chancellor; the internal organization of the university is up to thw University, and the only interface between the government and the University is that the RA elects the seven regents every six months, and the university may be a party to a proceeding in the Court.

The Univrsity's autonomy is such that I'm not sure a repeal, technically, would now make any differemce, since the University now has its charter and can change it as they wish.
Click to expand...
Surely if the Regional Assembly where to repeal the law that creates the board of regents then this would be completely unneccassary. It sounds like the whole idea needs a complete revamp to me.
 
Indeed.

If Law 25 is repealed, than once the region is free the Delegate we elect can appoint someone to simply run the University.
 
I completely oppose the idea of letting the Delegate control the University. Not even remotely acceptable as far as I am concerned.

And given the frequency at which we've been having to deal with rogue delegates, anything would not be able to safely function in such an athmosphere of instability. (The University would be moved around so much in such an environment it would be unable to function.

The problem at the moment is that the current set of Regents are divided between the two sides, never got around to electing a chancellor after they were elected. I would auggest, as an alternative, to elect a new board of regents (those should have been held in March) and let the newly elected board decide whether to retain the current set up, or change it to something else.
 
I doesn't matter what you oppose.

Don't let your own opinions get in the way of moving this to a vote, because people obviously want to vote on this, and you'll get to vote no on it.
 
Yet again, the people with powerful privilege give the excuse of "We're too busy fighting Westwind to change the status quo or even have a vote on anything."

This diversionary tactic to maintain the status quo is beginning to disgust me.
 
Outer Kharkistania:
Yet again, the people with powerful privilege give the excuse of "We're too busy fighting Westwind to change the status quo or even have a vote on anything."

This diversionary tactic to maintain the status quo is beginning to disgust me.
Click to expand...
First off, I don't have the power to force legislation up. Second of all, there is a process if you feel you're being overlooked it's called the CLO (you know that thing you're all against) and lastly the biggest legislative initiative of the Speaker has also been set aside due to the fact that the illigitimate tyrant you help put in place has been making maneuvers to wipe us out of the region.

Now I'm sorry you're upset but please be patient and don't start up about things you quite simply don't understand.
 
And what are you doing to unseat the delegate?

I've been negotiating with about a dozen different regions to get assistance, and while most of them fell through, I've recruited a couple regions to the cause and we are just waiting for the endogap to narrow.

Unfortunately, it seems most of z13's idea of actively working against WW is posting the same badly worded and unexciting message on the RMB once a day while twiddling their thumbs and waiting for the FRA and Taijitu to come save them.

Our "delegate in waiting" doesn't even know what regions are supporting her or how many troops they've sent in.

Basically, z13 is waiting around to be freed via the random charity of other regions, which is pitiful if you ask me.

Don't tell me what I do and don't understand.
 
If you think the bulk of our operations are simply RMB postings then you haven't the faintest clue about any of the good we've done. Now I can understand your frustration but this is no time to jump ship just because things don't go your way. The vote will proceed in due time.

Whether or not you believe it's part of some cabal working against you or not is none of our concern.
 
While I admire the zeal, is this really the most appropriate utilisation of our time at the moment?

Personally I'm all in favour of removing the University, but the timing of this discussion seems a little strange. The drive for change, almost without consideration as to what that change is; seems to me to be one of the reasons we have a dictatorial regime at the helm.
 
mr_sniffles:
Eluvatar:
It's not right to not put up for a vote you personally disagree with IMO.
Click to expand...
Let's not jump the gun, we haven't even voted on the new judges yet. We've had a lot of movement with the L&C lately.
Click to expand...
Okay. I wasn't saying "VOTE NOW!!!!+shiftone"

I was just observing that the only reason Grosseschnauzer appeared to be giving for not moving this to a vote at any specific time was because he disagreed with the bill.

Please, prove me wrong.

I don't care, really, if this is voted on next week or next month-- if I can have an assurance that it will at some point be voted on.
 
My position has been previously stated. Law 25 made the University totally autonomous, and the Regents have to make any decisions concerning the University, including changing its structure.
As long as there was a divided region, it was impossible to resolve what the attitude of the Regents as a group would be, since some pledged alligence to the Crimson and others remainder here in the Blue. Since GBM intends to issue a blanket pardon, the Regents who were the last set to be elected should be able to communicate with one another here, and decide the fate of the current structure of the University.
Elections for a new Board were due in March, but with the division at the time, those reallly couldn't be conducted. We could decide to proceed to elect a new board (the only role the RA has in the University.)and let them make the ultimate decisions on structure, and if they wish to try to institute Flem's idea of guilds, that is their decision to make. If the RA desires to withdrw from the role of electing Regents, then the current set would have to decide how to choose new Regents completely outside the government. That is their decision, as well.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
My position has been previously stated. Law 25 made the University totally autonomous, and the Regents have to make any decisions concerning the University, including changing its structure.
As long as there was a divided region, it was impossible to resolve what the attitude of the Regents as a group would be, since some pledged alligence to the Crimson and others remainder here in the Blue. Since GBM intends to issue a blanket pardon, the Regents who were the last set to be elected should be able to communicate with one another here, and decide the fate of the current structure of the University.
Elections for a new Board were due in March, but with the division at the time, those reallly couldn't be conducted. We could decide to proceed to elect a new board (the only role the RA has in the University.)and let them make the ultimate decisions on structure, and if they wish to try to institute Flem's idea of guilds, that is their decision to make. If the RA desires to withdrw from the role of electing Regents, then the current set would have to decide how to choose new Regents completely outside the government. That is their decision, as well.
Click to expand...
I wish to disband the current University as it stands. I understood that abolishing the TNP law creating that University would do that. I don't think it's too much to ask to have a vote on this.
 
Outer Kharkistania:
And what are you doing to unseat the delegate?
Click to expand...
I think GBM has a perfectly fine seat. And the rest of her ain't bad either. :P

But really, having the Delegate appoint this position would be in keeping with the rest of the way things are arranged.

Or you could elect/appoint a board of regions to elect that position.
 
To be honest, I see no difference as to whether or not we repeal this or not. Even if this is repealed, the existence of the university will not be illegal private or public. The reason why there are public vs private university is to equalize enrollment between economically opposite classes, since they dont exist here I see no point in codifying it.

There is an upside to having it government controlled: greater sense of duty, a chance for greater participation if the classes are taught by veterans, and a sense of prestige from getting it straight from the source.

But from what Ive seen of the university...
eh

whatever.
 
The thing is the University as it currently is and functioning, established by a TNP Law, fails. It has not at any point been successful. For it to be successful, it needs an active player running it with the ability to run it freely.
 
Eluvatar:
The thing is the University as it currently is and functioning, established by a TNP Law, fails. It has not at any point been successful. For it to be successful, it needs an active player running it with the ability to run it freely.
Click to expand...
To play devils advocate:

Does not the act of codifying mean that there will be consequences shall they be inactive. Does not the call to serve the region act as a sacred duty push to represent and educate.

(I screwed up my keyboard again so no apostrophes or question marks, sorry.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top