Constitutional Amendment on officeholder

Grosseschnauzer

Grosseschnauzer

TNPer
Proposed Constitutional amendment on requirements for officeholders and related Legal Code change on RA inactivity:
A bill to amend the Constitution of The North Pacific and amend a law. No part of this bill will take effect unless the entirety of the bill takes effect.
That Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 be amended to add:

7. Candidates for these elected officials must be members of the Assembly for 30 days before nominations begin. These elected officials, and all other judicial or executive officers, must maintain membership in the Assembly throughout their tenure in office. No Player may hold more than one elected office, nor serve as a judicial office, nor serve as an executive officer, at the same time.
Click to expand...

Further, that Law 28, Article III, Section Two, be amended as follows:
Section Two

Inactivity
1. Assembly members whose removal is ordered by the Court, whose North Pacific nation leaves or ceases to exist, or who fail to log into the North Pacific forum for over 30 days (unless prior notice of an absence is given to the Speaker) shall be removed from membership automatically by the Speaker.
Click to expand...

1. Assembly members whose nation has CTE'd (Ceased to Exist) or who have moved out of The North Pacific when not on official business shall be removed from membership automatically by the Speaker.

2. Assembly members who fail to indicate their activity on the forum by posting for over 30 days shall be removed from membership automatically by the Speaker unless a notice of absence was submitted to the Speaker before the absence takes place.

3. Assembly members who have missed two consecutive votes on any Regional Assembly items shall be removed from membership automatically by the Speaker, unless a notice of absence was submitted to the Speaker before two consecutive votes occur.

4. As used in this Section.

A. "Two consecutive votes" are defined as two votes on any items that are conducted at different time intervals of at least 3 days between the start of each vote, but are voted one after another. Votes on two or more items at the same time are not defined as two consecutive votes.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

This addition is intended to cure two loopholes that have become evident in recent terms. First that elected officeholders have been allowed to retain office after their membership in the Assembly has lapsed; and second, that some have held positions in the Cabinet and the Court at the same time.

We can probably use different wording in a constitutional revision, but for now, I’d like to cure this loophole immediately.

edit: after discussion with Eluvatar about the RA inactivity impact on officeholders, we've agreed to include an interim amendment to Law 28 if this should be adopted before the Legal Code revamp.
 
How about having this to address the Law 28 issue in the interim:

Amend Law 28, Article III, Section Two, as follows:
Section Two

Inactivity
1. Assembly members whose removal is ordered by the Court, whose North Pacific nation leaves or ceases to exist, or who fail to log into the North Pacific forum for over 30 days (unless prior notice of an absence is given to the Speaker) shall be removed from membership automatically by the Speaker.
Click to expand...

1. Assembly members whose nation has CTE'd (Ceased to Exist) or who have moved out of The North Pacific when not on official business shall be removed from membership automatically by the Speaker.

2. Assembly members who fail to indicate their activity on the forum by posting for over 30 days shall be removed from membership automatically by the Speaker unless a notice of absence was submitted to the Speaker before the absence takes place.

3. Assembly members who have missed two consecutive votes on any Regional Assembly items shall be removed from membership automatically by the Speaker, unless a notice of absence was submitted to the Speaker before two consecutive votes occur.

4. As used in this Section.

A. "Two consecutive votes" are defined as two votes on any items that are conducted at different time intervals of at least 3 days between the start of each vote, but are voted one after another. Votes on two or more items at the same time are not defined as two consecutive votes.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Then I would have no objection to this. I'd prefer to revamp the legal code entirely first, but that is less of an imperative.
 
If the Legal Code revamp gets through first, then I can change this proposal back, but just in case, I want to fix the bigger problem and not wait.
 
Since Elu is indicating some minor work still needs to be worked out on the revamp, I will go ahead and second the motion for a vote.
However, as I indicated, if something needs to be changed before a vote actually starts (i.e., the revamp reaches a vote first, somehow, then I reserve the right to make that edit.
 
These have been moved to a vote here and here.

That said, I see a potential problem with the proposed constitutional amendment. Namely, the clause "[n]o Player may [...] serve as judicial or executive officers, at any time" means that people can never hold these offices at all, because there's no word like "simultaneous". It's just a flat out prohibition.

EDIT: Also, the "or" should be an "and" probably.
 
The current constitution uses the word "Player" in at least one other provision so the use here was intentional to signify that a player could only hold one of any elected office, a judicial officer position, or an executive officer position, at the same time. We can change the final amendment to:
"No Player may hold more than one elected office, nor serve as a judicial office, nor serve as an executive officer, at the same time."
At the moment, we're sort of hemmed in by the language choices currently in the constitution. (The "executive officer" phrase was newly enhanced by Eluvatar's recently adopted amendment, so that is why that phrasing was used.)
I am bothered by the division of the proposal without my consent and without even contacting me first; we've had related provisions amending the Constitution and the Legal Code voted on as one proposal at the same time on numerous occasions. I drafted this knowing that a revision of the constitution is being worked on, but recognizing we needed to fix these loopholes immediately.

Per the current IRC discussion, I am adding the following preamble to the bill:
"A bill to amend the Constitution of The North Pacific and amend a law. No part of this bill will take effect unless the entirety of the bill takes effect."
 
I dislike the fact that an elected officer may hold only one office and also cannot hold an executive position.

This rather cuts McMasterdonia from running for the Council of Five off at the knees, doesn't it?

Unless I'm missing something...
 
Isimud:
I dislike the fact that an elected officer may hold only one office and also cannot hold an executive position.

This rather cuts McMasterdonia from running for the Council of Five off at the knees, doesn't it?

Unless I'm missing something...
Click to expand...
From my understanding of it, it does indeed do that.
 
I've already suggested a workaround to Eluvatar.
The need to cap these loopholes and fixing the RA activity issues is paramount; we can revisit the wording in a revised Constitution as that deliberation proceeds. But we've had too many instances in the last six months or so of people exploiting the "one office" loophole and it's becoming ridiculous.
 
Generally, as a rule, I think restricting office holders to one specific branch of government (with the exception of the RA, of course) when it comes to over-lapping with the Judicial and Executive branches. Of course, this would mean that the AG would technically be a member of the Executive Branch and not the Judicial...
 
Roman, since the law specifically makes the AG part of the judicial branch, it is part of the judicial branch. There is nothing inherent that makes it an executive office. In real life outside of the US many nations have the chief prosecutor as part of the judiciary and not part of the executive; and even in the U.S., the Attorney General at both the state and federal levels are far more subject to judicial supervision and rules than the executive.
 
In the first version of the constitutional amendment proposed, the text was:

7. Candidates for these elected officials must be members of the Assembly for 30 days before nominations begin. These elected officials, and all other judicial or executive officers, must maintain membership in the Assembly throughout their tenure in office. No Player may hold more than one elected office, or serve as judicial or executive officers, at any time.
Click to expand...

This version clearly prohibited being in multiple elected offices (e.g. Vice Delegate & Speaker) and separately prohibited being in both an executive and judicial office.

In the current version of the constitutional amendment proposed, the text is:

7. Candidates for these elected officials must be members of the Assembly for 30 days before nominations begin. These elected officials, and all other judicial or executive officers, must maintain membership in the Assembly throughout their tenure in office. No Player may hold more than one elected office, nor serve as a judicial office, nor serve as an executive officer, at the same time.
Click to expand...

I understand this second version to prohibit the same as the first, but also prohibit being both an elected official and an appointed executive officer. This I am strongly opposed to and will not motion for or second any proposal that says this.
 
Perhaps something could be substituted to maintain separation of powers between the 3 branches of the government, without prohibiting crossfertilization among the executive offices and appointees. We've got the active players willing to hold those offices, so let's use them (in the nicest possible sense :D )

Possibly including a limit of no more than 2 such executive offices/appointments simultaneously.
 
Eluvatar:
In the first version of the constitutional amendment proposed, the text was:

7. Candidates for these elected officials must be members of the Assembly for 30 days before nominations begin. These elected officials, and all other judicial or executive officers, must maintain membership in the Assembly throughout their tenure in office. No Player may hold more than one elected office, or serve as judicial or executive officers, at any time.
Click to expand...

This version clearly prohibited being in multiple elected offices (e.g. Vice Delegate & Speaker) and separately prohibited being in both an executive and judicial office.

In the current version of the constitutional amendment proposed, the text is:

7. Candidates for these elected officials must be members of the Assembly for 30 days before nominations begin. These elected officials, and all other judicial or executive officers, must maintain membership in the Assembly throughout their tenure in office. No Player may hold more than one elected office, nor serve as a judicial office, nor serve as an executive officer, at the same time.
Click to expand...

I understand this second version to prohibit the same as the first, but also prohibit being both an elected official and an appointed executive officer. This I am strongly opposed to and will not motion for or second any proposal that says this.
Click to expand...
The change between the two was strictly grammarical, and not substantive. We discussed this on IRC as I recall as I copied and pasted the change into the chat for youto see.

I think it is inappropriate for an elected official of another branch to hold another quasi-elected or constitutional office in the executive.

One issue is that the NPA, at the current time is not a statutorily created body. And the real issue expressed to me only after the aborted vote was that it affected that particular body. I've suggested at least two ways to you to address that for the time being while a revised constitution with a clean limitation of office holding provision can be adopted.

If you have a better way of specifically wording a fix until then, post it; don't play these games because at the moment, I am not in the mood. You do not want to mess with me while I am in this mood. And until I have fair treatment on this proposal I will be having this mood. Comprice?
 
I don't want to see the Vice Delegate prohibited from being in the Cabinet.

I do not believe your original proposal prohibited that. If it intended to do so, that does indeed show it was unclear, and that I misunderstood it.

I would be happy to support a proposal that would prohibit any person from holding more than one elected office, and prohibit anyone from being both Speaker and Executive Officer or Judicial Officer and Executive Officer.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I think it is inappropriate for an elected official of another branch to hold another quasi-elected or constitutional office in the executive.
Click to expand...
Would you go for a law that expressed it in terms of governmental branches then?

You can't hold constitutionally defined jobs in more than one branch of the government at the same time, kind of thing.

Solves the immediate issue, I believe the VD is counted as part of the executive as are cabinet / council of five roles, and prevents individuals from having power over multiple branches of government.
 
It gets complicated in that the Vice Delegate is also chair of the Security Council, but we haven't even considered applying separation of powers to the Security Council before, mainly as the Council doesn't really have legal powers.
 
The Security Council is an "independent establishment" from the three branches of government. It exercises specific functions that overlap the other branches (i.e., enforcing a recall of the Delegate, triggering a line of succession, serving as a regional security body.

And my change to the one sentence was to fix a grammatical error that made the sentence unclear. The Vice Delegate only has executive function when they serve as Acting Delegate. My intention was to curb the holding of more than one of elected offices, or offices specified in the Constitution.
Maybe we can add a clause allowing for express statutory exceptions to a general rule on the matter. And that way, the resolution of the issue can be carried forward into the constitutional revision.
 
Eluvatar, does this meet your objection?
7. Candidates for these elected officials must be members of the Assembly for 30 days before nominations begin. These elected officials, and all other judicial or executive officers, must maintain membership in the Assembly throughout their tenure in office. No Player may hold more than one elected office at any time. Except as provided by law, no Player may simultaneously serve as a judicial officer, an legislative officer, or an executive officer.
Click to expand...

If not, how about an alternative language?
 
With the Legal Code revamp we need some special language to address its placement in the Legal Code if the new one is adopted:


A bill to amend the Constitution of The North Pacific and amend a law. No part of this bill will take effect unless the entirety of the bill takes effect.
1. That Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 in its entirety be amended to read:
7. Candidates for these elected officials must be members of the Assembly for 30 days before nominations begin. These elected officials, and all other judicial or executive officers, must maintain membership in the Assembly throughout their tenure in office. No Player may hold more than one elected office at any time. Except as provided by law, no Player may simultaneously serve as a judicial officer, a legislative officer, or an executive officer.
Click to expand...
2. Further, that Law 28, Article III, Section Two, be amended as follows:
Section Two
Inactivity
1. Assembly members whose removal is ordered by the Court, whose North Pacific nation leaves or ceases to exist, or who fail to log into the North Pacific forum for over 30 days (unless prior notice of an absence is given to the Speaker) shall be removed from membership automatically by the Speaker.
Click to expand...

3. Noting that a replacement to the Legal Code is currently at vote in the Regional Assembly, and in the event that the current Legal Code is repealed and replaced by such new Legal Code, the Delegate, the Speaker, and the Chief Justice shall, within 3 days of enactment of the law contained in the preceding part, determine and certify the placement of that statutory language as part of the newly enacted Legal Code.
Click to expand...

Can I get a new motion to vote and a second?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top