UNDER DEBATE - Election Transition Clarification Bill

Gaspo

Gaspo

TNPer
There is ambiguity in the legal code regarding the procedure for taking office. The legal code in its current form exhibits ambiguity, in which the oath which is required to exercise a position's powers must be posted within a week of the end of the election, but the law simultaneously states that an individual has already assumed the office at the moment of the election's completion. So, we fix it.

Currently, it says this:
Section 4.1: Oath of Office
1. All government officials will take the Oath of Office below before assuming their role within the government of The North Pacific.
I, [forum username], do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as [government position], I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of [government position], with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.
Click to expand...
2. All government officials will be required to take the Oath of Office within one week of attaining office or be subject to removal from office following an automatic recall vote.
Click to expand...

4.1.1 says you have to take the oath before assuming your office, and 4.1.2 says you have to take the oath within a week of assuming your office. So you have to take the oath within a week of being in office, but you're not in office til you take the oath. Confusing, no? So, we change it to...

[quote="Election Transition Clarification Bill]A Proposal to Amend a Law
1. The wording of Legal Code Chapter 4.1.2 will be changed to the following (as this is a major rewrite, changes are not specifically delineated):
2. All government officials will be required to take the Oath of Office within one week of the certification of election results by the Election Commissioner, or if appointed, within one week of their appointment being announced. The taking of the Oath constitutes assumption of the office. Failure to post the oath within the allotted time will result in the office being considered vacant, to be filled in accordance with all laws governing elections or appointments, as is appropriate for the office in question.
Click to expand...
2. For the sake of consistency and clarity, the definition of Vacancy in Legal Code Chapter 4.2.8 must be slightly tweaked to explicitly include failure to post the oath. Its new version will read as follows (added text in Blue):
8. A "vacancy" in an office occurs when the holder of it resigns, is removed, or abandons it . An office is abandoned when its holder does not log onto the regional forums for two weeks without prior notice, or when an election winner or appointee fails to post the Oath of Office. Vacancies of elected offices are filled through a special election unless a it cannot be completed prior to the beginning of the appropriate scheduled election cycle. Pending an election, however, a vacancy may be temporarily filled as provided by the Constitution, this Legal Code, or a rule adopted by the appropriate body. Vacancies of appointed positions may be filled in accordance with proper appointment procedures.
Click to expand...
3. Finally, to address a simple grammar error in 4.2.4, defining Abstentions, the following word will be removed (change denoted in red):
4. "Abstentions" are not votes for or against any candidate, and may not be used to determine the results of any election. They may be used to for quorum, activity, or other purposes.
Click to expand...
4. No renumbering of the Legal Code would be required by this bill.[/quote]

The end result of this is that an individual is clearly not in office until they take the oath, they have a week to take said oath, and they can't act as though they're in the office, until they take the oath. This means there's no need for a recall of someone who's not actually in office officially. Such a recall would be ridiculous, and would probably fail anyways, as the person being recalled would have literally just been elected.

Simple language good, complex language bad. Consistency good. Yay.

Thoughts?

[quote="Election Transition Clarification Bill]A Proposal to Amend a Law
1. The wording of Legal Code Chapter 4.1.2 will be changed to the following (as this is a major rewrite, changes are not specifically delineated):
2. All government officials will be required to take the Oath of Office within one week of the certification of election results by the Election Commissioner, or if appointed, within one week of their appointment being announced. The taking of the Oath constitutes assumption of the office. Failure to post the oath within the allotted time will result in the office being considered vacant, to be filled in accordance with all laws governing elections or appointments, as is appropriate for the office in question.
Click to expand...
2. For the sake of consistency and clarity, the definition of Vacancy in Legal Code Chapter 4.2.8 must be slightly tweaked to explicitly include failure to post the oath. Its new version will read as follows (added text in Blue):
8. A "vacancy" in an office occurs when the holder of it resigns, is removed, or abandons it . An office is abandoned when its holder does not log onto the regional forums for two weeks without prior notice, or when an election winner or appointee fails to post the Oath of Office. Vacancies of elected offices are filled through a special election unless a it cannot be completed prior to the beginning of the appropriate scheduled election cycle. Pending an election, however, a vacancy may be temporarily filled as provided by the Constitution, this Legal Code, or a rule adopted by the appropriate body. Vacancies of appointed positions may be filled in accordance with proper appointment procedures.
Click to expand...
3. No renumbering of the Legal Code would be required by this bill.[/quote]
[quote="Election Transition Clarification Bill]A Proposal to Amend a Law
1. The wording of Legal Code Chapter 4.1.2 will be changed to the following (as this is a major rewrite, changes are not specifically delineated):
2. All government officials will be required to take the Oath of Office within one week of the certification of election results by the Election Commissioner, or if appointed, within one week of their appointment being announced. The taking of the Oath constitutes assumption of the office. Failure to post the oath within the allotted time will result in the office being considered vacant, to be filled in accordance with all laws governing elections or appointments, as is appropriate for the office in question.
Click to expand...
2. For the sake of consistency and clarity, the definition of Vacancy in Legal Code Chapter 4.2.8 must be slightly tweaked to explicitly include failure to post the oath. Its new version will read as follows (added text in Blue):
8. A "vacancy" in an office occurs when the holder of it resigns, is removed, or abandons it . An office is abandoned when its holder does not log onto the regional forums for two weeks without prior notice, or when an election winner fails to post the Oath of Office. Vacancies are filled through a special election unless a it cannot be completed prior to the beginning of the appropriate scheduled election cycle. Pending an election, however, a vacancy may be temporarily filled as provided by the Constitution, this Legal Code, or a rule adopted by the appropriate body.
Click to expand...
3. No renumbering of the Legal Code would be required by this bill.[/quote]
[quote="Election Transition Clarification Bill]A Proposal to Amend a Law
1. The wording of Legal Code Chapter 4.1.2 will be changed to the following (as this is a major rewrite, changes are not specifically delineated):
2. All government officials will be required to take the Oath of Office within one week of the certification of election results by the Election Commissioner. The taking of the Oath constitutes assumption of the office. Failure to post the oath within the allotted time will result in the office being considered vacant, to be filled in accordance with all laws governing elections.
Click to expand...
2. For the sake of consistency and clarity, the definition of Vacancy in Legal Code Chapter 4.2.8 must be slightly tweaked to explicitly include failure to post the oath. Its new version will read as follows (added text in Blue):
8. A "vacancy" in an office occurs when the holder of it resigns, is removed, or abandons it . An office is abandoned when its holder does not log onto the regional forums for two weeks without prior notice, or when an election winner fails to post the Oath of Office. Vacancies are filled through a special election unless a it cannot be completed prior to the beginning of the appropriate scheduled election cycle. Pending an election, however, a vacancy may be temporarily filled as provided by the Constitution, this Legal Code, or a rule adopted by the appropriate body.
Click to expand...
3. No renumbering of the Legal Code would be required by this bill.[/quote]
 
Updated to v1.1; v1.0 didn't include clarification of the vacancy definition; that is now added. Future versions will be separately archived; as this was a relatively minor addition and no comment had yet been lodged, I felt that no archiving of v1.0 was necessary.
 
I'm in full and complete agreement with the substance of this bill.

My stylistic quibble is actually with the law as it stands moreso than with this proposal, so I'll hold it back and instead propose changes to the legal code to improve its style after this is resolved.
 
I fear I fail to comprehend your inquiry as never do I converse speaking a single tongue besides the human languages.
 
I have a small issue over the definition of "vacancy." Is it possible that it could be tweaked a bit to expand on the meaning of "prior notice" at all? For example, prior notice could mean a thread announcing a leave of absence. I'm concerned that it could become a possible loophole at some point if not.
 
I'll look at language for it, but I'll have to review the rest of the legal code to make sure there are no conflicts, as I did with this. Give me 12-18 hrs.
 
There is a problem with this.

Under the current requirement all officials of the government, whether elected or appointed have to post an oath of office. Under the drafts of this bill, only elected offices have to post an oath of office.

I think it would be a very bad idea to not require an oath of office from officials that are appointed. I'm not bothered by the desire to require an oath before entering office; I am bothered about removing the oath requirement for appointed offices and positions in the government.
 
Fair point, but incredibly easy to fix. 4.1.1 isn't being touched by this, so the simple addition of "or within one week of their appointment" will fix it. Adding that now; will label it v1.2
 
And updated. Very slight language tweak to Section 2 of the bill, adding the same requirements and penalties (1 week to post, or considered vacant). I also expanded the last sentence of that section, to note that the vacancy will be filled in accordance with election or appointment, as is appropriate for the office in question.
 
Speaker hat:

Belshaft has moved to vote, but I am conscious that this has only been under debate for a couple of days. To give people a chance to participate in forming this law, I propose leaving the debate open for a week, until 16th December, then moving it to the voting floor (provided V1.2 finds a seconder).

Of course, if there is a loud enough call to move to a vote it can go forward earlier than that.
 
The amendment to the "vacancy" definition clause as worded implies that a vacancy in an appointed office has to be filed by a special election. I don't think that is what is intended, and a clarifying clause needs to be added to make the distinction and limitation is clear.

(I can think of two ways to do this, but I'll leave those choices to Gaspo to sort out; but we do need language that makes clear that vacancies in appointed office are not covered by the special election provision.)
 
I'm not sure I agree with the implication you see there, but I can easily rework around it. Changes forthcoming.
 
Updated to v1.3 with clarifications to the "vacancy" definition in 4.2.8. As the changes to that clause remain minor in the context of the entire clause, they are marked in blue, while the major rewrite of 4.1.2 remains non-specifically-delineated.
 
Updated to v1.4. Elu recognized a small grammar error in the legal code - an errant "to" - the removal of which has been added to this bill. I didn't think it warranted an entirely new bill. The new bit of this bill is clause 3; please review it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top