Abstain's Request for Review: Government Officials Definition

punk d

punk d

TNPer
-
-
So...I'm glad the scope has been broadened.

Part of what I am questioning is if there is a different between government official and 'government official' as defined within our laws.

One major point to make note of is the fact that I do not believe Election Commissioners take oaths of office. I thought we could get away with the point of saying if you take an oath you're a government official. But EC's don't take oaths as far as I have seen recently.

comments from GM via PM:
here are a few thoughts on the current issue. I am not a RL lawyer so I am not one to mince words or drag things out unnecessarily. I will get to the point and utilize examples but have no interest in formatting an actual legal statement. Just saying.

The Constitution is the governing document of the region. It defines the government. The Security Council is defined within the Constitution, therefore it is part of the government. Since the members are ratified by the Regional Assembly and charged by the same for the potential removal of the Delegate under its orders they must be included as part of the overall governmental apparatus.

Further, since Security Council members can internally determine a succession to the Delegacy, which is undoubtedly a government position, they must be part of the government, and therefore government officers.

I will add more later but for the general idea of "which positions are government positions" I would argue that any position defined within the Constitution is part of government by default.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah EC's have never been required to take an oath. I am in general agreement with GM here. I will post more later.
 
A point that has been brought up by GBM and others - if SC members are categorized as government officials can they hold other offices?

Perhaps the Court should consider them part of government but not officers directly since their primary role is [OOC]in the game utilizing Influence to kick people like myself who get the Delegacy[/OOC]?
 
Deputy Ministers and Ministers in total are also appointed. They do take the oath as well.

I'm not sure election can be the standard. I believe the intent of 'government official' was anyone who performed a particular government function. I'm going to put some thoughts together with law refs over the weekend to make a little more sense of this in my own brain.
 
I've been looking at this thread for 2 days...lol....was hoping for some more input.

Looks like tomorrow afternoon before I'll be able to pull more information together. I'd like to discuss this a bit more though. I felt like the old court had 2-3 discussion posts and then a ruling. I didn't like that. So let me offer this as the scope of our discussion on gov officials. We need to answer the question for

  • Delegate
  • Vice-Delegate
  • Speaker
  • Justices (although this is covered in a separate ruling) [in my mind this includes, THOs as well)
  • Security Council
  • Ministers
  • Dep. Ministers
  • Elections Commissioners
  • Attorney General

Am I missing anything/one else?
 
Delegate - This is the foundation of the government. It is head of state and elected by the RA. Obviously a government official IMO.
Vice-Delegate - It is head of the SC and elected by the RA. Obviously a government official IMO.
Speaker - Elected by the RA. Government.
Justices (although this is covered in a separate ruling) [in my mind this includes, THOs as well) - Precedent, obvious.
Security Council - same as what I posted above.
Ministers - Appointed and oath taking. Internal to the government apparatus. Government.
Dep. Ministers - Same.
Elections Commissioners - Appointed and oath taking. Manages the flow of government elections. Government.
Attorney General - I would classify this with the Justice precedent.
 
So then we'd have to begin making EC's take the oath. They currently don't today.

Should we not also address the issue of RA members being gov officials or is that unnecessary?
 
I would not address RA members. I wouldn't classify them as Government officials either. I am in agreement with the list.
 
Yes, I think in our ruling we'll make it a requirement for ALL goverment officials.

It's probably a practice that died at some point.
 
Finally...here it is. One thing I added is affirming that all government officials elected or otherwise are subject to recall. We didn't really discuss that, so please include comments on that as well.

I'd like to issue the ruling prior to the end of the judicial elections.


Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Abstain on the definition of Government Officials​

Opinion drafted by Punk D, joined by Gracius Maximus & Hileville​

The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by Abstain.
The inquiry asks the Court to determine whether the following positions are government officials as defined by The North Pacific Law:
  • Delegate
  • Vice-Delegate
  • Speaker
  • Justices and temporary hearing officers
  • Security Council
  • Ministers
  • Dep. Ministers/AG’s
  • Elections Commissioners
  • Attorney General
Having made this determination, the court is then asked to determine the Constitutionality of former Security Council member Pasargad’s removal from office under the guidelines outlined under Article 2 of the Constitution.

The Court took into consideration the Relevant parts of the Legal Code of the North Pacific and past rulings on the subject:
Legal Code Section 3.1.8 If there is a vacancy on the Court, or any Justice is unavailable or has a conflict of interest the remaining Justices will promptly appoint a hearing officer to participate as temporary Justices.

Legal Code 4.1.1 All government officials will take the Oath of Office below before assuming their role within the government of The North Pacific.
[snip]
Legal Code 4.1.2 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.
[snip]
Legal Code 4.2.6 "Election Commissioner" is an individual designated to supervise a given election. No one who may be a candidate in an election may serve as an Election Commissioner during it.

Legal Code 6.3.17 The Delegate and appointed government officials will be delegated the task of informing the Assembly of any governmental action not already disclosed by the respective officers of the Executive.
4. No Nation of The North Pacific holding WA member status in NationStates shall be obligated to endorse any official of a government authority of the region. The right to add an endorsement or withdraw an endorsement is a sovereign right of that Nation as a WA member.

5. All Nations of The North Pacific have the right to be protected against the abuse of powers by any official of a government authority of the region. Any Nation of The North Pacific has the right to request the recall of any official of a government authority of the region in accordance with the Constitution, that is deemed to have participated in such acts
8. No Nation shall be ejected from the region, or banned from any forum, except as expressly authorized by the Constitution or the Legal Code. Should any official of a government authority of the region with authority to act, declare that the immediate ejection or banning of a Nation is an urgent matter of regional security they may order the ejection or banning of the nation. Any ejected or banned nation shall have prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter. The WA Delegate shall not exercise the power of ejection or banning unless expressly authorized by a specific action of a government authority of the region pursuant to the Constitution or to the Legal Code.
Article 2 -3The Regional Assembly may remove a government official from office by a two-thirds majority vote.
Article 4-4 The official opinion of the Court in any trial or review will be binding on all Government bodies and officials.

Article 5-4 The Security Council will monitor the region?s security and report on it to the public, and enforce decisions of the Regional Assembly to remove the Delegate.

Article 6-1 All government officials must maintain membership in the Regional Assembly. Candidates in any election must maintain membership in the Regional Assembly for the fifteen days before the opening of nominations.
Article 6-2 All government officials will swear an oath of office. The content of these oaths will be determined by law and be legally binding.
ruling on justices as government officials
Ruling on the powers of Election Commissioners
The Court opines the following:
The positions of Delegate, Vice-Delegate, Speaker, Attorney General and their applicable deputies all have specific powers outlined by The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code.
Article 6 of the Constitution notes that all government officials shall swear an oath of office. This oath is the requirement to assume a position giving the officeholder authority and powers beyond the ability to introduce legislation and vote in elections which are conferred to members of the Regional Assembly.
Furthermore, Bill of Rights numbers 4, 5, 8 describe the recourse methods for nations believing they have been aggrieved by government officials. This Court finds that the expressed and implicit intent of these rights are to ensure all named and appointed by named offices within TNP law be subject to the provisions of the Bill of Rights. The Court finds that these positions are government officials and are subject to this provision.
Article 5-4 charges the Security Council with “monitor[ing] the region’s security and report on it to the public”. Additionally, members of the Security Council are elected by the Regional Assembly (Article 5-2) which signifies that the office of Security Council is not merely a designation resulting from length of service, having a nation within TNP, or the like but an elected position with specific duties performed therein. Therefore, the Court finds that Security Council members are government officials.
In Opinion Part 1, the Court found that government officials are subject to the recall provisions described within the Bill of Rights and having concluded that Security Council members are also government officials, the Court finds that Security Council members are also subject to the recall process and upholds any prior, present, or future recall votes administered in accordance with relevant recall guidelines and laws.
The Court previously stated:
[T]he Court finds that requiring Candidates to post their declaration in a thread designated for such a purpose is a reasonable manifestation of the Election Commissioners' ability to oversee an election.
Click to expand...
In its decision, the Court interpreted the “supervise” provision of the Legal Code (Section 4.2.6) endowed the Election Commissioners with the power to designate where nominations could be legally received. This court affirms the Election Commissioners’ authority in this respect and also opines that such authority establishes the members thereof as government officials.
In Opinion Part 1, the Court found that government officials are subject to the recall provisions described within the Bill of Rights and having concluded that Election Commissioners are also government officials, the Court finds that Election Commissioners are also subject to the recall process and upholds any prior, present, or future recall votes administered in accordance with relevant recall guidelines and laws.
Additionally, the Court found that no records existed with the forum thread for oaths of office (Link) for Election Commissioners. The Court believes this to be a gross oversight and charges all future commissioners to state the oath in accordance with Legal Code Section 4.1.
This Court affirms the previous ruling on Justices Link. Given the authority that is given to Temporary Hearing Officers to perform the duties of a Justice, the Court opines that Temporary Hearing officers are also government officials.
In Opinion Part 1, the Court found that government officials are subject to the recall provisions described within the Bill of Rights and having concluded that Temporary Hearing Officers are also government officials, the Court finds that Temporary Hearing Officers are also subject to the recall process and upholds any prior, present, or future recall votes administered in accordance with relevant recall guidelines and laws.
 
GBM has asked me if we plan to rule on whether or not, if SC members are government officials are they able to hold other offices as well.

That's not directly being asked by us to address, but I am 100% positive if we rule as we are thinking then it will be the next request for review.
 
I think a dispensation for SC members should be included regarding other offices. I think I mentioned this earlier. The SC operates solely within the confines of the game itself and would therefore provide no clear conflict of interest in forum based government offices.

Otherwise, I agree with the ruling fully.

Note: Fridays and Saturdays are generally family time for me, sorry for the delay.
 
Let me see if I can add that quickly.

I agree that SC members should be able to run for other offices. Just not quite sure of the legal reasoning.

If we can't get agreement on that prior to the end of the special elections, I'm going to post this ruling, with the proviso that we will be issuing a secondary rulng on SC members holding other offices.
 
Article 6. General Provisions

3. No person may simultaneously hold more than one elected office or simultaneously hold offices in more than one judicial, legislative or executive category.
Click to expand...

Well, SC positions are not elected, right? Can we designate the SC as an administrative body outside of the judicial, legislative and executive categories? That should cover it.
 
Well, they are elected by the RA

3. The Security Council may approve applicants by a majority vote. The Regional Assembly may admit an approved applicant by a majority vote. If the Security Council does not approve an applicant or does not act on them within thirty days, the Regional Assembly may admit the applicant by a two-thirds majority vote.
Click to expand...

So either scenario requires an approval by the RA...but...technically it is not an 'election'. Even ministers are appointed by an elected official - the delegate. SC members are 'approved' meaning its an application process based upon certain requirements. While the RA does vote in an applicant, it's just that an application. In other words, the Constitution puts no limit on the number of SC members so anyone fitting the bill could apply even if that was every single person within the RA or even citizens since RA membership can be suspended.

Hmm...I think I've got something working in my head.
 
punk d:
Well, they are elected by the RA

3. The Security Council may approve applicants by a majority vote. The Regional Assembly may admit an approved applicant by a majority vote. If the Security Council does not approve an applicant or does not act on them within thirty days, the Regional Assembly may admit the applicant by a two-thirds majority vote.
Click to expand...

So either scenario requires an approval by the RA...but...technically it is not an 'election'. Even ministers are appointed by an elected official - the delegate. SC members are 'approved' meaning its an application process based upon certain requirements. While the RA does vote in an applicant, it's just that an application. In other words, the Constitution puts no limit on the number of SC members so anyone fitting the bill could apply even if that was every single person within the RA or even citizens since RA membership can be suspended.

Hmm...I think I've got something working in my head.
Click to expand...
I agree. I don't consider ratification or approval an election. Elections are very clearly (for the most part) defined within the Constitution and the Legal Code, the SC ratification does not fall under those parameters.
 
Alright - I'm going with this ruling, but will advise that the Court plans to make a separate ruling on whether or not Security Council members can hold offices. I won't be back online till the afternoon - US East coast time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top