Addition of Censure to the Legal Code

There's been a lot of talk lately about letting the RA censure its members, but nothing's actually been proposed - so here goes.

I think a censure would fit in as a new Section 6.8 under the Legal Code. So here is a very, very, very short first draft, because I'm not actually sure what we want to be able to do here.

Section 6.8: Censure

37. The Regional Assembly may express its displeasure with the actions of any citizen, including any malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance while holding office, by passing a motion to censure that individual.
38. Motions of censure require a majority vote to pass.

Click to expand...

Obviously this needs to be fleshed out. Do we want the RA to be able to apply sanctions along with a censure? What kind of sanctions are a) appropriate and b) legal? Should this be restricted to the actions of government officials, or should it be left as open as possible and trust that the RA won't censure someone for something like, say, forgetting to set an avatar?

For the legal minds, if we do want to restrict censure from being used against people for things that have nothing to do with being an official, any suggested wording for 37 that would ensure that people can be censured after leaving office, but restricts the scope of the censure? I originally had "any government official" instead of "any citizen", but I think that might be interpreted as restricting it to only sitting government officials, which wouldn't serve our purposes at all.

------
Current suggested version:

Section 6.8: Censure

37. The Regional Assembly may express its displeasure with the actions of any of its members by passing a motion to censure that individual.
38. Motions of censure require a simple majority vote to pass.
39. Motions of censure may be brought against former Regional Assembly members within one month of their resignation or removal.
40. Motions of censure may not be used in the pursuit of personal vendettas.

Click to expand...

Opposed.

I motion to censure Karp for his opposition to this Censure law.

Isn't that whole "malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance" clause in the oath of office? Wouldn't that be an oath violation and thus could probably just as easily pass as a Recall? What will the censure do differently from a recall? Prevent someone from ever running for office ever again?

I second the puppy's motion

Isn't that whole "malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance" clause in the oath of office?

Click to expand...

It is indeed, that's where I pulled the language from. I'm open to suggestions.

Wouldn't that be an oath violation

Click to expand...

Could be.

and thus could probably just as easily pass as a Recall?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Recalls are pretty hard to pass - a censure could potentially be easier.

What will the censure do differently from a recall? Prevent someone from ever running for office ever again?

Click to expand...

Well, it would be used in situations like, for example, the AG disappearing, losing their office, and then being removed from the RA...

More seriously, a censure would not remove someone from office - it would express disappointment with their performance. That's it. One could recall an official, censure an official, or do both.

We could also potentially censure a RA member for continuous attempts at wasting the RA's time on voting on frivolous motions.

Potentially.

Blue Wolf II:

I motion to censure Karp for his opposition to this Censure law.

Isn't that whole "malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance" clause in the oath of office? Wouldn't that be an oath violation and thus could probably just as easily pass as a Recall? What will the censure do differently from a recall? Prevent someone from ever running for office ever again?

Click to expand...

I motion to censure Blue Wolf for censuring Karp. And I would like to censure myself for censuring Blue Wolf and Karp. Oh, and censure Silly String for being silly.

Actually, 'censure' would be more appropriately part of RA procedural rules, and would essentially come under non-binding resolutions. No addition to the legal code would be necessary and would just add more clutter to the legal code. Censure is just an expression of opinion by the RA/Legislature and can actually be done by the RA any time with or without additional rules.

Censure, also, cannot be actually entail any legal penalty because to allow the RA to impose a legal penalty in a case-by-case situation against an individual or group of individuals would be encroaching on the Judicial branch, and, would also consist of an ex post facto 'law' if it entails an actual penalty or binding resolution.

Sanctaria:

We could also potentially censure a RA member for continuous attempts at wasting the RA's time on voting on frivolous motions.

Potentially.

Click to expand...

You have a point. However, rules changes that make the legislative process more efficient would work just as well.

I like the censure proposal, but how would the process be accelerated as opposed to recall?

I am grateful to SS for starting the ball rolling. But yhere are two things I do not like about her proposal.

1, I think the wording too open to interpretation.

For now, I think "motions of Censure" should be clearly restricted to defined government officials (i.e. those who have take the governmental oath of office). Some people on this forum have real problems controlling their temper or speaking with restraint. Unless we make it clear that only government officials can be included, we will get flooded with motions every time someone does not like a post somebody else has made.


2. I think the definition is too precise.

I think the addition of malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance while holding office" is not needed, and if I were a barrack-room lawyer I could muddy the waters of any motion of censure by arguing the precise meanings of the word.


Can I suggest two alternatives?

Section 6.8: Censure

37. The Regional Assembly may express its displeasure with the actions of any citizen, including any malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance while holding office, Government Official by passing a motion to censure that individual.
38. Motions of censure require a simple majority vote to pass.

Click to expand...

or

Section 6.8: Censure

37. The Regional Assembly may express its displeasure with the actions of any citizen including any malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance while holding office by passing a motion to censure that individual.
38. Motions of censure require a simple majority vote to pass.

Click to expand...

The former restricts the motions more clearly to government officials alone. The latter opens motions of censure up to any citizen.

I agree with the ideas here. I would suggest this:

Section 6.8: Censure

37. The Regional Assembly may express its displeasure with the actions of any of its members by passing a motion to censure that individual.
38. Motions of censure require a simple majority vote to pass.

Click to expand...

Two differences are:

(a) I think it should be applicable to anyone who has taken the RA oath (including but not limited to government officials - RA members sometimes need to be censured), and not applicable to a citizen who never joined the RA.

(b) Still applicable if they have recently resigned (by removing the 'while in office' requirement)

The only issue I have with flem's version of "Government Official" or Chas' version of "RA member" is that neither of them covers Gaspo, who lost both through inactivity.

Perhaps add a "39. Motions of censure may be brought against former government officials/RA members within <length of time, perhaps one month?> of their resignation or removal." That ought to solve that problem, and prevent people from resigning just to avoid a censure, but also not leave it open to censuring individuals for actions going back to the Pixiedance era. The language could still use tweaking, though, to specify that it's the discussion on the motion, and not the vote, which should be brought within that time frame.

(Also, I think it would have to be "government official" and not "Government Official", but only because the meaning of "government" in our laws is sometimes equivalent to "Government", but not always.)

Without any teeth this serves no purpose.

If a member of the RA is behaving in a manner that is objectionable to the bulk of the membership I am fairly certain the membership will let that member know through their own commentary and remarks and the individual will likely know it to begin with anyway.

If censure carries no penalty then it would simply take up space on the docket which seems to run slow enough already and is restricted to two votes simultaneously as it is.

While I personally like the idea behind the motion, I do not think the motion itself to have merit because it is restricted by the Bill of Rights in what it can accomplish.

My initial thought was the same as GM's "Without teeth this serves no purpose." It seems like a slap on the wrist with respect to more flagrant offences, and ripe for abuse for petty ones.

But we, as individual RA members can decide to view a censure as a "move back 3 spaces" card. For instance, I can say that since a certain official was censured, I will not be supporting his election bid for the next 6 months, or the next two cycles, or whatever I feel is appropriate. If enough of us do that, then it will have some consequences.

I am concerned about the potential for abuse. If you do not like someone because of their national origin, or the color of their avatar, or because they are just plain annoying, you could call for a censure at every turn. If a group of people doesn't like a certain player, it gives them another tool to harass him out of the region.

My initial thought was the same as GM's "Without teeth this serves no purpose." It seems like a slap on the wrist with respect to more flagrant offences, and ripe for abuse for petty ones.

Click to expand...

While I would probably prefer something with more teeth, we do have that pesky legal restriction on punishing people for things that aren't crimes.

However, censure would not be replacing either recalls or criminal trials - any more flagrant or abusive offenses could certainly be handled via those paths as well, if necessary or desirable. Introducing censure would merely resolve the current situation where the RA would like to express its disapproval, but has no mechanism by which to do that other than removing someone from an office they do not hold.

I am concerned about the potential for abuse. If you do not like someone because of their national origin, or the color of their avatar, or because they are just plain annoying, you could call for a censure at every turn. If a group of people doesn't like a certain player, it gives them another tool to harass him out of the region.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is true, and is my hesitation in having it be applicable to all citizens, or possibly even to all RA members. We could counter this in a couple ways - one would be to trust the Speaker not to allow personal vendettas, and the RA not to vote for them. Another would be an additional line, saying either "40. Motions of censure may not be used in the pursuit of personal vendettas." or "40. No person may have a motion to censure brought against them more frequently than once a <time span>."

The downside to the first is that it's still basically up to the interpretation of the Speaker and various RA members, while the upside is that it enshrines a standard of behavior for members to adhere to. The upside of the second is that it becomes much harder to actively pursue a grudge, while the downside is that it doesn't guard against retributive behavior on the part of a person who has beaten a censure motion. I'd incline toward the former of the two, myself.

Why not initially limit it to government officials or for actions committed while a government official? That would catch-all Gaspo, and we could see how it went. If folks like Belschaft (with his silly "recall Astarial as non empress motion") take the piss, we can keep the limitation. If folks act like grown ups we can extend the provision to all RA members or citizens at a later date.

I agree with GM and GBM: Censure is toothles and potentially a political tool, respectively.

Censure resolutions are largely a waste of the RAs time if everyone started proposing censuring anyone who disagreed with them.

Again, adding a Censure rule to the RA or Legal Code is unnecessary because Censure resolutions would fall under the common practice of things like "Resolutions Honoring", etc.,,,. No additional rules or laws are needed concerning non-binding resolutions. I mean, if someone proposed a resolution declaring "Romanoffia, Official Jackass of The North Pacific" I wouldn't doubt it wouldn't pass pass with flying colors and without objection.

Then again, I can picture Censures for someone farting at the wrong time that would pass with flying colors too.

I'm not sure I agree with you on that point, Roman. The Constibillocode set out some very specific things that the RA can do - it's not a given that things it doesn't mention have any legal weight whatsoever. Formally adopting a censure mechanism would give it that.

I'd also like to point out that the changes to the criminal code that I've bumped up would fix the issue of "punishment", by rewording that clause to "criminal charges" - so the RA would, in fact, be able to legally vote to apply sanctions to someone.

All y'all talking about "teeth"... whatcha got in mind?

What about preventing the individual from running for office for 6 months? That's quite a while in TNP terms. Just a thought.

I like the idea of a censure. I suspect some of us will treat it like a badge of honour but hey.

SillyString:

I'm not sure I agree with you on that point, Roman. The Constibillocode set out some very specific things that the RA can do - it's not a given that things it doesn't mention have any legal weight whatsoever. Formally adopting a censure mechanism would give it that.

I'd also like to point out that the changes to the criminal code that I've bumped up would fix the issue of "punishment", by rewording that clause to "criminal charges" - so the RA would, in fact, be able to legally vote to apply sanctions to someone.

All y'all talking about "teeth"... whatcha got in mind?

Click to expand...

True. We could just pass legislation that gives teeth to a censure, but it would just be duplicating the legal code. If an RA member commits criminal violations, then it is a matter for the court to decide if someone brings charges.

Kiwi:

What about preventing the individual from running for office for 6 months? That's quite a while in TNP terms. Just a thought.

I like the idea of a censure. I suspect some of us will treat it like a badge of honour but hey.

Click to expand...

Meh, too much potential for it to be used as a political weapon as Censure is largely a matter of opinion and more often than not, mob rule.

This is why we have 'separation of powers' - there is a need to prevent 'democracy' from descending into 'mob rule', to protect the integrity of the state from mob rule and to protect the individual from the state and the mob, and to keep the judicial branch free from political motives and pressure from 'public opinion (an independent judiciary). We have to be careful in terms of legislation that we do not create a situation where the legislative branch might be tempted in dealing with judicial matters and vice-versa. The only judicial authority (in terms of trials and leveling of charges) I can see that might be legitimately the purvey of the RA is trials concerning Treason.

Why don't we simply scrap the comprehensively discredited and dysfunctional pretense of a judicial system we maintain and replace it with a simple, open and democratic process of bills of attainder and ostracism?

Suggestions which probably violate the Bill of Rights aside, any other thoughts from people on what kind of teeth the RA should be able to bite with?

Belschaft:

Why don't we simply scrap the comprehensively discredited and dysfunctional pretense of a judicial system we maintain and replace it with a simple, open and democratic process of bills of attainder and ostracism?

Click to expand...

Believe me, if you think that our Judicial System is dysfunctional, you haven't met the Justices on the bench now.

The problem is that the Courts cannot just jump in and say, "Bugger that! That's unconstitutional!" Someone has to actually bring a case before the court indicating actual damage caused by a law that may be unconstitutional. That is how laws are tested in terms of constitutionality. The Court cannot simply step in and say this or that is unconstitutional. Someone has to bring a case up involving a specific application of a law and/or the law itself and the Court has to adjudicate according to the evidence presented. That is what the principle of Judicial Review is all about. Review is passive in response to legal actions brought. It is not proactive in terms of legislating from the bench.

As per "the comprehensively discredited and dysfunctional pretense of a judicial system we maintain"
, believe me when I say that we have some seriously geeky justices who understand the principles of Judicial Review and Separation of Powers, etc., you have exactly that. There is nothing dysfunctional about the court now. The RA creates the law; the Court adjudicates those laws and interprets them according to the Constitution, BoR and the arguments presented, and then decides in a fashion accordingly. Just don't flood us with stuff that by all logic and reason should be kicked to Judge Judy Flemingovia of the Fiqh.

Because those of us on the Court are inveterate bastards who would never tolerate Bills of Attainder, Corruption of Blood or other forms of unwanted bodily violation by a mob of torch and pitchfork bearing peasants up to no good.

But I get your point. In my personal opinion, and in consideration of the principles of our BoR and common practice/tradition/history of jurisprudence, such a specific law pertaining to a specific party is not the purvey of a legislative act. If you make a censure tantamount to a law that is passed by the RA, such a censure should apply to any and all individuals and in a way that is not ex post facto. You cannot censure someone and deliver a penalty as a legislative act for something that is not a violation of a specific law. I read that on a T-shirt and in the Constitution somewhere. Penalizing someone for a specific action which is a violation of the law is the duty of the Court, not the legislature.

OTOH, if there was a specific House Rule concerning points of ethics, censure is fine, but not to the point that you are denying a citizen/nation their just rights to be represented in the RA.

You are correct in your apparent conclusion that Censure with Penalty is tantamount to Bills of Attainder and Corruption of Blood, etc. And, if this is what you are implying, a potential disintegration of 'Democracy' into 'Mob Rule' with pitchforks and other nasty pointy objects. This is why democratic republics are superior to pure democracies and why we have a BoR in the first place.

I'm not sure that's the case, Roman - at least not now that the "no person no government official punish" clause has been changed.

Penalizing someone for a specific action which is a violation of the law is the duty of the Court, not the legislature.

Click to expand...

Finding someone guilty of a violation of the law and setting a criminal punishment is the court's role, yes. But that doesn't actually mean the legislature can't impose penalties unrelated to formal finding of criminal behavior (particularly when the trial system is as borked as it is).

You cannot censure someone and deliver a penalty as a legislative act for something that is not a violation of a specific law. I read that on a T-shirt and in the Constitution somewhere.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the bit that got changed - and that only ever applied to people who weren't government officials, even. The specific wording, in fact, strongly indicated that government officials could be punished for anything anybody wanted.

But that clause now stipulates that criminal charges may only be brought for crimes listed in the Legal Code, which leaves the question of non-criminal sanctions entirely up in the air.

Actually, I do not think motions of censure need "teeth". It is enough that the RA is able to demonstrate its disapproval.

But if we wished, we might differentiate between motions:

Motion of Thanks: Simple majority to pass, registers approval or gratitude of the RA for an official performing particularly well.

Motion of Censure: No penalty, registers RA disapproval, requires simple majority to pass.

Motion of No Confidence: Registers Extreme RA disapproval, Requires 2/3 majority to pass. Subject not allowed to run for office in TNP for 12 months.

Recall: Immediate removal from office.

12 months might be a bit overlong...but I'm not opposed to the idea of the RA being able to penalize government officials for doing a shit job. Although, like, recall, I think that motions of no confidence should be restricted to those who are in office.

Do it like the greeks; banish them for ten years, and from the region, not just government office. But, put in place a procedure allowing us to lift their banishment.

Crushing Our Enemies:

Although, like, recall, I think that motions of no confidence should be restricted to those who are in office.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with this.

On the one hand, if there's sufficient support to pass a motion of no confidence against someone, they're supremely unlikely to win an election anyway (unless, I guess, it is an uncontested election and they manage to scrape together enough ayes for a confirmation?). So in that sense, it wouldn't change anything to not be able to apply these to non-officials.

On the other hand, Flem raised a good point about the temporality of the game. The most egregious behavior committed today will likely be barely remembered a couple months hence. I'm not sure it makes sense that RA members could avoid serious sanction for completely unacceptable behavior merely by virtue of not currently holding an office, but even an unelected, deputy official could be hit with the full length of a no confidence.

And on the third hand, if someone is so distasteful to the RA that they have zero chance of winning an election, would it not be kinder, in a sense, to establish that up front, so that the person can choose whether or not to change their behavior, and whether or not to move on to another region?

You know, along the lines of censure in terms of unwarranted/illegal behavior in the RA by RA members, and Government Officials, we should forget about the 'censure' process and the 'recall' process and replace it with a specific 'impeachment' process in which the RA can try officials and RA Members for 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors'. Of course such a process would not prevent the criminal prosecution of offenders worthy of such recourse.

What it would do is to prevent the RA from being cluttered up with nuisance suits like recalls that can be started by someone who doesn't like the letter v in someone's forum name, if you catch my drift.

I don't think we need a 'vote of no confidence' I think a censure should be enough for the RA to stop voting them into office. If they are able to get re-elected despite a censure then I do not think it proper for the law to bar them from running. If the RA continues to elect the same members that it censures then they can in turn be censured.

I basically agree that a censure doesn't need teeth (which would make it a bill of attainder which the BoR is against) as long as the censure is recorded, the RA has a softer tool to work with than recall alone. I think those two cover it.

I don't think we should have a positive alternative.

I like Flem's suggestion.

SillyString:

Current suggested version:

Section 6.8: Censure

37. The Regional Assembly may express its displeasure with the actions of any of its members by passing a motion to censure that individual.
38. Motions of censure require a simple majority vote to pass.
39. Motions of censure may be brought against former Regional Assembly members within one month of their resignation or removal.
40. Motions of censure may not be used in the pursuit of personal vendettas.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I think this proposal would be good for accountability, as it would allow the Regional Assembly to express disapproval of an office holder but without the impending sense of instability that a recall motion can sometimes provoke.

Do you think we can now implement this addition to the legal code?

There is no reason why censure couldn't also be used as an alternative to anyother penalties in criminal or civil cases in the Court, in addition to it being alvailable as an alternative to recall votes in the R.A.

I've not looked at any of the recall votes since I went on my leave of absence, but it was pretty clear that recall was being misused in lieu of the lack of a censure option in the past.

I would gladly support this idea of a censure, I see it as a way of punishing or preventing minor offenses that aren't considered crimes but still cause problems.

Is there going to be one specific ban time for every censure, or will there be different levels of punishment depending on the reason. My reason for thinking different levels of punishment is that some reasons for being censured might be more severe than others, so the more serious ones might be on the border of being crimes but might not be able to hold up in court or not make it there in the first place. These kind of offences should be treated more severely than something only worth a few weeks ban.

Just a thought.

Parmistine:

I would gladly support this idea of a censure, I see it as a way of punishing or preventing minor offenses that aren't considered crimes but still cause problems.

Is there going to be one specific ban time for every censure, or will there be different levels of punishment depending on the reason. My reason for thinking different levels of punishment is that some reasons for being censured might be more severe than others, so the more serious ones might be on the border of being crimes but might not be able to hold up in court or not make it there in the first place. These kind of offences should be treated more severely than something only worth a few weeks ban.

Just a thought.

Click to expand...

Bans would be too severe. You only get a ban for crimes or violation of forum TOS or moderation policies.

Censure would be a way of registering the RA's disapproval, which is punishment enough, as it's a soft alternative to recall or prosecution.

I like Flem's suggestion of no confidence motions with the office penalty. 12 months might be a bit too long though.

Overall, I don't see a lot of harm in this change. It would be useful with appointed officials especially. A disapproval of 50%+1 is still fairly significant. It could prompt a resignation at the very least.

...of the weak willed, perhaps.

I'd like the penalties of censure spelled out in the bill. I could get behind that type of bill but unless i missed it I didn't see any particular penalties or length of time for penalties in the current version.

punk d:

...of the weak willed, perhaps.

I'd like the penalties of censure spelled out in the bill. I could get behind that type of bill but unless i missed it I didn't see any particular penalties or length of time for penalties in the current version.

Click to expand...

That's because in the current version there are no penalties. Attaching penalties would make it effectively a trial by assembly. Whilst in theory there might be some situations where a member be tried by assembly instead of by court, I still think the proper answer to penalizing an official is a trial in court.

Chasmanthe:

Bans would be too severe. You only get a ban for crimes or violation of forum TOS or moderation policies.

Censure would be a way of registering the RA's disapproval, which is punishment enough, as it's a soft alternative to recall or prosecution.

Click to expand...

So if a member receives a certain number of censures, will they be unable to apply for some government positions?

Parmistine:

Chasmanthe:

Bans would be too severe. You only get a ban for crimes or violation of forum TOS or moderation policies.

Censure would be a way of registering the RA's disapproval, which is punishment enough, as it's a soft alternative to recall or prosecution.

Click to expand...

So if a member receives a certain number of censures, will they be unable to apply for some government positions?

Click to expand...

Yes^Edit: No. Under this proposal, you can still be appointed or elected to government positions no matter how many censures you have.

So by "yes", you mean "no"?