Discussions on SC Removal/Suspension Laws

[Grosseschnauzer]

I regret to inform the RA that Kiwi is no longer a Security Council member. He has not logged onto the forum for over two weeks, and so has abandoned his government office, per the Legal Code, Chapter 4:

7. 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. Pending an election, a vacancy may be temporarily filled as provided by the Constitution, this Legal Code, or a rule adopted by the appropriate body.

As of yesterday, he has unfortunately been removed from the SC.

Did you give Kiwi prior notice as required under Section 5.3, Clause 11? The appropriate action is suspension, not removal, since the Regional Security Law limits the grounds for removal from the SC by the Vice Delegate to three specific situations, per clause 12, and not logging into the forums is not among them.

Section 5.3: Enforcement
11. Whenever any Council member fails to meet any requirements to maintain their position, the Vice Delegate must warn them, and if the Council member does not come into compliance within eight days of the warning, the Vice Delegate must suspend them.
12. The Vice Delegate must remove members of the Council whose member nation no longer exists, voluntarily departs The North Pacific, or resigns from the World Assembly outside the needs of a NPA sanctioned mission.
13. The Vice Delegate must report any suspension or removal of a member of the Council to the Regional Assembly.
14. If a suspended member of the Council comes back into compliance with the endorsement and influence requirements, the Vice Delegate will reinstate them.
15. A majority of the Council may vote to determine that the continued membership in the Council of a member poses a security risk to The North Pacific and request approval from the Regional Assembly to remove the member from the Council.
16. The Speaker of the Regional Assembly will submit the request to an immediate vote of the Regional Assembly; approval will require a two-thirds majority.
17. The Council may task a member with taking actions required under this chapter in the absence of the Vice Delegate.
18. During any period when serving as acting Delegate, the Vice Delegate will be considered absent from the office of Vice Delegate.
19. If the Vice Delegate nation ceases to exist, voluntarily departs The North Pacific, resigns from the World Assembly, or fails to maintain an endorsement level within the range required of Council members for more than eight days, the Vice Delegate will be removed from office.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Did you give Kiwi prior notice as required under Section 5.3, Clause 11? The appropriate action is suspension, not removal, since the Regional Security Law limits the grounds for removal from the SC by the Vice Delegate to three specific situations, per clause 12, and not logging into the forums is not among them.

I considered whether that was appropriate, and decided that the "requirements" referred to in Section 5.3 were probably limited to the ones listed in section 5.1 (Requirements). To suppose otherwise would result in a contradiction, where section 5.3 asserts that Kiwi should be suspended, and chapter 4 states that he is removed, and essentially exempts SC members from the vacancy definition in chapter 4. My interpretation results in no contradiction.

To be clear, warnings will only be triggered by failing to meet requirements listed in Section 5.1, unless a higher authority than mine rules otherwise.

 

[SillyString]

I think COE's interpretation is legally sound. The wording of the various clauses admittedly conflicts a bit, but it's pretty clear that govt officials are automatically removed immediately on failing to log in for two weeks. There's no provision for them to be given over an extra week before being affected, and it's not the Vice Delegate who's responsible for activating the removal.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

The prior practice has been to give SC members notice about anything that might affect their membership on the Council, and the intent was that the course of action is to suspend rather than remove, with the exceptions of the four listed grounds in that Section.

You could have asked the membership of the Council first, but in my honest opinion, this got mucked up and I strongly disagree with both Silly and COE on this point.

 

[falapatorius]

Hmm.. I don't know. I think Grosse has a point. The vacancy provision applies to elected or appointed officials imo. Regional Security Law applies specifically to the SC, and the enforcement provisions should take precedence in this situation.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Yeah, I also agree with Grosse. I think a warning should have been given, 8 days is a decent enough period to correct the issue. Though it might be worth asking Abacathea if he has warned Kiwi previously.

I've forwarded a message to Kiwi and I'll hope he'll be back on ASAP...

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

The vacancy definition is incompatible with warning and then suspension, because vacancy results in removal from office. There is no consistent interpretation that results in a warning, and then removal from office 8 days later. The warning law results in a suspension if the member is not compliant after the grace period. So unless folks are arguing that SC members are not subject to the vacancy law at all (which there is no legal evidence to support) then there is no case for a warning and grace period.

 

[SillyString]

The vacancy provision applies to elected or appointed officials imo.

Opinions are great and all, but can you back that up with actual citations?

7. 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 [...]

In order to argue that this doesn't apply to SC members, you'd have to be arguing that membership on the SC is not a government office, and that therefore SC members are not government officials.

Problem there is that any such argument is untenable, given the Constitution:

2. Government officials are the constitutionally-mandated elected officials, any officials appointed by them as permitted by law, and members of the Security Council.

Edit to add: So it's not that COE removed Kiwi. Under the law, Kiwi abandoned his office, just as he would have if he left the region, quit the game, or straight up resigned. COE merely happened to be the one who noticed and reported it.

 

[falapatorius]

Opinions are great and all, but can you back that up with actual citations?

It was just my reading of the Legal Code.

In order to argue that this doesn't apply to SC members, you'd have to be arguing that membership on the SC is not a government office, and that therefore SC members are not government officials.

It does apply. But instead of arbitrary removal from the SC, a warning should be issued, then suspension if warranted. Pursuant to:

Section 5.3: Enforcement
11. Whenever any Council member fails to meet any requirements to maintain their position, the Vice Delegate must warn them, and if the Council member does not come into compliance within eight days of the warning, the Vice Delegate must suspend them.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

falap, what you essentially just said was: "it does apply, but instead of it applying, something else should."

 

[falapatorius]

falap, what you essentially just said was: "it does apply, but instead of it applying, something else should."

My bad. I thought I made it obvious that an SC member can 'vacate', but removal procedures are different. As spelled out by Law.

 

[SillyString]

falap, what you essentially just said was: "it does apply, but instead of it applying, something else should."

My bad. I thought I made it obvious that an SC member can 'vacate', but removal procedures are different. As spelled out by Law.

Right, but COE didn't remove or suspend Kiwi. Kiwi vacated his position without COE doing anything at all.

 

[falapatorius]

Right, but COE didn't remove or suspend Kiwi. Kiwi vacated his position without COE doing anything at all.

As of yesterday, he has unfortunately been removed from the SC.

^ ?

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I'm pretty sure that every single Vice Delegate as far back as when I held the position has had an issue of some kind with SC suspensions and removals. This needs to be reformed.

 

[r3naissanc3r]

I'm inclined to agree with COE's interpretation, though I think that's one of the cases where it's worth asking the Court (by asking for a review of COE's decision).

I agree with mcm that regardless of interpretation, suspension/removal legislation should be reviewed.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Right, but COE didn't remove or suspend Kiwi. Kiwi vacated his position without COE doing anything at all.

As of yesterday, he has unfortunately been removed from the SC.

^ ?

By that, I simply meant that I had removed him from the list of SC members, after noticing that he had vacated his office. One could just as accurately say that the admin team removed him, in that they removed him from the SC user group. Neither one is an official removal in a legal sense.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I'm pretty sure that every single Vice Delegate as far back as when I held the position has had an issue of some kind with SC suspensions and removals. This needs to be reformed.

I agree. Clearly, when the definition of vacancy was written, the authors did not have the SC in mind. It is only recently that SC members have been clearly defined as government officials. If the RA wants to exempt SC members from forum activity requirements, or impose a lesser forum requirement, or have a lapse in meeting forum requirements result in suspension instead of removal, that is their prerogative. I will refrain from expressing an opinion on any of those courses of action until I see a bill.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

On a less legalistic note, the right thing to do is give the SC member a holler. Typically, council members are in this thing for the long haul. We aim to support one another, and for that, communication is very helpful.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

If it were up to me I would have, Mum.

EDIT: To clarify, by the time I noticed that Kiwi hadn't logged in for a while, he had already vacated his office. I just noticed that Ator is getting pretty close to two weeks as well, and have sent him a telegram, but given that he hasn't logged onto his nation for 11 days, I doubt he'll receive it in time.

 

[Eluvatar]

I have sent Ator People an email via the board software.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

Whole communities can be disrupted in a week. It seems like the activity requirements for the SC should be more stringent, not less so. If a member hasn't bothered to check in here without notification of absence or is approaching two weeks absent ingame it seems like a pointless endeavor to even be on the SC. Yes, I understand how the Influence structure works, but an inactive high-Influence nation does no good if needed to thwart an invader or rogue Delegacy. I know this is an unlikely scenario in the extreme, but the point remains the same:

Why should anyone need to be reminded to do the duty that they agreed to do?

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I think that a nation can still contribute significantly to the SC without logging into the forum every two weeks. Forum duties are relatively minor for a member of the SC. So in such a situation, a friendly reminder to them would be helpful.

In this case, however, it wqs just noticed and unlikely to make any difference. It was COEs job to interpret the law for this issue and he has done exactly that. It is good to see a Vice Delegate who is paying careful attention to this issue.

For the record I had also sent a reminder to both Kiwi and Ator People asking them to tart (though I admit i overlooked the forum vacancy issue). Neither of them got back to me, so in this case, I am inclined to say "what difference does it make?" and move on. I'll consider drafting a bill to deal with this issue over the weekend.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I think that a nation can still contribute significantly to the SC without logging into the forum every two weeks. Forum duties are relatively minor for a member of the SC.

I disagree. In the event of a crisis, all SC members will be expected to assist in the continuation of our democracy, which, in the event of a rogue delegate, exists only here on the forum. SC members need to be up to date on the goings on of the government at all times - after all, they are government officials. Furthermore, I am not going to telegram each individual SC member if I notice a security threat - most likely, I post a thread in the private SC area and maybe send a PM. SC members who are not forum active are not ready to do their job if called upon.

 

[Romanoffia]

Here's a thought on the idea of disruption of communications, etc.,,,

Perhaps we should look into a 'Plan B' to permit the SC to continue to function in the even the forum itself is either disrupted or goes down. We could have either an IRC channel that can be activated by any SC member if the forum is down or a dedicated backup forum elsewhere just for emergency communications?

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I think that a nation can still contribute significantly to the SC without logging into the forum every two weeks. Forum duties are relatively minor for a member of the SC.

I disagree. In the event of a crisis, all SC members will be expected to assist in the continuation of our democracy, which, in the event of a rogue delegate, exists only here on the forum. SC members need to be up to date on the goings on of the government at all times - after all, they are government officials. Furthermore, I am not going to telegram each individual SC member if I notice a security threat - most likely, I post a thread in the private SC area and maybe send a PM. SC members who are not forum active are not ready to do their job if called upon.

Whether you telegram them or not - is up to you. I'm not necessarily talking about single "security threats", most of those can be handled through a GBM-style friendly telegram and are hardly security threats at all.

In reality COE, in a time of a real crisis (aggressive unendorsement campaign or rogue Delegate), you will be calling on everyone in the region you can get to support you. Dealing with the crisis and restoring democracy will largely occur in-game. What the forum can do is relatively minor in a time of a serious crisis - limited to a recall. It would all be decided in-game and that is where the game component of Security Council membership outweighs the forum component.

Even if they do not log onto the regional forum every two weeks, it is not difficult for a long time Security Council member, to notice when the region is in crisis and to know where the constitutional and legal government lies. Especially considering that in a time of crisis, the legitimate government would be reaching out to every trusted source of support they could find.

This is another reason why in-game recognition is so important, a SC member who tarts regularly, who telegrams nations, and who posts on the RMB will have name recognition where a significant number of nations are concerned. Whereas someone who simply endorses and posts on the forum, would likely have less name-recognition. You need nations in-game to trust the voice of reason in a time of crisis. In my opinion, SC members can still contribute significantly to dealing with a serious crisis even if they do not log onto the forum every two weeks.

You take someone who posts on the forum every day, but does relatively little else in-game, their name recognition would be considerably less in-game and it would be less likely that nations would take them seriously.

In the case of Ator and Kiwi, I think that they have not been meeting the minimum of their duties on-site or offsite. But generally, I do believe that the ability of a SC member to fight for the continuity of government and to be a trusted and respected voice in-game, is definitely possible and likely to occur regardless of their forum activity on a fortnightly basis.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Question for you, McM. In what ways can an SC member who does not log onto the forum contribute to our security more than any other high endorsement, high influence nation?

 

[Great Bights Mum]

I have to agree with McM on this. Like many other SC members, I have been doing this for years. I have occasional lapses, mainly due to RL craziness. But if TNP is in serious trouble, it's game on.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I have to agree with McM on this. Like many other SC members, I have been doing this for years. I have occasional lapses, mainly due to RL craziness. But if TNP is in serious trouble, it's game on.

If you're active enough to be aware of it, then I am sure that it is true for all SC members.

EDIT: And could you answer the question I posed to McM as well?

 

[Former English Colony]

Question for you, McM. In what ways can an SC member who does not log onto the forum contribute to our security more than any other high endorsement, high influence nation?

I will respond for myself. The SC members are trusted enough that in a crisis they could be delegate. Other, non-SC members are not necessarily trusted in such a capacity. And in time of crisis, high-endo, high influence but non-SC nations would likely be treated with suspicion.

Members maintain their nations for the protection of the region, the ideals of TNP, not because they particularly want to participate in the day to day running of the region. And I frankly don't see why they should have to. If there *is* a crisis, you trust that they will be there to help out. Can you guarantee it? No, of course not.

Truly, the matter is more (as was already said), an issue that has been caused by the SC members *becoming* gov't officials and then being subject to laws that were not particularly intended to apply to them. So the simpler matter is to write an amendment.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Question for you, McM. In what ways can an SC member who does not log onto the forum contribute to our security more than any other high endorsement, high influence nation?

I will respond for myself. The SC members are trusted enough that in a crisis they could be delegate. Other, non-SC members are not necessarily trusted in such a capacity. And in time of crisis, high-endo, high influence but non-SC nations would likely be treated with suspicion.

I'm sure you aren't saying that SC membership confers trust on a member of the region. Trust is a pre-requisite to becoming an SC member, not the other way around. And what good is a delegate who is not forum active in a time of crisis?

Members maintain their nations for the protection of the region, the ideals of TNP, not because they particularly want to participate in the day to day running of the region. And I frankly don't see why they should have to. If there *is* a crisis, you trust that they will be there to help out. Can you guarantee it? No, of course not.

But what additional protection do they provide by being an SC member that they cannot provide as a non-SC member?

 

[Former English Colony]

Question for you, McM. In what ways can an SC member who does not log onto the forum contribute to our security more than any other high endorsement, high influence nation?

I will respond for myself. The SC members are trusted enough that in a crisis they could be delegate. Other, non-SC members are not necessarily trusted in such a capacity. And in time of crisis, high-endo, high influence but non-SC nations would likely be treated with suspicion.

I'm sure you aren't saying that SC membership confers trust on a member of the region. Trust is a pre-requisite to becoming an SC member, not the other way around. And what good is a delegate who is not forum active in a time of crisis?

Members maintain their nations for the protection of the region, the ideals of TNP, not because they particularly want to participate in the day to day running of the region. And I frankly don't see why they should have to. If there *is* a crisis, you trust that they will be there to help out. Can you guarantee it? No, of course not.

But what additional protection do they provide by being an SC member that they cannot provide as a non-SC member?

Not sure where you got the trust question from what I said, but yes, what you said is correct. If the delegate has been supplanted and possibly banned, then the VD and SC would serve as a possible alternative.

As to being SC vs non-SC, the label itself is something to confer authority in a time of crisis. Are there non-SC members that could be trusted? Most likely. But having a group committed to consistently keeping their endos up keeps the region more secure.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Do you see that as the only responsibilities of the SC?

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

If you look at the list of SC members, many of them are former Delegates. Their ability to step in should not even be questioned.

The primary role of the SC is in-game with endotarting to generate levels of influence that collectively protect the region and the elected Delegate system. That is what it was originally designed to do, and that is still the primary role.

The fact that the SC are not required to be RA members is part of a recognition of the distinct and different role the SC has as compared to the elected branches of government. I think the decision to add the SC to the definition of "government officials" as it is currently set up creates unnecessary problems. I would strongly prefer that SC members who aren't currently active should be suspended and not removed; removal should only be on the grounds currently stated in the Regional Security Law. It would also simplify things if inactivity were deal with via suspension and not removal. If you don't consider the nation involved to be trustworthy, then you shouldn't let them be admitted in the first place. Removal due to forum activity requirements disserves the purpose of the SC and does not benefit the SC, or the region.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Grosse, my objections to having an SC full of inactive nations is not a matter of trust, but a matter of readiness. I would trust any SC member with the delegacy, but I do not think that all of them are ready to step in at a moment's notice...or even several days notice, for some.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

The purpose will be just as well served by suspension than removal. Suspension gives the nation involved the ability to resume its active responsibilities without the unnecessary "blue haze of administrative bureaucracy" to reapply and be readmitted. (TM Dr. Henry King Stanford, from whom I first heard the expression when I was in college.) If the nations placed on suspended status are trustworthy, then there shouldn't be a problem following the approach I outlined, and which has been the intended practice with the SC for a long time.

 

[Eluvatar]

I wouldn't mind a change which specifies that for the SC vacancy by reason of forum inactivity lead to suspension.

PS: I would suggest the Speaker split off the discussion of what the law should be from this topic for announcements on how the current law is being enforced.

 

[Lord Nwahs]

I wouldn't mind a change which specifies that for the SC vacancy by reason of forum inactivity lead to suspension.

PS: I would suggest the Speaker split off the discussion of what the law should be from this topic for announcements on how the current law is being enforced.

...so essentially only COE's first two posts.

 

[Flemingovia]

Do we really need to be so legalistic? We are a pretend government, yes, but we are also a community. A friendly reminder / query / "hey, are you OK, you have not been on the forum for a while" would probably prevent issues like this from arising.

GBM is brilliant at this sort of stuff. We could all learn from her.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

Umm...is it common practice to delete posts from a discussion when splitting topics?

My post has disappeared within this thread and the other...

Nevermind. I see the request from the Speaker in the Admin thread trying to correct this.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Do we really need to be so legalistic? We are a pretend government, yes, but we are also a community. A friendly reminder / query / "hey, are you OK, you have not been on the forum for a while" would probably prevent issues like this from arising.

GBM is brilliant at this sort of stuff. We could all learn from her.

Once again, if I had noticed Kiwi's forum activity before it was too late, such a reminder would have been sent. I am generally in favor of that sort of thing, and take inspiration from GBM. Nonetheless, SC members are not above the law, and, as I and others have pointed out, I had no choice in this matter. I did not remove Kiwi from his office - he vacated it by not logging onto the forum. I was simply the first to notice because I began monitoring this sort of thing as part of my VD duties. In fact, the entire reason I am monitoring it is so that I can provide that sort of advance warning/reminder to SC members who are approaching the forum inactivity limit, as I have with Ator.

Unfortunately, it appeals that Ator has not received mine (and others) reminders, or is too busy to respond. He has also vacated his position.

I will note that at this time, all members of the SC have logged onto the forum within the past 24 hours. No one else is in danger of vacating their office.