Quick SC Reform

SillyString

SillyString

TNPer
-
-
Hey all! Given concerns about the removal of SC members, and the recent issues with r3n's multiple applications and GBM's removal and readmittance, I'm thinking of proposing the following amendments to the Constitution and Legal Code. Please let me know if you think these would be an improvement for the SC!

Article 6. The Security Council

1. Any person who meets any endorsement and influence requirements determined by law may apply to become a member of the Security Council.
2. The Security Council may approve nominate applicants by a majority vote. The Regional Assembly may admit an approved confirm a nominated applicant by a majority vote. If the Security Council does not approve nominate an applicant or does not act on them within thirty days, the Regional Assembly may admit appoint the applicant by a two-thirds majority vote.
3. Nominations remain in effect until revoked by majority vote of the Security Council.
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.
5. The Regional Assembly may establish a line of succession by a majority vote. The line of succession must always include the Vice Delegate and all current Security Council members, and must always place the Vice Delegate first. If a new member is admitted to the Security Council, they will be automatically added at the end of the current line of succession. If a member is removed from the Security Council, they will be automatically removed from the line of succession.
Click to expand...
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 the certification of election results by the Election Commissioner, or if appointed, within one week of their appointment being announced their election, as certified by the Election Commissioner; appointment, as publicly announced; or confirmation, as verified by a member of the Speaker's Office. 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...

Basically, what this means is that SC members who fail to post an oath or who are removed for vacating their positions do not need to apply again - they simply need to pass an RA vote. It also gives the SC discretion in applying this, so that members who disappear for long periods of time can have their nomination revoked and have to apply from scratch, while others who remain highly trusted can keep them indefinitely.

I don't think this is necessarily the absolute best final solution, but I do think that it is a relatively quick and easy fix that will alleviate a significant roadblock when these situations do crop up. Any discussion on exempting SC members from the vacancy clause altogether would, I think, have a much bigger fight in the RA, so I'm hoping to get something like this in place before mucking around in that question.
 
I much rather go for the concept of suspending SC members except for the reasons already specified in the regional security law for removals. I don't like the idea conceptually of the SC being reduced to a nominating body rather than an independent body that approves the application of new members, which is then confirmed by the RA.

I would not support this proposal in this current form. We already have a suspension mechanism in place in the regional security law, which can just as easily be amended to address inacitivy issues and I think the drafters of that constitutional amendment on government officials simply did not consider the impact of that amendment in terms of the independence of the SC and the forum activity requirement. It excepted the SC in one context; broadening it a little more to allow the suspension of SC members for forum inactivity rather than new votes would be simpler, faster, and take a lot less time to complete.
 
The problem I see is that that's a larger and more contentious fix. It requires convincing people to support exempting the SC from vacancy clauses, something I myself am not fully sold on - and that's a much tougher fight.

It's definitely a discussion that should be had in the RA, but it's not at all clear to me what the outcome of that discussion would be. If voters are against exempting SC members from the vacancy clause, we still need to fix the readmittance issues.

So like I said, not necessarily a permanent fix, but one that will serve us well while that the larger issues can be resolved.
 
If there weren't already an exception in article 7 with respect to the SC , that would be a different question. But the adding inactivity to the suspension grounds is far less of a permanent change than what you are proposing, especially as your proposal involves a major change in the way people are admitted to the SC. It's goings beyond the "minor fix" that is implied in the opening post.

Let me have a day or two to place an alternative that will be less of a change that what was offered. (We're just about done with something under another HarvI'm wearing these days, and I have a pretty good idea of what we need to. fix this problem.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
But the adding inactivity to the suspension grounds is far less of a permanent change than what you are proposing, especially as your proposal involves a major change in the way people are admitted to the SC.
Click to expand...
It's a change in wording, but not a change in process. The process remains the same.

Adding inactivity to the SC law would not in and of itself exempt SC members from the vacancy clause, but would rather add a contradiction. It's also a much bigger change in that it requires convincing the SC that inactive SC members should retain their spots, whereas my proposal merely removes obstacles to getting people back on the SC.

Neither of them is more or less permanent, except insofar as they're good long-term fixes and withstand people testing them in practice. I've explicitly said that this is not intended as a permanent fix, but a temporary one to reduce bureaucracy while the region figures out how to address SC member inactivity.
 
I did not say that only the Legal Code would need amendment, but the amendment to the Constitution needed is far less than you think.

Just give me a couple of days to clear some RL and Court things out of the way, and I'll be in a position to draft something that will fix the problem, I've been in TNP for too long not to know that a "quick" fix often becomes a permanent one, especially when it changes things unnecessarily. I happen to think that the process change in the proposal is far more than a temporary fix, and I'm very leery of seeing that rushed through. IIRC, I wasn't really around for the debate and vote on the definitional change about "government officials" in the Constitution, and that had some significant unintended consequences.
 
Article 6. The Security Council

1. Any person who meets any endorsement and influence requirements determined by law may apply to become a member of the Security Council.
2. The Security Council may approve nominate applicants by a majority vote. The Regional Assembly may admit an approved confirm a nominated applicant by a majority vote. If the Security Council does not approve nominate an applicant or does not act on them within thirty days, the Regional Assembly may admit appoint the applicant by a two-thirds majority vote.
3. Nominations remain in effect until revoked by majority vote of the Security Council.
Click to expand...
#2 doesn't actually make sense. " If the Security Council does not nominate an applicant or does not act on them within thirty days, the Regional Assembly may appoint the applicant by a two-thirds majority vote. "
You can't say "If SC doesn't nominate". That's basically saying everyone in TNP is nominated. :tb1: Change that sentence back to the original form so it makes sense. And change the other sentences to nominate OR approve. So that people can still apply on their own also.

I don't understand the addition of #3. If the SC nominates an applicant, and the RA rejects it, the nomination should not stay in effect. Same thing with an application.

Frankly, I think either #1 should have the nomination process added to it with a new sentence OR a new #2 added to say the SC can nominate. Then the statement about SC/RA voting on it can just say nominate or approve.

I don't have a real comment right now on actually passing this idea.
 
Former English Colony:
#2 doesn't actually make sense. " If the Security Council does not nominate an applicant or does not act on them within thirty days, the Regional Assembly may appoint the applicant by a two-thirds majority vote. "
You can't say "If SC doesn't nominate". That's basically saying everyone in TNP is nominated. :tb1: Change that sentence back to the original form so it makes sense. And change the other sentences to nominate OR approve. So that people can still apply on their own also.
Click to expand...
The actual process is exactly the same as it is now - someone applies, the SC votes, then the RA votes. The RA doesn't gain the power to vote on anybody who hasn't applied, nor has the SC gained the power to nominate anybody they wish.

The only change is in terminology, from "approve" and "admit" to "nominate", "confirm", and "appoint".

I don't understand the addition of #3. If the SC nominates an applicant, and the RA rejects it, the nomination should not stay in effect. Same thing with an application.
Click to expand...
I could go either way on this one. The SC's recommendation to add hasn't changed just because the RA has voted it down, just like its recommendation hasn't changed just because somebody has gone inactive and vacated the position. And if the vote is close, it could very well pass after only a minor change in citizen makeup.

It's also a hypothetical scenario. I can't think of a time that the RA has rejected an SC applicant. But I could change the language a little to say something like, "nominations remain in effect until revoked by majority vote of the Security Council or if the nominated applicant is not confirmed by the Regional Assembly" perhaps?
 
I understand the premise of the proposed reform amendments. The process is a bit confusing, or, rather the wording is somewhat confusing.

What I think needs specific tweaking is the suspension/removal process as it pertains to SC members that have fallen inactive for one legitimate reason or another. There are a couple of practical solutions to this particular item.

For instance, if a member of the SC goes inactive for a specified period of time, rather than removing them and then requiring them to go through the admission process again, it might be more expedient to put them on "Suspended/LOA/Inactive" status until they reappear (this would be the de facto case if they were otherwise indisposed). "Suspension" would mean they would be removed from the LOS temporarily. The 'readmission' process would be streamlined by simply putting them back onto the "Active" list and inserting them back into the LOS in an appropriate location in that order.
 
So the issue seems to be that as I read the changes, the SC could separately nominate people, without them ever applying. But that is not the intent. So I would like something added that accommodates that.
 
Roman, I believe that's already covered in the law, actually - the vacancy clause specifies "has not logged in for two weeks without prior notice" or something like that, so someone who has mentioned their absence is exempt.

Eras, let me think about good wording to do that - I think I see what you mean and where the confusion arises.
 
I promised to offer an alternative to this proposal today, and I am pleased to now offer it.

It has only two, count them, two changes, that are necessary to allow the suspension of SC members who fall out of compliance with the activity requirements.

The proposal includes one change in the Constitution, and one change in the Regional Security Law:

1. This Act may be cited as the "Security Council Amendments Act of 2015."

2. That a new Clause 5 be added to Article 6 of the Constitution to read:

5. With respect to the Security Council, the Regional Assembly may establish by law such exceptions deemed appropriate to any general provisions of this Constitution or other laws.
Click to expand...

3. That Clause 14 of Section 5.3 of the Legal Code be amended to read:
14. If a suspended member of the Council comes back into compliance with the citizenship requirements of Section 6.1, or the endorsement and influence requirements, the Vice Delegate will reinstate them.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That's it. Short, sweet, and simple, and it does the job that is necessary to fix the problem.
 
No, it doesn't.

Like I said, I am not at all convinced that SC members should be exempted. I fully expect it to garner significant disagreement in the RA, and I also am not positive that such a bill would pass the RA.

...Which is exactly why I'm proposing this change instead, which will reduce the hurdles to readmission while the RA takes its time considering a full exemption.

I will not be proposing full exemption at least until I'm convinced it's a good idea.
 
And I'm not convinced at all that what you proffered is the minimum necessary to fix the immediate issue. Like the massive set of changes that were pushed to fix a minor issue on Vice Delegate succession which dealt with many things other than that topic, your proposal mostly deals with things having nothing to do with the immediate issue at hand. I sense an ulterior motive on your part, because this proposal, as presented by you goes into things having nothing to do with the immediate issue. I think the primary opposition to a limited change is primarily from you but you don't have the guts to say so.
You could proffer both to the RA, or whatever it is being called these days, and agree beforehand that both go to a simultaneous vote. If we can avoid the manipulation of the voting order of proposals, then maybe I can trust the process enough to debate fairly.As it is, I would not support your proposAl unless all of the irrelevant changes are separated out.
 
Grosse, I've said pretty openly that I don't support that approach - if I'm not convinced that it's a good idea, I'm definitely not going to work to convince the RA that it's a good idea.

If you can present an argument and convince me that it's a good idea, though, then I'm happy to work on convincing the RA.

In the meantime, Eras, how's this for alternate wording:

1. Any person who meets any endorsement and influence requirements determined by law may apply to become a member of the Security Council.
2. Once an application has been submitted, the Security Council may nominate that applicant by a majority vote. The Regional Assembly may confirm a nominated applicant by a majority vote. If the Security Council does not nominate an applicant or does not act on them within thirty days, the Regional Assembly may appoint the applicant by a two-thirds majority vote.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top