Judicial COI Act

[RPI]

A new clause will be inserted in Article 7 of the Constitution, following Clause 5, reading:

6. Any temporary replacement for a government official in the case of an absence or vacancy will be considered a government official in the branch of the official being replaced, regardless of the method of their selection.

Chapter 3, Section 3.2 of the Legal Code shall be amended to read:

Section 3.2: Recusals and Hearing Officers
4. If one or more Justice positions are vacant, or any Justice is absent or has recused themselves, the remaining Justices will promptly appoint replacements from among available citizens to participate as temporary Hearing Officers.
5. If all Justices are vacant, absent, or have recused themselves, the Delegate will promptly appoint the needed Hearing Officers from among available citizens with the agreement of the Speaker.
6. Hearing Officers are government officials in the judicial branch, and are subject to the same restrictions and requirements as other judicial officials. Any recusal or absence from a Hearing Officer will be treated as a vacancy.
7. A conflict of interest occurs when a Justice or Hearing Officer has a demonstrable material interest in a matter before the Court or when they are otherwise unable to rule in a fair and unbiased manner.
8. Justices are required to recuse themselves from matters where they have a conflict of interest, or there is a potential conflict of interest.
9. The Court may recuse any Justice or Hearing Officer by majority vote, and is required to hold such a vote when publicly requested by the petitioner or defendant in the matter at hand, by the Attorney General's office, or by any individual officially acting on the behalf of any of the preceding parties; however, such a request is not required for the Justices to hold said vote.
10. The Regional Assembly may force any Justice or Hearing Officer to recuse themselves by a majority vote.

 

[Flemingovia]

Over the years we have never needed this sort of legislation before. In fact, sometimes I feel justices were TOO quick to recuse themselves at any hint of conflict of interest.

Recual is a mark of integrity. It allows the general public to know that the bench take fairness seriously. It is an adult response to make sure not only that the court is fair, but that it is SEEN to be fair. It is sad that within days of election, this current bench has brought us to the point where such a law is being proposed.

Legislation is generally only needed where systems or individuals have failed. Unfortunately, currently Funkadelia is failing, and perhaps law is necessary to prevent a repeat.

I will get to the detailed wording of the law when I am at my desktop.

 

[RPI]

I have edited the bill.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

I do not believe this to be necessary.

There are mechanisms in place to deal with rogue Justices. If a Justice fails to recuse himself because of a conflict of interest then the RA can recall the elected official or criminal charges of gross misconduct can be brought and the Justice can be tried as a criminal. Even in the very likely event of an acquittal, such actions will potentially mar future political endeavors for some time to come.

In the current situation, it is a matter of two stubborn people butting heads. It is generally the elected official's position to take up the responsible role and acquiesce, especially when they are in the wrong, but occasionally even if they believe themselves in the right, just to avoid unnecessary conflict in the pursuit of justice. I am not sure that is going to occur this time around.

If the current Court does not believe that they should all recuse themselves then it should not hold that any should recuse themselves. Since the Chief Justice and one other did so, the third should do so as well.

 

[RPI]

Well, my purpose for this legislation is to define a conflict of interest. I actually have had this idea for legislation for a while, the current situation just gave me a good time to propose it.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

Well, my purpose for this legislation is to define a conflict of interest. I actually have had this idea for legislation for a while, the current situation just gave me a good time to propose it.

In the past, the Court has utilized the prevailing or most common RL equivalent definition in regards to legal terms since it is somewhat cumbersome to legislate definitions for all possible terminology within our laws.

In this instance, a 'conflict of interest' would likely be defined as any action on the part of the presiding justice that calls his/her ability to be impartial into question. Considering that the Moderating Justice has already voiced a non-objective opinion on the review within the thread it seems that by any reasonable definition that his ability to be impartial is impaired. Bias or prejudice by the presiding judge is one of the most common reasons for recusal.

 

[RPI]

Well, my purpose for this legislation is to define a conflict of interest. I actually have had this idea for legislation for a while, the current situation just gave me a good time to propose it.

In the past, the Court has utilized the prevailing or most common RL equivalent definition in regards to legal terms since it is somewhat cumbersome to legislate definitions for all possible terminology within our laws.

In this instance, a 'conflict of interest' would likely be defined as any action on the part of the presiding justice that calls his/her ability to be impartial into question. Considering that the Moderating Justice has already voiced a non-objective opinion on the review within the thread it seems that by any reasonable definition that his ability to be impartial is impaired. Bias or prejudice by the presiding judge is one of the most common reasons for recusal.

I agree with you that it would be a bit overwhelming to put every term into legislation, but, seeing that in the Court Rules the term 'conflict of interest' is used multiple times, I believe it would be very helpful for the Justices to perform their duties defined by the Court Rules Chapter 3, Section 1, Clauses 3 and 4 to have a legal definition somewhere.

 

[RPI]

I have added the part about recusals back in for further critiquing.

 

[RPI]

Over the years we have never needed this sort of legislation before. In fact, sometimes I feel justices were TOO quick to recuse themselves at any hint of conflict of interest.

Recual is a mark of integrity. It allows the general public to know that the bench take fairness seriously. It is an adult response to make sure not only that the court is fair, but that it is SEEN to be fair. It is sad that within days of election, this current bench has brought us to the point where such a law is being proposed.

Legislation is generally only needed where systems or individuals have failed. Unfortunately, currently Funkadelia is failing, and perhaps law is necessary to prevent a repeat.

I will get to the detailed wording of the law when I am at my desktop.

(Sorry this is late, I've been off and on busy in RL right now and have only had time for some responses, and I skipped yours for some reason) I wholly agree with you Flemingovia. I do regret the need to legislate based on current situations. Honestly, had the issue with Funkadelia not occurred, I would only have introduced this legislation with the definition of 'conflict of interest,' and not the requirement for recusal.

 

[RPI]

Ik, four posts in a row, but whataya gonna do?

I'm thinking of adding this in as Clause 12 in Section 3, Chapter 3 of the Legal Code as well:

12. Justices must review the decision or nondecision of another Justice to not recuse themself should there be any reasonable doubt about there being no conflict of interest or if the Attorney General requests them to.

First of all, where does everyone stand on the legislaton as is? Secondly, what is your opinion on adding this into the Bill?

 

[Egalotir]

Can someone please update me on this...scandal so I can have better information on how to act on this bill?

 

[RPI]

Can someone please update me on this...scandal so I can have better information on how to act on this bill?

Flemingovia posted a request for review of whether or not the justice voting should have been restarted because of the failure to include abstain as an option on the ballot until midelection. The RFR is located HERE.
To sum it up, the issue is that all Justices were involved in the election, but Funkadelia has failed to recuse himself even though he was a candidate which would obviously be a conflict of interest under this legislation, and this bill would force any Justice with a conflict of interest to recuse themself or they'd be in violation of the law. Both of the other Justices have recused themselves.

 

[Egalotir]

Can someone please update me on this...scandal so I can have better information on how to act on this bill?

Flemingovia posted a request for review of whether or not the justice voting should have been restarted because of the failure to include abstain as an option on the ballot until midelection. The RFR is located HERE.
To sum it up, the issue is that all Justices were involved in the election, but Funkadelia has failed to recuse himself even though he was a candidate which would obviously be a conflict of interest under this legislation, and this bill would force any Justice with a conflict of interest to recuse themself or they'd be in violation of the law. Both of the other Justices have recused themselves.

Thank you RPI.

 

[falapatorius]

First of all, where does everyone stand on the legislation as is?

From a legislative standpoint, there might be some value in defining 'conflict of interest'. I'm not sure your definition will suffice though:

8. A conflict of interest, in the case of the court, shall be defined as a situation in which a Justice or Temporary Hearing Officer is directly involved or associated with the case in question- might it be a request for review, a criminal trial, resolving conflicts in the law, or any other function of the court as defined by the Constitution in Article 5- that could have even the smallest chance of corrupting the motive of the court in said case.

A THO is automatically removed if there is a conflict of interest as per:

7. Any hearing officer appointed under this Section will be automatically removed if they have a conflict of interest and or hold any other office or assume the duties of any other office while serving as a hearing officer.

.. so there's no real need to specify them here. They wouldn't be appointed if they have a conflict of interest (presumably ).

Corrupting the motive? You do explain 'motive', but 'corrupting'? I'm not sure how that applies in a legal context.

If you want to actually define COI, then you should probably consider:

A situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit from actions or decisions made in their official capacity.

.. or some variation on that. I don't see the need though, as that is addressed in the Oath of Office (bolding mine):

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.

Other than defining conflict of interest (the necessity of that is debatable imo), I don't see any pressing need for reactionary legislation. As pointed out by GM, there are remedies for Justices that don't 'endeavor to recuse themselves from matters where they have a conflict of interest': A majority of the Court can order recusal, the RA can recall the Justice, or the AG can file gross misconduct charges.

 

[RPI]

Thank you very much for the very thorough response Falapatorious, that is the kind of response I was looking for. I am on my phone right now and it is hard for me to respond, so I will post a response later today when I can get to my computer.

 

[RPI]

Ok, here's my response(s):

.. so there's no real need to specify them here. They wouldn't be appointed if they have a conflict of interest (presumably ).

I agree with you here, I will take out the part about THOs.

Corrupting the motive? You do explain 'motive', but 'corrupting'? I'm not sure how that applies in a legal context.

Corrupt would simply mean 'to destroy the integrity of.' I hardly find it necessary to define this within my bill as well, as it is an English word that should be common knowledge; 'conflict of interest,' however, is a legal term that should be defined because officials who might not understand the meaning of it if it isn't explained in the law, or officials who simply pretend to be ignorant toward its meaning, could possibly "sneak" their way past the requirement for recusal without consequences. (I'm not sure if you were suggesting I define 'corrupting' as well?)

If you want to actually define COI, then you should probably consider:

A situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit from actions or decisions made in their official capacity.

I would consider adding this in as an alternative to the definition already in the bill, but as you said, the oath of office says:

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.

So, adding your definition would be an unnecessary redundancy, as being influenced by personal gain or outside force is already a means for removal from office.

 

[RPI]

As for this:

As pointed out by GM, there are remedies for Justices that don't 'endeavor to recuse themselves from matters where they have a conflict of interest': A majority of the Court can order recusal, the RA can recall the Justice, or the AG can file gross misconduct charges.

I would say that 'should endeavor' is not stating that there is a requirement for recusal, but simply stating that it would be strongly suggested. Even if it is implying a requirement, there is a lot of ambiguity.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

As for this:

As pointed out by GM, there are remedies for Justices that don't 'endeavor to recuse themselves from matters where they have a conflict of interest': A majority of the Court can order recusal, the RA can recall the Justice, or the AG can file gross misconduct charges.

I would say that 'should endeavor' is not stating that there is a requirement for recusal, but simply stating that it would be strongly suggested. Even if it is implying a requirement, there is a lot of ambiguity.

The wording is 'must endeavor' which is quite a bit less ambiguous than 'should'.

 

[RPI]

As for this:

As pointed out by GM, there are remedies for Justices that don't 'endeavor to recuse themselves from matters where they have a conflict of interest': A majority of the Court can order recusal, the RA can recall the Justice, or the AG can file gross misconduct charges.

I would say that 'should endeavor' is not stating that there is a requirement for recusal, but simply stating that it would be strongly suggested. Even if it is implying a requirement, there is a lot of ambiguity.

The wording is 'must endeavor' which is quite a bit less ambiguous than 'should'.

Even so, if a Justice truly believes that they are correct in not recusing themselves, even when it is clear to everyone else that there's a conflict of interest, they technically would be within the law because they did endeavor to recuse themself, but saw no conflict of interest that required a recusal.

 

[RPI]

Ignore this, I accidentally posted the same thing twice.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

As for this:

As pointed out by GM, there are remedies for Justices that don't 'endeavor to recuse themselves from matters where they have a conflict of interest': A majority of the Court can order recusal, the RA can recall the Justice, or the AG can file gross misconduct charges.

I would say that 'should endeavor' is not stating that there is a requirement for recusal, but simply stating that it would be strongly suggested. Even if it is implying a requirement, there is a lot of ambiguity.

The wording is 'must endeavor' which is quite a bit less ambiguous than 'should'.

Even so, if a Justice truly believes that they are correct in not recusing themselves, even when it is clear to everyone else that there's a conflict of interest, they technically would be within the law because they did endeavor to recuse themself, but saw no conflict of interest that required a recusal.

Which is, again, why there are other alternatives for remedy available.

 

[RPI]

As for this:

As pointed out by GM, there are remedies for Justices that don't 'endeavor to recuse themselves from matters where they have a conflict of interest': A majority of the Court can order recusal, the RA can recall the Justice, or the AG can file gross misconduct charges.

I would say that 'should endeavor' is not stating that there is a requirement for recusal, but simply stating that it would be strongly suggested. Even if it is implying a requirement, there is a lot of ambiguity.

The wording is 'must endeavor' which is quite a bit less ambiguous than 'should'.

Even so, if a Justice truly believes that they are correct in not recusing themselves, even when it is clear to everyone else that there's a conflict of interest, they technically would be within the law because they did endeavor to recuse themself, but saw no conflict of interest that required a recusal.

Which is, again, why there are other alternatives for remedy available.

I agree that there are remedies, but my proposal is less extreme: it wouldn't remove someone from their position as Justice, it would simply require their recusal, avoiding much conflict and the need for another RA proposal to right the wrong.

 

[falapatorius]

Corrupt would simply mean 'to destroy the integrity of.

I assumed that's what you meant. Corrupt also implies dishonesty (taking bribes for example). I think it would be difficult to prove a Justice was being dishonest in refusing to recuse themselves. They may truly believe there's no COI. It does reflect negatively on the Justice though. Semantics aside, it could be seen as 'bringing the administration of justice into disrepute' (a RL Canadian legal concept).

Overall, I'd say it's the Justices' responsibility to identify a real/potential COI and seek to rectify that. If they don't, they should expect to face remedial action (extreme as that may be).

 

[RPI]

Corrupt would simply mean 'to destroy the integrity of.

I assumed that's what you meant. Corrupt also implies dishonesty (taking bribes for example). I think it would be difficult to prove a Justice was being dishonest in refusing to recuse themselves. They may truly believe there's no COI. It does reflect negatively on the Justice though. Semantics aside, it could be seen as 'bringing the administration of justice into disrepute' (a RL Canadian legal concept).

Overall, I'd say it's the Justices' responsibility to identify a real/potential COI and seek to rectify that. If they don't, they should expect to face remedial action (extreme as that may be).

So, may I ask, how do you feel about the bill as is?

 

[Romanoffia]

Over the years we have never needed this sort of legislation before. In fact, sometimes I feel justices were TOO quick to recuse themselves at any hint of conflict of interest.

Recual is a mark of integrity. It allows the general public to know that the bench take fairness seriously. It is an adult response to make sure not only that the court is fair, but that it is SEEN to be fair. It is sad that within days of election, this current bench has brought us to the point where such a law is being proposed.

Legislation is generally only needed where systems or individuals have failed. Unfortunately, currently Funkadelia is failing, and perhaps law is necessary to prevent a repeat.

I will get to the detailed wording of the law when I am at my desktop.

Recusal is a quick way of avoiding political pressures and political fallout and to avoid having to deal with a touchy issue or doing any real work.

And besides, a recusal goes best with a glass of Argentinian Malbec wine at room tempertature.

 

[RPI]

So, would you all support this bill if it was to go to vote? Or should I remove or revise something before I put this in Formal Debate?

 

[SillyString]

I have no objection to the first change. I think it is sensible to specify recusal rather than COI, as a justice could recuse themselves for other reasons (such as needing to take a leave of absence, not to be confused with the legal definition of "absence").

I have some concerns about the second bit, though - the actual COI bits. I'm not sure they cure more headaches than they create.

As my standard nitpick, the overall phrasing of 8 isn't optimal. What the court can do is laid out in law, so it's not necessary to list it all again here (and indeed, at least one court function is missing from this list - possibly more). It creates future problems if we ever amend what the court is empowered to do, either by expansion or contraction.

Getting more into concerns about the substance, here's what I have:

1) "The smallest chance" is incredibly vague, and so is "directly involved or associated". Anything could be the smallest chance - Eluvatar designed a flag for me seven years ago, so I could be biased in his favor. r3n owes me $5, so I could be biased against him. The fact that it specifies case is additionally problematic - one could be biased for reasons completely unrelated to the case, but rather based on, say, one of the parties involved, or that person's prior NS/TNP history. Laying things out explicitly is also problematic, as it will inevitably lack sufficient finesse to do what we really want. There will always be exceptions and variations and COIs really need to be judged on a case-by-case basis.

2) None of this, as far as I can tell, compels any action from a sitting justice, nor does it represent an improvement over the current Court Rules. In fact, it may be a regression - currently, the Court can compel a justice to recuse themselves by majority vote, and can do so whenever it wants to, and perhaps especially when asked by a party to a case. Putting this in the legal code instead, however, means that if a justice doesn't recuse themselves when you think they should, you have to formally file either a RFR or charges of gross misconduct, and wait for either or both of those to wind their own way through the court system, delaying the original question by potentially a matter of months - for a decision that will, ultimately, end up basically being made by the other two justices anyway. I think it's overall better to just go directly to them.

What might make sense would be adding other mechanisms for recusal - such as allowing the RA to force a recusal by majority (supermajority?) vote, or, idk, allow the delegate, vd, speaker, and ag to force a recusal if all four of them agree, or some other checking power like that.

 

[RPI]

The bill has been edited significantly.

 

[RPI]

I move for this bill to go into formal debate.

 

[SillyString]

I'm happy with the content now. Just some small nitpicks:

A new Section 3 entitled "[Conflicts of Interest] and Recusals," will be introduced into TNP Legal Code Chapter 3 containing the following Clauses 8, 9, 10, and 11:

I'd take out the brackets there, otherwise they will be included in the final bill and put into the legal code. I also think it might make sense to combine this with the existing Section 2, à la:

Chapter 3, Section 3.2 of the Legal Code will be amended to read:

Section 3.2: Recusals and Hearing Officers
4. If one or more Justice positions are vacant, or any Justice is absent or has recused themselves, the remaining Justices will promptly appoint replacements from among available citizens to participate as temporary Hearing Officers.
5. If all Justices are either vacant or absent or have recused themselves, the Delegate will promptly appoint the needed Hearing Officers from among available citizens with the agreement of the Speaker.
6. Hearing Officers are government officials in the judicial branch, and are subject to the same restrictions and requirements as other judicial officials. Any recusal or absence from a Hearing Officer will be treated as a vacancy.
7. A conflict of interest occurs when a Justice or Hearing Officer is unable to rule in a fair and unbiased manner on a question before the Court.
8. Justices and Hearing Officers are required to recuse themselves from matters where they have a conflict of interest.
9. The Court may recuse any Justice or Hearing Officer by majority vote, and is required to hold such a vote when publicly requested by the petitioner or defendant in the matter at hand, or by a member of the Attorney General's office, or by any individual officially acting on the behalf of any of the preceding parties.
10. The Regional Assembly may force any Justice to recuse themselves by a majority vote.

And you don't need to specify anything about renumbering - the Speaker's Office is empowered to do that automatically, and arguably it's illegal to try.

Like you, I'm torn between simple and 2/3 majority, so no further input there. I think condensing these makes the most sense - THOs are closely related to recusals and CoIs, so it's reasonable to keep them together. Additionally, this lets us get rid of some of the more problematic language in the current law - for example, clause 7 currently says that THOs will be "automatically" removed if they have a CoI without ever clarifying what a CoI is or who is empowered to determine if they have it, and it additionally prevents SC members from being THOs because of the blanket restriction on all government offices. I've changed that language to calling them judicial government officials, which already has a solid definition in the constitution and is much more sensible about restrictions.

Other than that, I changed "themself" into "themselves", since "themself" is a more informal version and I'm partial to formality in written laws, and I simplified a couple other minor things. Style edits, really.

 

[RPI]

I'm happy with the content now. Just some small nitpicks:

A new Section 3 entitled "[Conflicts of Interest] and Recusals," will be introduced into TNP Legal Code Chapter 3 containing the following Clauses 8, 9, 10, and 11:

I'd take out the brackets there, otherwise they will be included in the final bill and put into the legal code. I also think it might make sense to combine this with the existing Section 2, à la:

Chapter 3, Section 3.2 of the Legal Code will be amended to read:

Section 3.2: Recusals and Hearing Officers
4. If one or more Justice positions are vacant, or any Justice is absent or has recused themselves, the remaining Justices will promptly appoint replacements from among available citizens to participate as temporary Hearing Officers.
5. If all Justices are either vacant or absent or have recused themselves, the Delegate will promptly appoint the needed Hearing Officers from among available citizens with the agreement of the Speaker.
6. Hearing Officers are government officials in the judicial branch, and are subject to the same restrictions and requirements as other judicial officials. Any recusal or absence from a Hearing Officer will be treated as a vacancy.
7. A conflict of interest occurs when a Justice or Hearing Officer is unable to rule in a fair and unbiased manner on a question before the Court.
8. Justices and Hearing Officers are required to recuse themselves from matters where they have a conflict of interest.
9. The Court may recuse any Justice or Hearing Officer by majority vote, and is required to hold such a vote when publicly requested by the petitioner or defendant in the matter at hand, or by a member of the Attorney General's office, or by any individual officially acting on the behalf of any of the preceding parties.
10. The Regional Assembly may force any Justice to recuse themselves by a majority vote.

And you don't need to specify anything about renumbering - the Speaker's Office is empowered to do that automatically, and arguably it's illegal to try.

Like you, I'm torn between simple and 2/3 majority, so no further input there. I think condensing these makes the most sense - THOs are closely related to recusals and CoIs, so it's reasonable to keep them together. Additionally, this lets us get rid of some of the more problematic language in the current law - for example, clause 7 currently says that THOs will be "automatically" removed if they have a CoI without ever clarifying what a CoI is or who is empowered to determine if they have it, and it additionally prevents SC members from being THOs because of the blanket restriction on all government offices. I've changed that language to calling them judicial government officials, which already has a solid definition in the constitution and is much more sensible about restrictions.

Other than that, I changed "themself" into "themselves", since "themself" is a more informal version and I'm partial to formality in written laws, and I simplified a couple other minor things. Style edits, really.

I have adopted this version of the bill; however, I made some edits. Please read it over and voice your opinion on said edits.

 

[falapatorius]

So, may I ask, how do you feel about the bill as is?

Tbh, I'm still on the fence. There are some details that need to be smoothed out.

6. Hearing Officers are government officials in the judicial branch, and are subject to the same restrictions and requirements as other judicial officials. Any recusal or absence from a Hearing Officer will be treated as a vacancy.

I'm not quite sure of your intent here. A vacancy triggers a Special Election as per:

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.

I'm thinking it might be better to just remove a THO that recuses on account of a COI or another reason, is absent, or vacates (since another THO will have to be appointed). I think the vacancy language placed here could cause some headaches with interpretation and implementation.

7. A conflict of interest occurs when a Justice or Hearing Officer is unable to rule in a fair and unbiased manner on a question before the Court.

This is the sticky part of this proposal. The definition of COI makes or breaks this imo. I offer a possible alternative to the defining language:

7. A conflict of interest occurs when a Justice or Hearing Officer has a demonstrable material interest in the matter before the Court.

The addition of 'demonstrable' ties in with my next point:

9. The Court may recuse any Justice or Hearing Officer by majority vote, and is required to hold such a vote when publicly requested by the petitioner or defendant in the matter at hand, or by a member of the Attorney General's office, or by any individual officially acting on the behalf of any of the preceding parties.

I'm fine with requiring a vote from the Court regarding a potential COI, if the appropriate party requests such a vote. However, it should stipulate that evidence of the COI be presented to the Court. Otherwise, a majority of the Court could just vote to recuse on a basis other than a COI (personal grudges, etc). However, as Silly String alluded to, this will take time that is better spent on the matter at hand.

10. The Regional Assembly may force any Justice to recuse themselves by a majority vote.

The issue here (as written) is that any RA member can introduce a vote to recuse. I can just imagine the shenanigans. There should be a qualifying phrase along the lines of:

If the Court fails to achieve a majority decision for recusal of a Justice with regard to a COI, the Regional Assembly may call for a vote to recuse the Justice alleged to have a COI. A majority vote will be considered sufficient to mandate the recusal of said Justice.

Truth be told, I'd rather clause 10 be stricken. The RA already has the right to recall government officials. Perhaps further debate will alleviate my concerns.

it additionally prevents SC members from being THOs because of the blanket restriction on all government offices.

I like that restriction.

 

[RPI]

This...:

6. Hearing Officers are government officials in the judicial branch, and are subject to the same restrictions and requirements as other judicial officials.

...is just a rewording of the current Clause 6...:

6. In implementing the previous clause, any person who has a conflict of interest will be treated as unavailable.

...in order to state that THOs may not have a conflict of interest and requires that they abide by the same regulations and restrictions that a Justice must; so, essentially, it legally states that Justices and THOs are to be treated as the same.

I'm thinking it might be better to just remove a THO that recuses on account of a COI or another reason, is absent, or vacates (since another THO will have to be appointed). I think the vacancy language placed here could cause some headaches with interpretation and implementation.

I agree, I have removed that part from the bill.

7. A conflict of interest occurs when a Justice or Hearing Officer is unable to rule in a fair and unbiased manner on a question before the Court.

This is the sticky part of this proposal. The definition of COI makes or breaks this imo. I offer a possible alternative to the defining language:

7. A conflict of interest occurs when a Justice or Hearing Officer has a demonstrable material interest in the matter before the Court.

I do like this suggestion, and I do agree that the main purpose of this bill should be to define COI. Would it work to combine the two definitions? For example:

7. A conflict of interest occurs as a result of either or both of the following: a Justice or Hearing Officer has a demonstrable material interest in the matter before the Court, or, a Justice or Hearing Officer is unable to rule in a fair and unbiased manner on a question before the Court.

If the Court fails to achieve a majority decision for recusal of a Justice with regard to a COI, the Regional Assembly may call for a vote to recuse the Justice alleged to have a COI. A majority vote will be considered sufficient to mandate the recusal of said Justice.

This would imply that a vote of the Justices must occur and fail before the RA can do anything, I'm not sure I want that. If someone just randomly moves for the RA to force a recusal, would they really be able to rack up even a simple majority to do so? Maybe we could shift from a simple majority to a 2/3 majority if that's your issue.

 

[RPI]

I would just point out to another Deputy Speaker or Madam Speaker Bootsie that I have made a motion to put this bill into formal debate. I wish to refrain from putting it into formal debate myself to avoid criticism.

 

[Alta]

This bill is now in Formal Debate, which will last for five days, after which it will be scheduled for vote.

 

[SillyString]

I'm not quite sure of your intent here. A vacancy triggers a Special Election as per:

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.

I'm thinking it might be better to just remove a THO that recuses on account of a COI or another reason, is absent, or vacates (since another THO will have to be appointed). I think the vacancy language placed here could cause some headaches with interpretation and implementation.

I quite disagree with your interpretation on this bit. Note that the language is specific to temporary fillings - vacancies in unelected positions do not cause an election to pend, and can thus be staffed straight up.

I'm fine with requiring a vote from the Court regarding a potential COI, if the appropriate party requests such a vote. However, it should stipulate that evidence of the COI be presented to the Court. Otherwise, a majority of the Court could just vote to recuse on a basis other than a COI (personal grudges, etc). However, as Silly String alluded to, this will take time that is better spent on the matter at hand.

I don't think evidence should be legally mandated. If the court is a reasonable one, they won't recuse without good cause, and if it's not a reasonable one then the presence or absence of evidence won't make a difference in its determination. Justices recusing another justice for petty or illegal reasons can be handled by the RA in recusing or recalling the offending parties, and/or by the AG in filing charges.

10. The Regional Assembly may force any Justice to recuse themselves by a majority vote.

The issue here (as written) is that any RA member can introduce a vote to recuse. I can just imagine the shenanigans. There should be a qualifying phrase along the lines of:

If the Court fails to achieve a majority decision for recusal of a Justice with regard to a COI, the Regional Assembly may call for a vote to recuse the Justice alleged to have a COI. A majority vote will be considered sufficient to mandate the recusal of said Justice.

Truth be told, I'd rather clause 10 be stricken. The RA already has the right to recall government officials. Perhaps further debate will alleviate my concerns.

I don't agree with this change. Any RA member can request a recall at any time for any reason, and we see basically no shenanigans there. I see no reason to think we'll see excessive shenanigans with the RA able to consider recusal as well.

As for recall, it's the solution to a different problem. A justice may be perfectly reasonable in believing themselves to not have a conflict of interest, but a majority of the region may disagree with them on that point. A difference of opinion does not inherently merit losing their position entirely, which is all a recall does. Adding recusal gives the RA more finesse.

it additionally prevents SC members from being THOs because of the blanket restriction on all government offices.

I like that restriction.

I don't! Unlike other restrictions, this one seems silly, particularly because SC members can be justices.

I'm thinking it might be better to just remove a THO that recuses on account of a COI or another reason, is absent, or vacates (since another THO will have to be appointed). I think the vacancy language placed here could cause some headaches with interpretation and implementation.

I agree, I have removed that part from the bill.

As I explained earlier, I think Falapatorius' reasoning is wrong, so I disagree with removing that language.

7. A conflict of interest occurs when a Justice or Hearing Officer is unable to rule in a fair and unbiased manner on a question before the Court.

This is the sticky part of this proposal. The definition of COI makes or breaks this imo. I offer a possible alternative to the defining language:

7. A conflict of interest occurs when a Justice or Hearing Officer has a demonstrable material interest in the matter before the Court.

I do like this suggestion, and I do agree that the main purpose of this bill should be to define COI. Would it work to combine the two definitions? For example:

7. A conflict of interest occurs as a result of either or both of the following: a Justice or Hearing Officer has a demonstrable material interest in the matter before the Court, or, a Justice or Hearing Officer is unable to rule in a fair and unbiased manner on a question before the Court.

I'm not sure it's necessary to specify "demonstrable material interest", since that is something which inherently makes them unable to rule in a fair and unbiased manner. As to the suggestion to replace it, again I think that it both confuses and restricts the category too much. "Material interest" isn't defined in TNP law, and there are plenty of things that might make someone unable to judge a situation impartially that are completely unrelated to in-game considerations. I certainly have a material interest in Eluvatar's treason trial if I was a co-conspirator in his evil plans, but do I have a material interest if we've met in real life? If we've hung out together? If he's slept on my couch, and I've had tea with his parents? Clearly there is a line somewhere and across it lies a conflict of interest, but I don't think that "material interest" is the most accurate way to describe it.

If you really want to keep both, I'd rephrase it to:

7. A conflict of interest occurs as when a Justice or Hearing Officer has a demonstrable material interest in a matter before the Court or when they are otherwise unable to rule in a fair and unbiased manner.

 

[Flemingovia]

I am still uneasy about the wisdom of legislating simply based on the failings of Justice Funkadelia. In principle I am against bloating our laws unnecessarily. We have managed for years without defining CoI or grounds for recusal too closely, and as I have said before, the more the laws the more the loopholes.

I would rather leave the grounds for CoI to common sense and honour. If a justice has no common sense or refuses to do the honourable thing, then there are already mechanisms in place to force their hand or, ultimately, recall them.

 

[RPI]

I quite disagree with your interpretation on this bit. Note that the language is specific to temporary fillings - vacancies in unelected positions do not cause an election to pend, and can thus be staffed straight up.

I still am unsure what the bit about vacancies would do.

I am still uneasy about the wisdom of legislating simply based on the failings of Justice Funkadelia. In principle I am against bloating our laws unnecessarily. We have managed for years without defining CoI or grounds for recusal too closely, and as I have said before, the more the laws the more the loopholes.

I would rather leave the grounds for CoI to common sense and honour. If a justice has no common sense or refuses to do the honourable thing, then there are already mechanisms in place to force their hand or, ultimately, recall them.

We may have managed for years, but what happens when we begin to not be able to manage. Also, if this bill creates any loopholes, then please do let me know; I see none.

 

[Flemingovia]

We may have managed for years, but what happens when we begin to not be able to manage. Also, if this bill creates any loopholes, then please do let me know; I see none.

1. When we begin not to be able to manage we elect better justices. End of.

2. the thing about loopholes is you hardly ever anticipate them. They emerge as a law is used. In this case, as soon as you create a law with a hard boundary, pretty soon people start to argue that THEIR particular situation is not covered by the law.

 

[RPI]

We may have managed for years, but what happens when we begin to not be able to manage. Also, if this bill creates any loopholes, then please do let me know; I see none.

1. When we begin not to be able to manage we elect better justices. End of.

No one can know exactly how well a person will actually perform in the office once elected.

2. the thing about loopholes is you hardly ever anticipate them. They emerge as a law is used. In this case, as soon as you create a law with a hard boundary, pretty soon people start to argue that THEIR particular situation is not covered by the law.

Then, arguably, you could say that any law does not cover a particular situation. For, example, Funkadelia could argue that the law does not apply to his situation if he really believes that he has no conflict of interest.