Judicial COI Act

Silly String:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, my concern was with the term vacancy applying in this case. Better to treat them as unavailable/removed imo. Just to avoid confusion.

Silly String:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree that it would be unlikely for the RA to vote for a recusal request that has no merit. However, as we've seen in the most recent JAL trial, delays are the modus operandi. I'm just saying that this clause could possibly open a door for delaying tactics.

Amended Proposal:
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.
Click to expand...
This is an ok clause, but I was thinking:
suggestion for Clause 7:
7. A conflict of interest occurs as when a Justice or Hearing Officer has a demonstrable material interest that affects their ability to rule in a fair and unbiased manner in a matter before the Court.
Click to expand...
Flemingovia:
1. When we begin not to be able to manage we elect better justices. End of.
Click to expand...
We do? If "God" can't make the cut, then we're screwed. :rofl:
 
I think I'm going to keep the bill where it's at for the time being. I see nothing that seriously requires any more edits.
 
RPI:
SillyString:
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.
Click to expand...
I still am unsure what the bit about vacancies would do.
Click to expand...
It would treat absence and recusal by a THO the same as resignation or abandonment. As THOs are already temporary positions to fill in for a justice, I think it makes sense to simply remove them if they are unavailable for any reason - otherwise, we'd get into appointing temporary THOs to take the place of normal THOs who serve until the original THO is available again, and that kind of nonsense would completely disrupt a trial or review. But that's what would happen right now under your bill, since there's nothing to differentiate THO unavailability from justice unavailability.
 
SillyString:
RPI:
SillyString:
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.
Click to expand...
I still am unsure what the bit about vacancies would do.
Click to expand...
It would treat absence and recusal by a THO the same as resignation or abandonment. As THOs are already temporary positions to fill in for a justice, I think it makes sense to simply remove them if they are unavailable for any reason - otherwise, we'd get into appointing temporary THOs to take the place of normal THOs who serve until the original THO is available again, and that kind of nonsense would completely disrupt a trial or review. But that's what would happen right now under your bill, since there's nothing to differentiate THO unavailability from justice unavailability.
Click to expand...
That makes sense; I'll edit it back into the bill.
 
RPI:
6. Hearing Officers are government officials in the judicial branch, and are subject to the same restrictions and requirements as other judicial officials.
Click to expand...
This bit may be unconstitutional in cases where the hearing officers are appointed by the delegate. The constitution includes exclusive definitions of executive officials and judicial officials. By the constitution's definition, THOs appointed by the delegate would be executive officials. To make them judicial officials in that case, you would either need to create an exception in the text of the constitution, or insert a clause into the constitution allowing exceptions to be created by law.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
RPI:
6. Hearing Officers are government officials in the judicial branch, and are subject to the same restrictions and requirements as other judicial officials.
Click to expand...
This bit may be unconstitutional in cases where the hearing officers are appointed by the delegate. The constitution includes exclusive definitions of executive officials and judicial officials. By the constitution's definition, THOs appointed by the delegate would be executive officials. To make them judicial officials in that case, you would either need to create an exception in the text of the constitution, or insert a clause into the constitution allowing exceptions to be created by law.
Click to expand...
Uhh, where do you see that? I looked in the laws and saw nothing saying that. :huh:

EDIT: Do you mean this?:
Consitution:
8. The Delegate may appoint executive officers to assist them and may dismiss these officers freely. Executive officers may be regulated by law.
Click to expand...
Because if that's what you're referring to, I see it like this:

That specifically refers to executive officers. With this bill, THOs would be specifically defined as Judicial officers; however, the Delegate would still be able to appoint them even though they aren't executive officials because of Clause 5 of Section 3.2 of the Legal Code, which if this bill is passed would read:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Nah, I'm talking about these clauses from article 7 of the constitution:
TNP Constitution:
3. The executive category consists of the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Attorney General, and government officials appointed by government officials in the executive category.
Click to expand...
TNP Constitution:
5. The judicial category consists of the Justices, and government officials appointed by government officials in the judicial category .
Click to expand...
So when a THO is appointed by a Justice, it's a judicial official, and when it's appointed by the delegate, it's an executive official. We can't supercede that with a clause in the legal code.
 
The typical test for recusal by a judicial officer is whether a set of facts presents an actual or potential conflict of interest. I would feel much better about this is that "actual or potential" phrasing were included in the bill. ATM, there is the biggest flaw I see in the bill in its current form. I think it is important not to assume that concept, it is far safer if it is expressly included as part of the element where a recusal ought to occur.
 
I agree that it'd be good to make explicit that a potential COI is grounds for recusal. There are probably plenty of situations, including the current one, where the sitting justice doesn't recuse themselves because they don't feel like their ability to render impartial judgment has been compromised, despite the potential conflict of interest. However, the existence of that potential conflict damages the reputation of the court and taints the judgment that is rendered, because the public can't read minds or discern with certainty what factors went into that justice's decision. We have only the word of any given justice that they will not take advantage of a situation where ruling a certain way might personally benefit them.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
The typical test for recusal by a judicial officer is whether a set of facts presents an actual or potential conflict of interest. I would feel much better about this is that "actual or potential" phrasing were included in the bill. ATM, there is the biggest flaw I see in the bill in its current form. I think it is important not to assume that concept, it is far safer if it is expressly included as part of the element where a recusal ought to occur.
Click to expand...
I have added this into the bill.

Crushing Our Enemies:
Nah, I'm talking about these clauses from article 7 of the constitution:
TNP Constitution:
3. The executive category consists of the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Attorney General, and government officials appointed by government officials in the executive category.
Click to expand...
TNP Constitution:
5. The judicial category consists of the Justices, and government officials appointed by government officials in the judicial category .
Click to expand...
So when a THO is appointed by a Justice, it's a judicial official, and when it's appointed by the delegate, it's an executive official. We can't supercede that with a clause in the legal code.
Click to expand...
I have added an amendment to those Clauses in Article 7 of the Constitution to the bill.
 
RPI:
Judicial Conflict of Interests Act:
Article 7 of the Constitution, Clause 3 shall be amended to read:
TNP Constitution:
3. The executive category consists of the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Attorney General, and government officials appointed by other government officials in the executive category, with the exception of temporary Hearing Officers appointed by the Delegate.
Click to expand...
Article 7 of the Constitution, Clause 5 shall be amended to read:
TNP Constitution:
5. The judicial category consists of the Justices, and government officials appointed by other government officials in the judicial category, as well as temporary Hearing Officers appointed by the Delegate.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I'd suggest covering all current and future such cases, actually, like so:
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 that official's branch, regardless of the method of their selection.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
This will cover the THO case, but also anything else that gets replaced in a way that isn't "appointment by the head of that branch".
 
While I still maintain that this is unnecessary legislation, if it is going to go to vote and potentially pass, I would prefer it be in the current structure, with one exception:

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 a member of 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.
Click to expand...

Since you immediately follow that specific phrase with 'or by any individual officially acting...' the implication is that if a member of the AG staff posts such a request that they are acting in an official capacity to do so. However, as it stands currently, a member of staff could act against the wishes of the AG directly by posting such a request unofficially, which should never be the case since all AG staff serve at his or her leisure.
 
Gracius Maximus:
While I still maintain that this is unnecessary legislation, if it is going to go to vote and potentially pass, I would prefer it be in the current structure, with one exception:

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 a member of 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.
Click to expand...

Since you immediately follow that specific phrase with 'or by any individual officially acting...' the implication is that if a member of the AG staff posts such a request that they are acting in an official capacity to do so. However, as it stands currently, a member of staff could act against the wishes of the AG directly by posting such a request unofficially, which should never be the case since all AG staff serve at his or her leisure.
Click to expand...
Makes sense, I'll change it.
 
As the Formal Debate on this bill has ended, I will no longer make any changes to it. Another Deputy Speaker or Bootsie should schedule a vote soon.
 
As previously stated, Formal Debate has ended for this Bill. The vote will be scheduled in two days.
 
I still have problems with the way clauses 7 and 8 are worded. It makes the concern that recusal should take place when there is a potential for a conflict of interest look like an afterthought, and does not connect the "potential" to the factual circumstances that could arise in a particular situation.
This makes the entire bill flawed to the extent that it would be bad law to adopt it, and I therefore oppose the bill in the form that is going to vote, and urge all those voting on the bill to vote against. Maybe that will get a proposal that is better written and less open to confusion.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I still have problems with the way clauses 7 and 8 are worded. It makes the concern that recusal should take place when there is a potential for a conflict of interest look like an afterthought, and does not connect the "potential" to the factual circumstances that could arise in a particular situation.
Click to expand...

I don't think this matters, given that both the Court and the RA have the power to force a justice to recuse themselves. If either one thinks there could be a COI (in other words, that the potential for one exists), they can make that happen.
 
I think it makes sense, but anyway, if you have no issue with the rest of the bill, I urge you to vote 'Aye.'
 
in areas like this, vague laws are worse than no laws at all. When you do not regulate, then common sense can prevail. But when you get a law as vaguely worded as this, all it will lead to is endless arguing and bickering.

Let me give you one example:

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.
Click to expand...

Demonstrable how? By whom? Who decides what is "demonstrable"? Is giving an opinion on IRC on a trial before the hearing starts a "demonstrable material interest? The law states that a justice should be able to rule in a fair and unbiased manner. well, anyone is ABLE to do this - but it does not mean that they will or should.

I have voted against this. I still see it as unnecessary, and i believe it will just lead to more drawn out bickering over the minutiae of wording.
 
plembobria:
Will the Delegate provide his reasons for his veto?
Click to expand...
Tomb said he would give reason for it soon. The veto override vote will not begin until after that happens, so that Tomb has a chance to express his reasoning.
 
Question for the Speaker:

As per:
Article 3. The Delegate and Vice Delegate; TNP Constitution:
5. The Delegate may veto a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law within one week of its passage.
6. The Regional Assembly may override such a veto by a two-thirds majority vote, which shall cause a proposal to take immediate effect.
Click to expand...
(all bolding mine)

Is a veto vote automatic? Or does it require a motion?

The wording in the previous quote is quite different from:
Section 6.1: Citizenship; TNP Legal Code:
7. If an applicant is rejected for failing an evaluation by the Vice Delegate, the Regional Assembly shall immediately debate the rejection and will hold a majority vote on whether to uphold the rejection, the vote beginning two days after the rejection.
Click to expand...
 
Veto override votes require a motion and a second, as they are non-legislative acts.

Personally, I don't think we should try to override this veto. While it did pass with 2/3 support and might again, there are a number of changes I would like to make to it anyway - might as well just call it done and tweak a new version (which should pass relatively easily with majority support instead of 2/3).

The constitutional provision did go into effect, which is a good thing.
 
i am pleased this act has been vetoed. I have said from the outset that this is not an area which needs legislative control.

I hope the delegate shares my concern and has not simply been lobbied to veto it so that it can be worked on some more.
 
I do apologize for the inconvenience that my veto to the Judicial COI Act has caused to some of you, and I also apologize for the delay in delivering this post. I vetoed the bill due to two reasons. Number one being, I was not very fond of the original draft of the bill. While I do believe--- and support--- legislating in that area, I just believe that it could be modified better some more before becoming part of the Legal Code.
Secondly, it has been pointed out to me that Clause #6 could be potentially considered as illegal due to the fact that the Delegate would appoint THOs, making them government officials of the Executive Branch, not the Judicial Branch. So that also contributed to why I vetoed the bill as well.

Thank you for your time,

~ Tomb, Delegate of The North Pacific
 
Tomb:
Number one being, I was not very fond of the original draft of the bill. While I do believe--- and support--- legislating in that area, I just believe that it could be modified better some more before becoming part of the Legal Code.
Click to expand...
I, too, think I may have rushed the bill through too soon :P And, I may split the bill up into a couple different proposals.

Tomb:
Secondly, it has been pointed out to me that Clause #6 could be potentially considered as illegal due to the fact that the Delegate would appoint THOs, making them government officials of the Executive Branch, not the Judicial Branch. So that also contributed to why I vetoed the bill as well.
Click to expand...
As for this, might I point out this part of the bill, which is now law because it passed by a 2/3 majority:
Judicial Conflict of Interests Act:
A new clause will be inserted in Article 7 of the Constitution, following Clause 5, reading:
TNP Constitution:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That solves the issue of it being illegal and unconstitutional; whoever pointed that out to you must not have read the whole bill. :P
 
I'll admit I was confused by Silly's earlier remark:
Silly String:
The constitutional provision did go into effect, which is a good thing.
Click to expand...
and I'm further puzzled by:
RPI:
As for this, might I point out this part of the bill, which is now law because it passed by a 2/3 majority
Click to expand...
This is what I see in the Constitution:
Article 3. The Delegate and Vice Delegate:
4. When a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law is passed, the Speaker shall promptly present it to the Delegate, and it shall take effect immediately upon their signature.
5. The Delegate may veto a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law within one week of its passage.
6. The Regional Assembly may override such a veto by a two-thirds majority vote, which shall cause a proposal to take immediate effect.
7. If a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law has not been signed or vetoed by the Delegate, it shall take effect seven days after being passed.
Click to expand...
Since the bill has been vetoed, how does it take effect?

Furthermore, IIRC, I was under the impression that the procedure regarding omnibus bills (this bill seeks to amend the Constitution and TNP Legal Code) was that a clause be inserted in the proposal along the lines of:

No part of this bill shall take effect unless all parts take effect.

an example here

Could the Speaker please weigh in on this? Silly String and COE are well-versed in this area , but the actual Speaker has been noticeably absent during discussions on procedure.
 
falapatorious:
Since the bill has been vetoed, how does it take effect?
Click to expand...
The Delegate cannot veto an amendment to the Constitution, unless it is an omnibus bill, which this bill is not, as you said yourself; the Delegate can only veto proposals to amend the Legal Code. The amendment to the Constitution has passed the RA by a 2/3 majority, and so it is law.

As for what you currently see in the Constitution, Bootsie has not edited it yet.
 
I didn't say it wasn't. It is imo. But the omission of the required clause subverts established procedure. Point me to any prohibition on the Delegate in regards to vetoing an amendment to the Constitution.
 
falapatorious:
But the omission of the required clause subverts established procedure.
Click to expand...
If that isn't there, it's not really an omnibus bill, is it? May I also say, that as the proposer of the bill, I didn't intend for it to be an omnibus bill.

falapatorious:
Point me to any prohibition on the Delegate in regards to vetoing an amendment to the Constitution.
Click to expand...
I'll let SS or COE explain this one; they can probably explain it better than I.
 
RPI:
If that isn't there, it's not really an omnibus bill, is it? May I also say, that as the proposer of the bill, I didn't intend for it to be an omnibus bill.
Click to expand...
Intentions aside, the bill seeks to amend both the Constitution and the Legal Code at the same time. So.. it's either 2 separate proposals mistakenly presented as one, or an omnibus bill. See:

RA Standing Procedures:
No proposal may be introduced that includes changes to more than one document, except by special permission of the Speaker.
Click to expand...
Re-reading the relevant thread, no such permission was given by the Speaker.
RPI:
I'll let SS or COE explain this one; they can probably explain it better than I.
Click to expand...
They are entitled to their opinions, but I am seeking the Speaker's opinion (whose opinion takes precedence). I'm starting to think the Speaker's office is being run by proxy. :eyebrow:
 
falapatorius:
RPI:
If that isn't there, it's not really an omnibus bill, is it? May I also say, that as the proposer of the bill, I didn't intend for it to be an omnibus bill.
Click to expand...
Intentions aside, the bill seeks to amend both the Constitution and the Legal Code at the same time. So.. it's either 2 separate proposals mistakenly presented as one, or an omnibus bill. See:

RA Standing Procedures:
No proposal may be introduced that includes changes to more than one document, except by special permission of the Speaker.
Click to expand...
Re-reading the relevant thread, no such permission was given by the Speaker.
RPI:
I'll let SS or COE explain this one; they can probably explain it better than I.
Click to expand...
They are entitled to their opinions, but I am seeking the Speaker's opinion (whose opinion takes precedence). I'm starting to think the Speaker's office is being run by proxy. :eyebrow:
Click to expand...
It's not. As I see it, I must agree with the fact I cannot find a place in the law where it says the Constitutional part of the amendment cannot be vetoed. If that logic stands true, the Delegate could never veto a Constitutional amendment and thus, anything passed by the RA could override the Delegate and placing more executive power in the RA. I must also point out that I agree with Tomb's veto, and know he has very logical reasons to veto it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top