Government Officials

Not sure if the world revolves around me was directed at me or Flem, but I'm an equal opportunity justice seeker.

If anyone has a position that runs afoul of the constibillicode/BoR I'm inclined to think that we should rectify that situation.

I think things should be separate and I would argue that is the intent of the law. If there are loopholes ok, but I think that this should be fixed. The current executive does not believe deputies serving as Justices is a problem, apparently.

I do and that will not change. It is also not partial to any one person within TNP. The main reason is conflict of interest, that's it. I'm sure people can adequately perform multiple positions. But I am concerned with an executive taking action and also being the person determining the legality of said action.

That's it. No conspiracy theories here.
 
Eluvatar:
Indeed, SC members who don't log into the forum for over 14 days are removed under the definition of vacancy:
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm not a fan of that provision at all. But that discussion is another topic. :P
 
It seems so simple....

Those Elected to positions are government officials, except jusices.
Those appointed by them are government officials.
Those appointed by these appointees (ie deputies) are government officials*.
You cannot be a justice and a government official.




*this is not in line with the current law, but is in line with review number 34. I put this in because it makes sense, and keeps the line between executive and judiciary clear and clean.
 
flemingovia:
It seems so simple....

Those Elected to positions are government officials, except jusices.
Those appointed by them are government officials.
Those appointed by these appointees (ie deputies) are government officials*.
You cannot be a justice and a government official.




*this is not in line with the current law, but is in line with review number 34. I put this in because it makes sense, and keeps the line between executive and judiciary clear and clean.
Click to expand...
I agree. And I believe that was the point of the ruling.

Certain parties did not like that progression and worked towards changing the law to make it more convoluted than was necessary so that non-citizens/non-NS players could have deputy roles.

I personally believe that to be ignorant but whatever.
 
It's what happens when you shape laws to accommodate specific individuals.

It is the same principle that led to the saying "hard cases make bad laws".
 
Opinion Part 1 - With respect to the Delegate, Vice-Delegate, Speaker, Attorney General, Appointed Ministers, Appointed Deputy Speaker/Ministers, and Appointed Deputy Attorney Generals
The positions of Delegate, Vice-Delegate, Speaker, Attorney General and their applicable deputies all have specific powers outlined by The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code.
Article 6 of the Constitution notes that all government officials shall swear an oath of office. This oath is the requirement to assume a position giving the officeholder authority and powers beyond the ability to introduce legislation and vote in elections which are conferred to members of the Regional Assembly.
Furthermore, Bill of Rights numbers 4, 5, 8 describe the recourse methods for nations believing they have been aggrieved by government officials. This Court finds that the expressed and implicit intent of these rights are to ensure all named and appointed by named offices within TNP law be subject to the provisions of the Bill of Rights. The Court finds that these positions are government officials and are subject to this provision.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I thought someone had said there was a distinction between delegate appointed and minister appointed deputies. I'm not seeing that in the quoted ruling above. Seems like they are all the same.

Still trying to figure out then that if Deputy Ministers are defined as gov officials AND the constitution does not allow one to be a government official in more than one branch, how this is possible to continue.

Am I missing something subsequent to the ruling?
 
It's Article 7; Clause 2 of the Constitution that is the source of the confusion:

Article 7. General Provisions:
1. Constitutionally-mandated elected officials are the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, Justices, and Attorney General.
2. Government officials are the constitutionally-mandated elected officials, any officials appointed by them as permitted by law, and members of the Security Council.
3. The executive category consists of the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Attorney General, and government officials appointed by government officials in the executive category.
4. The legislative category consists of the Speaker, and government officials appointed by government officials in the legislative category.
5. The judicial category consists of the Justices, and government officials appointed by government officials in the judicial category .
Click to expand...
'any officials appointed by them as permitted by Law'.

Technically, it refers to officials appointed by CMEOs, not by appointees themselves. It is interesting to note though, that Clauses 3-5 refer to 'government officials appointed by government officials'. Unfortunately, it just categorizes them.

Unless I'm reading it incorrectly, Court Ruling #34 generally agrees with this interpretation (bolding mine):

Ruling #34:
The Court opines the following:

Opinion Part 1 - With respect to the Delegate, Vice-Delegate, Speaker, Attorney General, Appointed Ministers, Appointed Deputy Speaker/Ministers, and Appointed Deputy Attorney Generals:

The positions of Delegate, Vice-Delegate, Speaker, Attorney General and their applicable deputies all have specific powers outlined by The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code.

Article 6 of the Constitution notes that all government officials shall swear an oath of office. This oath is the requirement to assume a position giving the officeholder authority and powers beyond the ability to introduce legislation and vote in elections which are conferred to members of the Regional Assembly.

Furthermore, Bill of Rights numbers 4, 5, 8 describe the recourse methods for nations believing they have been aggrieved by government officials. This Court finds that the expressed and implicit intent of these rights are to ensure all named and appointed by named offices within TNP law be subject to the provisions of the Bill of Rights. The Court finds that these positions are government officials and are subject to this provision.
Click to expand...
So it would seem that non-CMEO appointees are not government officials. Perhaps legislation may help, or deputies of deputies should be vetted and appointed by the relevant CMEO. :shrug:

On the Justice issue, I can agree they should be arm's length from the other governmental categories. However, the existing constitutional loophole still allows a Justice to be a member of the Executive Staff.

Justices are CMEOs, and therefore government officials. If that and the other issues are to be addressed, it may require some Constibillicode changes. I'm not particularly against that idea, and there does seem to be some agreement that something needs to be done.
 
Ok, Falap...I see that. I think ruling 34 came before this constitutional change. I think proponents on the change argued that the ruling was "not a good one" or a typical refrain from any ruling I participated in. But the ruling itself was very clear and the law change made things unclear because it does not address what the ruling addressed.

So I think the law supercedes the ruling since it came after the ruling and the ambiguity remains.
 
Perhaps it is time to draft something clear, unambiguous, and maintaining the distinction between executive and judiciary?

It is somewhat strange that in a region and a RA the size of the North Pacific we seem to need people doubling up on posts anyway.
 
I still have no idea what any of you mean by "ambiguity". The law is unambiguous and clear - government officials are CMEOs and their direct appointees.

I get that people might not like what the law says, but it's still laid out plainly.
 
I cannot discern any ambiguity in the current text either. Some may thing the law is not the most elegant or satisfactory one, and it's legitimate to wish to discuss changing it. But it is what it is, and what it is is clear.

In RL, of course, no one working for the Executive -- whether in a political or administrative capacity -- can be a judge. Even a judge being commissioned by the Executive to do something like write a report, or hold a Royal Commission (sorry Americans) can be controversial, and often unconstitutional. The reason is clear: The Judicial branch is not to engage in non-Judicial work, and public confidence requires a separation from the Executive.

TNP, of course, is not RL. Every single citizen is involved in the political process, to varying degrees. We are all members of the Regional Assembly. We all propose laws. A far greater proportion of us is involved in at least one other branch, too.

We still require confidence in our Judiciary, though. I would still suggest that someone who is closely associated with the political machinations of the Executive would best not be a member of the Judiciary. We do require some level of separation of powers, and the Constitution recognises that by, for example, prohibiting Ministers from serving as Justices.

(This is not to criticise any particular appointment, or any person simultaneously holding both positions. We are talking about what would be the ideal constitutional situation.)

How do we delineate someone involved in the political machinations of the Executive from someone merely being involved in it -- say, in being an ambassador, or some other government program -- is not so straightforward. Perhaps the line is best drawn at the Ministerial level, rather than going into Deputy Ministers and other appointees. Maybe those are just as closely integrated into the political machinations, though.

However, what I'm fairly certain about is that the current situation is probably unsatisfactory: What matters is who appointed you, not your actual role within the Executive.
 
Punk D:
I think ruling 34 came before this constitutional change. I think proponents on the change argued that the ruling was "not a good one" or a typical refrain from any ruling I participated in.
Click to expand...
Meh. A ruling is a ruling. I don't see the point in casting stones.

Yeah, I think the ruling predates the constitutional change, but it does mostly support the Law as it stands now. Strange coincidence or oligarchical conspiracy? I'll see myself out.. :npa1:

Silly String:
I still have no idea what any of you mean by "ambiguity". The law is unambiguous and clear - government officials are CMEOs and their direct appointees.
Click to expand...
Pretty much, yup. Now we need to decide if we want to do something about it.
 
I don't see it as ambiguous, just convoluted and unnecessary. We essentially have two different methods of deputy appointment, one of which allows for the circumvention of 'gross misconduct' and citizenship requirements. Both of which should not, in my opinion, be the case for those assisting in the governing of the region.
 
Gracius Maximus:
I don't see it as ambiguous, just convoluted and unnecessary. We essentially have two different methods of deputy appointment, one of which allows for the circumvention of 'gross misconduct' and citizenship requirements. Both of which should not, in my opinion, be the case for those assisting in the governing of the region.
Click to expand...
Perhaps by ambiguity I should have said "two sets of rules".

I consider ambiguity to be more than one path to the same destination. If something in the law can be circumvented I call that law being a bit ambiguous.

Silly String - do you think it's ok that there are two sets of rules for Deputy Appointments as currently construed by the law?
 
Whether or not a Justice is a government official/public official is actually a legislative matter rather than anything purely defined by logic.

To wit: Blacks Law Dictionary defines anyone who holds a government position who is invested in an office is a 'government official'/'public official'. Since this issue as to whether or not a Justice is a government official is actually a matter of pure opinion as opposed to carved in stone fact."

This exact matter has been addressed in RL by several US states which, by legislative action, exclude Justices from being categorised as 'government officials' (California, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma and South Carolina, but South Carolina designates probate judges as public officials). This has been accomplished by legislation or judicial decisions.

There is also another issue that has to be addressed in this matter that must be addressed, and which is entirely independent to the concept of a justice being or not being a 'government official, and which renders the whole question null and void via the matter of Separation of Powers.

The question that really has to be asked is can a Justice who is a member of the Judicial Branch of government serve as a member of the Executive Branch of government simultaneously without violating the TNP Constitution as it pertains to Separation of Powers?

Logically speaking, this question alone renders the 'government official' issue null and void. However, it would also beg the question of whether or not a person serving in the Judicial or Executive Branches can serve in the RA which is the Legislative Branch?

But we have already solved this problem by practice and tradition (there's that dirty word again): While we recognise that one cannot serve as a Justice and Delegate at the same time, we have given certain exclusions to the rule (such as a member of the SC can serve in any other position of government in any branch, and that RA members who are Legislative can serve in any governmental position).

Given these inconsistencies in terms of what we have reduced to practice in TNP, and in the context of our purposes, as a matter of opinion on my part, I don't see any real reason why a Justice can't serve as a Minister or member of the military (which is Executive Branch) so long as that there is no rational conflict of interest (in which instance a Justice would have to recuse himself in any matter that might arise in that department).

And in this way we avoid over-straining what is essentially a matter of limited resources in terms of who can or is willing to fill vacant positions.
 
Romanoffia:
Given these inconsistencies in terms of what we have reduced to practice in TNP, and in the context of our purposes, as a matter of opinion on my part, I don't see any real reason why a Justice can't serve as a Minister or member of the military (which is Executive Branch) so long as that there is no rational conflict of interest (in which instance a Justice would have to recuse himself in any matter that might arise in that department).
Click to expand...
Perfect. Beautiful. End of discussion. All praise Roman.
 
quak1234:
Romanoffia:
Given these inconsistencies in terms of what we have reduced to practice in TNP, and in the context of our purposes, as a matter of opinion on my part, I don't see any real reason why a Justice can't serve as a Minister or member of the military (which is Executive Branch) so long as that there is no rational conflict of interest (in which instance a Justice would have to recuse himself in any matter that might arise in that department).
Click to expand...
Perfect. Beautiful. End of discussion. All praise Roman.
Click to expand...
I also agree with the above. Also, being a Justice and a Deputy Minister doesn't create any more conflict of interest than being a Justice and participating in the Executive Staff of the various Ministries.
 
The Democratic Republic of Tomb:
Also, being a Justice and a Deputy Minister doesn't create any more conflict of interest than being a Justice and participating in the Executive Staff of the various Ministries.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Deputy Ministers are responsible for assisting in the leadership of their division(s) of the Executive, and often have decision-making responsibilities delegated to them or even end up running ministries when the Minister is away or for some reason can't fulfill their duties. A Deputy Minister's actions, like a Minister's, are much more likely to end up in Court than the actions of an ordinary member of the Executive Staff.

Here's just one hypothetical example that springs to mind:

1. A Deputy Minister of Defense can deploy the NPA and fail to disclose the deployment to the Regional Assembly.
2. An NPA soldier can deploy on an operation that hasn't been disclosed to the Regional Assembly only if ordered to do so.
3. If this winds up in Court, it was the Deputy Minister's decision and the Deputy Minister who will be held legally accountable, not the soldier(s) who deployed.

Now, the only caveat here is that we have also developed other leadership positions in the Executive Staff (and the NPA) that are below Deputy Minister, but still able to make decisions -- still involved in leadership. Those leadership members probably shouldn't be serving as a Justice either, but that will require us to get very detailed in regard to how the Executive Staff works, which members of it are or aren't government officials, etc. That isn't practical, but what is practical and very easy to accomplish is saying Deputy Ministers can't serve as Justices, which will at least reduce the potential for conflicts of interest.

If we're going to allow Deputy Ministers to serve as Justices, and certainly if we're going to even allow Ministers to do so as Romanoffia has suggested, then we need to beef up regulations on the Court in regard to recusal. There needs to be a better way to compel recusal in the event of conflicts of interest.
 
The Democratic Republic of Tomb:
quak1234:
Romanoffia:
Given these inconsistencies in terms of what we have reduced to practice in TNP, and in the context of our purposes, as a matter of opinion on my part, I don't see any real reason why a Justice can't serve as a Minister or member of the military (which is Executive Branch) so long as that there is no rational conflict of interest (in which instance a Justice would have to recuse himself in any matter that might arise in that department).
Click to expand...
Perfect. Beautiful. End of discussion. All praise Roman.
Click to expand...
I also agree with the above. Also, being a Justice and a Deputy Minister doesn't create any more conflict of interest than being a Justice and participating in the Executive Staff of the various Ministries.
Click to expand...
I third. Rational, quick, simple, and decisive. :clap:
 
Cormac makes a fair bit of sense in the event we go Roman's route.
 
Legal code Chapter 3.2 paragraph 5:
5. Justices and Hearing Officers are required to recuse themselves from matters where they have a certain or potential conflict of interest.
Click to expand...

Court Rules Chapter 3 Section 1 paragraphs 3-4:
Justices must endeavor to recuse themselves from matters where they have a conflict of interest.
Justices are required to recuse themselves from any matter where the majority of the Court orders them to.
Click to expand...

This is sufficient.
 
plembobria:
Legal code Chapter 3.2 paragraph 5:
5. Justices and Hearing Officers are required to recuse themselves from matters where they have a certain or potential conflict of interest.
Click to expand...

Court Rules Chapter 3 Section 1 paragraphs 3-4:
Justices must endeavor to recuse themselves from matters where they have a conflict of interest.
Justices are required to recuse themselves from any matter where the majority of the Court orders them to.
Click to expand...

This is sufficient.
Click to expand...
I'd support something along those lines. Yep, it appears to be.
 
plembobria:
Those two quotes are already the law, Tomb. :P
Click to expand...
My bad, I thought you said this is a "suggestion" instead of "sufficient." That explains why they looked so familiar to me.
 
plembobria:
Legal code Chapter 3.2 paragraph 5:
5. Justices and Hearing Officers are required to recuse themselves from matters where they have a certain or potential conflict of interest.
Click to expand...

Court Rules Chapter 3 Section 1 paragraphs 3-4:
Justices must endeavor to recuse themselves from matters where they have a conflict of interest.
Justices are required to recuse themselves from any matter where the majority of the Court orders them to.
Click to expand...

This is sufficient.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, if all of us believed this were sufficient, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now, and Justices should not be telling the Regional Assembly how much regulation to ensure the Court's independence is sufficient. Intervention in this discussion by Justices, to use their position as Justices to influence the course of legislation related to their office, is actually indicative of why some of us want to ensure a greater degree of independence in the judiciary.

There are reasons why that isn't sufficient:

1. The RA has no means to enforce that provision of the Legal Code other than recall, by which time the Court may reach a decision without the recusal of the Justice(s) with the conflict(s) of interest.

2. Justices being required to recuse themselves if the majority of the Court orders them to do so could become problematic if the majority of the Court has the same conflict(s) of interest and insists recusal is unnecessary. I will point out that a majority of the Court is currently serving in the executive, making this hypothetical scenario entirely possible.

We can go one of two routes here, in my view. We can further restrict who can serve as Justice, ensuring that Deputy Ministers and other executive leadership positions are excluded. Alternatively, we can strengthen regulations to ensure that recusal actually occurs in the increasingly likely event conflicts of interest arise. What I am not comfortable doing, and I doubt I'm the only one, is pretending that the lack of enforceable judicial independence isn't a big problem waiting to happen, just because the two Justices who are currently serving as Deputy Ministers say it isn't.

If this matter were to go to Court right now, you would both have a conflict of interest, and if you both refused to recuse yourselves there would be no means to compel your recusal other than recall. That should be enough said.
 
plembobria:
Those two quotes are already the law, Tomb. :P
Click to expand...
Pardon the nit-picking, but the Court Rules are not Laws. They are guidelines that can be amended by a majority of the Court if they choose to do so. The Legal Code covers it though (COI).

Romanoffia:
I don't see any real reason why a Justice can't serve as a Minister or member of the military (which is Executive Branch) so long as that there is no rational conflict of interest (in which instance a Justice would have to recuse himself in any matter that might arise in that department).
Click to expand...
Well, a Minister is appointed by the Delegate (a CMEO and a government official), and is currently prohibited from serving as Justice. Anyway, a potential for corruption (unheard of in NS, I know :P ) and the concentration of power among the 'chosen' is reason enough for me. We might as well just let the Delegate appoint Justices already. (sarcasm)

Romanoffia:
in this way we avoid over-straining what is essentially a matter of limited resources in terms of who can or is willing to fill vacant positions
Click to expand...
As it pertains to Justices.. is that good or bad?
 
Romanoffia:
in this way we avoid over-straining what is essentially a matter of limited resources in terms of who can or is willing to fill vacant positions
Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe that in a region of our strength and size, one of the largest and most active in Nationstates, we cannot find sufficient people to fill deputy minister positions, and we have to double up?

I would, personally, like to see more new nations coming into deputy positions. We have a high turnover of nations who are admitted to the RA, make a handful of posts, then disappear. Perhaps some of thse could be made deputies early on and become more involved in the region that way?

that way there would be no need to have justices compromise the independence of the court by working for the executive.
 
punk d:
Silly String - do you think it's ok that there are two sets of rules for Deputy Appointments as currently construed by the law?
Click to expand...
I have mixed feelings.

On the one hand, I absolutely agree that it is problematic that there are two types of deputy ministers, who might be held to two very different standards. For example, Nierr is not a citizen, and couldn't be prosecuted for espionage even if he leaked confidential cabinet discussions while standing in for the minister. The same would be true for any non-citizen deputy minister, though much less so for citizens who must at least swear an oath. It is also true that deputy ministers sometimes should be treated like full ministers when it comes to questions of conflicts of interest. Some deputy ministers really do have a lot of power in their ministry, especially ones who fill in for the minister, and it doesn't make sense to ignore that just because of the title.

On the other hand, that's not true of all deputies. Sometimes the position doesn't have a lot of power or influence, but mostly involves doing the minister's grunt work or not much at all. Just as we don't prohibit justices from being in the NPA at all, or writing articles for TNL, or serving in executive staff positions in general, it's a stretch to block off non-political, non-powerful deputy jobs because sometimes they're otherwise. Our wiggle room here also helps us get contributions from non-citizens in various forms - Nierr again being the most notable example.

The other concern, when legislating on this, is striking the right balance between permissiveness and stringency. If we only regulate on "Deputies", for example, then any minister could name someone an "assistant minister" or "associate minister" or "second-in-command" and get around that term. But if we go the other way and say that anybody appointed by a minister or given a title is an official, that means that "cartographer" and "newspaper editor" and "sergeant" are all officials too and can't participate in other branches.

Perhaps the best route is to focus on what someone does, not what their title is - and in some ways we already do that. From the 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...
Thanks to this language, a deputy minister filling in for a regular minister becomes a government official for the duration of that fill - be it for a cabinet meeting that the minister can't make, or taking control of the ministry for a couple weeks while the minister is on vacation.

We could expand this language to include the exercise of an office's powers even when authorized by the official officeholder and during their presence - so if a deputy minister of FA appoints ambassadors, even with the minister's oversight and permission, they would be covered by this clause and thus need to qualify for executive official status.
 
Silly String:
Perhaps the best route is to focus on what someone does, not what their title is - and in some ways we already do that. From the 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...
Thanks to this language, a deputy minister filling in for a regular minister becomes a government official for the duration of that fill - be it for a cabinet meeting that the minister can't make, or taking control of the ministry for a couple weeks while the minister is on vacation.

We could expand this language to include the exercise of an office's powers even when authorized by the official officeholder and during their presence - so if a deputy minister of FA appoints ambassadors, even with the minister's oversight and permission, they would be covered by this clause and thus need to qualify for executive official status.
Click to expand...
It might be simpler to amend Article 7; Clause 2:

Article 7. General Provisions:
1. Constitutionally-mandated elected officials are the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, Justices, and Attorney General.
2. Government officials are the constitutionally-mandated elected officials, any officials appointed by them as permitted by law, and members of the Security Council.
3. The executive category consists of the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Attorney General, and government officials appointed by government officials in the executive category.
4. The legislative category consists of the Speaker, and government officials appointed by government officials in the legislative category.
5. The judicial category consists of the Justices, and government officials appointed by government officials in the judicial category.
Click to expand...
Something like: (Proposed changes bolded)

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

My :2c:
 
flemingovia:
Romanoffia:
in this way we avoid over-straining what is essentially a matter of limited resources in terms of who can or is willing to fill vacant positions
Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe that in a region of our strength and size, one of the largest and most active in Nationstates, we cannot find sufficient people to fill deputy minister positions, and we have to double up?

I would, personally, like to see more new nations coming into deputy positions. We have a high turnover of nations who are admitted to the RA, make a handful of posts, then disappear. Perhaps some of thse could be made deputies early on and become more involved in the region that way?

that way there would be no need to have justices compromise the independence of the court by working for the executive.
Click to expand...
I also find it very unfortunate that in a region of our strength and size that we find it difficult at times to fill various vacant positions.

The trick is to find out why people are unwilling to serve in vacant positions. I have my suspicions and it involves the abuse one generally receives for serving in a position. As Ayn Rand says, those who do the most also receive the most abuse. :P

Perhaps a subject for another thread to resolve that issue.

Cormac has a good point about beefing up the definition of 'conflict of interest' if we are to go the route of overlapping positions.
 
falapatorius:
Silly String:
Perhaps the best route is to focus on what someone does, not what their title is - and in some ways we already do that. From the 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...
Thanks to this language, a deputy minister filling in for a regular minister becomes a government official for the duration of that fill - be it for a cabinet meeting that the minister can't make, or taking control of the ministry for a couple weeks while the minister is on vacation.

We could expand this language to include the exercise of an office's powers even when authorized by the official officeholder and during their presence - so if a deputy minister of FA appoints ambassadors, even with the minister's oversight and permission, they would be covered by this clause and thus need to qualify for executive official status.
Click to expand...
It might be simpler to amend Article 7; Clause 2:

Article 7. General Provisions:
1. Constitutionally-mandated elected officials are the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, Justices, and Attorney General.
2. Government officials are the constitutionally-mandated elected officials, any officials appointed by them as permitted by law, and members of the Security Council.
3. The executive category consists of the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Attorney General, and government officials appointed by government officials in the executive category.
4. The legislative category consists of the Speaker, and government officials appointed by government officials in the legislative category.
5. The judicial category consists of the Justices, and government officials appointed by government officials in the judicial category.
Click to expand...
Something like: (Proposed changes bolded)

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

My :2c:
Click to expand...
Ah, but to me that falls afoul of the concern about being too broad - because we need to either define what an "official" is (is a cartographer an official? Is an officer in the NPA? I don't think so, at least not to the extent that other officials should be barred from serving as one), or leave it completely vague and thus wait for it to go to the court and get the same terrible ruling we got before.
 
Silly String:
Ah, but to me that falls afoul of the concern about being too broad - because we need to either define what an "official" is (is a cartographer an official? Is an officer in the NPA? I don't think so, at least not to the extent that other officials should be barred from serving as one), or leave it completely vague and thus wait for it to go to the court and get the same terrible ruling we got before.
Click to expand...
Well.. I was thinking the 'appointed' proviso would address that, but I see your point. Defining 'officials' could get cumbersome (deputies/assistants/advisors/ etc... ). I don't think 'citizens' would suffice either. According to:
Article 7. General Provisions:
7. All government officials, with the exception of members of the Security Council, must maintain citizenship while in office.
Click to expand...
So, it would still be an issue if a non-citizen was appointed.

I dunno, maybe 'any resident of the North Pacific'? That description is referenced in the Constitution and the Legal Code. :shrug:
 
I don't think it is likely that Deputy Ministers have that much responsibility that it will conflict with their duties to the court, and if it does they will exclude themselves.

I am also very hesitant to prevent Justices from participating in the executive staff at all. As the Minister of Defence, I also delegate command responsibilities to certain senior members of the NPA - the Chief of Staff, Generals, people who are trained well. If I can't be there for a particular operation, it is good to know that I can have a reliable backup plan. Tomb is one example of this. He is Deputy Minister, but in effect he is also the Chief of Staff which is an executive staff position not a Ministerial one. Should he be stripped of Dep Min position he would retain his staff position, and the associated command and administrative responsibilities.

It would be unfortunate if these competent soldiers were forced to choose between their military commitment under my executive oversight, and their position as a Justice. We would end up with a situation where good people are restricted from contributing in certain areas, because of the perceived risks of conflicts of interests. In reality, those conflicts of interest should they arise would mean that the individual would not be involved in the case that comes before the court. That is not an end of the world situation, we can appoint temporary hearing officers for that reason.

Executive staff has greatly increased the ability of people to get involved in government departments. It has been a huge success. Not all of these people are suitable to be Deputy Minister's yet, but with experience they could be. At the time of appointment, the only individual with suitable experience and reliability to be appointed Deputy Minister of Defence/Chief of Staff was Tomb. I'd hate to lose him from the NPA or my staff entirely because of this issue that seems relatively minor to me.

Edit: This is in response to the earlier posts on this page, not Falaps or SS's posts directly before.
 
That whole post displays your conflict of interest.

you want to keep tomb on staff. I get that. But as I have said before, when we start making laws and policies in order to accommodate specific individuals, we end up making shitty laws.

Of course, you may be comfortable with that.
 
flemingovia:
That whole post displays your conflict of interest.
Click to expand...
Are RA members not allowed to have conflicts of interest? The point of discussions is to ensure everyone's opinions are heard, no matter how biased they are. If McM has a conflict of interest, than so do you, Flem: You're biased against shitty laws.

Edit: Not that that's a bad thing, IMO. :P
 
It seems the focus in this thread has shifted to COI concerns. A legitimate concern, yes, but I think the Legal Code is sufficient as a means to address that.

The discussion thus far has highlighted a weakness in the Law, vis a vis some deputy ministers being government officials. Currently, they are not.

I do see the concern with holding inter-branch positions though. I'd rather have Justices be islands upon themselves, rather than have their fingers in too many pies.
 
As I stated above, the question for me is the person's substantive Executive role. If they are closely involved with the political machinations of the Executive, I would consider it inappropriate for them to serve as Justices. Conversely, I think it is fair for officials in government departments, whose role is mostly to implement policy (ambassadors, NPA officers, etc) to serve as Justices.

As for allowing basically anyone to serve as a Justice, including Ministers, have we considered that ultimately it is Justices that rule on whether or not they have a conflict of interests? I wouldn't trust a system so much if the majority of Justices just happened to be Ministers, and they just so never happened to have a CoI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top