Security Assessments

Praetor

Praetor

Hoppin' Around
TNP Nation
Praeceps
Discord
Praetor#6889
There seems to be some ambiguity around the Vice Delegate Security Assessment and as to whether the Vice Delegate always needs to consult the Security Council. This seems to be a waste of time and I've consulted with some members of the Security Council and they agreed that always consulting the SC is a waste of time. As well this is apparently not being practiced. Consequentially after discussion with Eluvatar (I think it was him) and SillyString, we've come to amendment to the Legal Code that will still ensure the security of the region while balancing practicality.

Bill:
1. Clause 5 of Section 6 of the Legal Code shall be amended to read as follows.
5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate the citizenship applicant and verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty. The Vice Delegate will have 3 days to perform a security evaluation and pass or fail the applicant. The Vice Delegate must consult the Security Council if there is reasonable concern as to whether an applicant should be admitted.
Click to expand...
2. Clause 7 of Section 6 of the Legal Code shall be amended to read as follows.
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 it. The vote must begin two days after the rejection occurs.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

[/color]
Text Changes:
5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate citizenship applicants and verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty. The Vice Delegate will have 3 days to perform a security assessment ofevaluation and pass or fail the applicant. All security assessments will be performed in consultation with the Security Council, and in accordance with all laws of The North Pacific. The Vice Delegate must consult the Security Council if there is reasonable concern as to whether an applicant should be admitted.
Click to expand...

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 it.the rejection, the vote beginning two days after the rejection.The vote must begin two days after the rejection occurs.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for doing the markup on this, Praetor! :D Obviously as a co-author I like this bill.

For what it's worth, the second part was, ah, my own overactive proofreading skills at work, and should have no functional effect on the law itself.

The goal with the first section was to retain both the flexibility we need and the structure we want. Obviously, we don't want to encourage a VD to simply admit someone who, say, has threatened to coup TNP, without any kind of discussion at all. It's one thing for the SC to decide that someone probably doesn't pose a serious threat, and another thing entirely for the VD to decide that all on their own, even if the SC would have disagreed. That's why the wording says "reasonable concern" rather than focusing strictly on consulting the SC before issuing a rejection.
 
In that case I'll move for a vote. As well, due to the unanimous consensus in this thread I'd like to request Formal Debate be shortened.
 
The Bill is now in formal debate. Formal debate will be shortened and last for two days, after which time a vote will be scheduled.

I remind members that legislative business does not require seconds for motions to begin formal debate nor for requests to curtail formal debate.
 
Looks reasonable and practical. I do have some concern that this wording gives the VD a lot of leeway in deciding when he has or hasn't reasonable concern. Perhaps a formal evaluation of the practice in say six months or at the end of the incoming VD's term would be good to see if the SC remains sufficiently involved.
 
I would also like to request that the official debate period is shortened. Although I'm more than happy to annoy the SC with seeking their recommendation on every current applicant, so I'm more than happy to work with either way. (I'm joking)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top