Security Council Reform Bill

Darcania

Darcania

official floof
-
Pronouns
he/they
TNP Nation
Darcania
Discord
@zephyrkul
I propose the following changes to the Legal Code:
Security Council Reform Bill:
Chapter 5 of the Legal Code shall be amended as follows:
Chapter 5: Regional Security Law

1. Any laws regulating the Security Council or its activities must be listed in this chapter.
2. In this chapter, "Council" means the Security Council.
3. In this chapter, the serving Delegate means the person holding the constitutionally-mandated elected office of Delegate or, in the case of a vacancy in that office, the person who has assumed the duties of that office.

Section 5.1: Requirements and Admission
4. Any person with an account on the regional forum and a nation in The North Pacific may apply to join the Council, as long as their nation satisfies any influence and endorsement requirements for membership. Any applicant who does not meet the appropriate requirements, or who ceases to meet them, is automatically rejected.
5. Security Councilors must meet the same influence and endorsement requirements as applicants to the Council, and may be suspended or removed if they fail to do so.
6. The influence requirement is a Soft Power Disbursement Rating within The North Pacific greater than or equal to 182,500, or an influence rank within The North Pacific greater than or equal to Apprentice, whichever is lower. The endorsement requirement is at least 500, or 50 percent of the serving Delegate's endorsement count, whichever is lower.
7. By a two-thirds majority vote, the Security Council may exempt nations who have expended their influence in service to the region from any influence requirements to join the Council or to remain a member. Exemptions granted in such a manner remain valid until the exempted nation regains the required influence level.

Section 5.2: The Delegate and Vice Delegate
8. The serving Delegate is responsible for maintaining an endorsement count that exceeds that of any other nation in The North Pacific.
9. The Vice Delegate is responsible for maintaining a minimum endorsement count at least that of the WA Delegate's endorsement count, minus one-fifth of the total number of WA nations in the region.
10. If the Delegate or Vice Delegate is below this level, they must promptly act to gather sufficient endorsements to meet or exceed the requirement.
11. If the Delegate or Vice Delegate nation ceases to exist, voluntarily departs The North Pacific, or resigns from the World Assembly, their office will be considered vacant.
12. If the Vice Delegate is temporarily unavailable, the Council may task one of its members with performing the duties required under this chapter. The Council may hold a confirmation vote, but is not required to do so.
13. During any period when serving as acting Delegate, the Vice Delegate will be considered absent from the office of Vice Delegate.

Section 5.3: Suspension and Removal
14. Whenever any Council member fails to meet the influence or endorsement count requirements to maintain their position without being granted an exemption, the Vice Delegate must promptly warn them. If the Council member does not come into compliance within eight days of the warning, the Vice Delegate must suspend them.
15. The Vice Delegate must promptly remove members of the Council whose member nations no longer exist, voluntarily depart The North Pacific, or resign from the World Assembly outside the needs of a NPA sanctioned mission.
16. The Vice Delegate must report any suspension or removal of a member of the Council to the Regional Assembly.
17. If a suspended member of the Council comes back into compliance with the endorsement and influence requirements, the Vice Delegate must promptly reinstate them.
18. If a Councilor's continued membership in the Council poses a security risk to The North Pacific, the Council may, by majority vote, request that the Regional Assembly vote on removing that Council member.
19. The Speaker's Office must submit any such request from the Council to an immediate two-thirds majority vote of the Regional Assembly.

Section 5.4: Reckless Endorsement Gathering
20. The serving Delegate may eject or ban any nation in The North Pacific for reckless endorsement gathering that meets all of the following criteria:
  • It is not in the Council or holding the office of Delegate or Vice Delegate.
  • It has been reported to the Delegate as a possible threat to regional security by the Council.
  • It has continued actively gathering endorsements after two warnings against gathering endorsements sent at least two days apart from each other.
  • It has more endorsements than 50 fewer than the Vice Delegate's required minimum endorsement count, or 75 per cent of the Delegate's endorsement level, whichever is least.
21. The serving Delegate may eject or ban any nation in The North Pacific for reckless endorsement gathering that exceeds the Vice Delegate's required minimum endorsement count.
22. Nations banned for reckless endorsement gathering must remain banned at least until they update outside The North Pacific.
23. Unless a delegacy emergency is in effect, any Council member who exceeds the Vice Delegate's endorsement count while the Vice Delegate is above the required minimum for their position must stop seeking endorsements until they have fewer than the Vice Delegate.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
A quick note that this version is SillyString's overhaul. Full credit to her for writing this.
 
Careful, Darcania. I'm starting to think proposers of this bill might be cursed!!! :P

I dunno if anybody still cares enough to discuss/debate this issue, but I'd love to get some feedback on my draft. I'm self-aware enough to know it's not completely perfect.... :P

Almost... but not quite.
 
SillyString:
Careful, Darcania. I'm starting to think proposers of this bill might be cursed!!! :P

I dunno if anybody still cares enough to discuss/debate this issue, but I'd love to get some feedback on my draft. I'm self-aware enough to know it's not completely perfect.... :P

Almost... but not quite.
Click to expand...
I know, it's uncanny. Combined with the fact that I'm running for AG... it's worrying. :P

But I have no need to worry! Technically, it's a different bill, not the bill that Ash and Kon proposed!

Still, though, I thought I'd take the fall on this one. Without you, who will make sure that all the laws are grammatically correct? :P

And don't think I don't see that colored text at the bottom...
 
It looks good to me - and I'm nitpicking, but in your proposal, should chapter be capitalized in #3 before section 5.1? I noticed the current code has that capitalized as well so I could just be missing something

Again, nitpicking :unsure:
 
Sankami:
It looks good to me - and I'm nitpicking, but in your proposal, should chapter be capitalized in #3 before section 5.1? I noticed the current code has that capitalized as well so I could just be missing something

Again, nitpicking :unsure:
Click to expand...
Edited. And no worries, Sankami, nitpicking is exactly what we need when it comes to the law, especially such a big overhaul.
 
I haven't seen any objections beyond the minor mechanics error. I move for a vote.
 
I recognize that I'm a bit new, so there may be wording precedents that I'm not aware of. That said, I was having trouble parsing Section 5.1.6. The following edit, or something similar, could help.

6. Security Councilors must meet the same influence and endorsement requirements during their tenure on the Council as do applicants to the Council, and may be suspended or removed if they fail to do so.
Click to expand...

Could also reword to:

6. During their tenure on the Council, Security Councilors must meet the same influence and endorsement requirements as applicants to the Council, and may be suspended or removed if they fail to do so.
 
Supree has a good eye for syntax. I like his second rewording better than the current language, but it wouldn't shift my vote one way or the other.

EDIT: Could even eliminate "during their tenure on the council" because being on the council and being a security councillor is the same thing, so it's redundant.
 
I do like his wording better, but the current syntax also works, even if it's a bit less unclear.

If I may as a question of the Speaker, what is the procedure for when a proposal is edited in formal debate? Does formal debate continue, restart, or stop completely and require another motion? I think I'm getting the rules for that mixed up for when a proposal is edited when a vote is scheduled, so I would like to clear that up.
 
Thanks for considering my comments. I'd also love clarification on when a proposal can be edited when the Speaker has a moment.

If it's applicable, in the Standing Procedures thread, Item 4 under Legislative Proposal Procedures states:

During the five days after a vote is called for, the citizen who introduced the proposal may continue to amend it. This period, hereafter referred to as Formal Debate, may be shortened at the citizen who introduced the proposal's request. Once Formal Debate has ended, the proposal may no longer be amended, and the Speaker will schedule a vote to begin no fewer than two days hence.
Click to expand...
 
Supree:
Thanks for considering my comments. I'd also love clarification on when a proposal can be edited when the Speaker has a moment.

If it's applicable, in the Standing Procedures thread, Item 4 under Legislative Proposal Procedures states:

During the five days after a vote is called for, the citizen who introduced the proposal may continue to amend it. This period, hereafter referred to as Formal Debate, may be shortened at the citizen who introduced the proposal's request. Once Formal Debate has ended, the proposal may no longer be amended, and the Speaker will schedule a vote to begin no fewer than two days hence.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Rather embarrassing for me to admit, but I forgot that thread exists. I'll edit the OP. (Edit: I put in your second re-wording with COE's suggestion of removing the extraneous tenure phrase.)

Kind of off-topic, but may I suggest you talk with the Speaker about becoming a Deputy? You seem to have a quite natural grasp of the law here, and that's a pretty good way to get more involved with the Regional Assembly.
 
Don't be embarrassed! I only found it because I'm still new enough that I have to read the rules to figure out what I'm doing.

And thanks for that suggestion! I'll see if the Speaker would be interested in having me on board.
 
Supree:
Don't be embarrassed! I only found it because I'm still new enough that I have to read the rules to figure out what I'm doing.

And thanks for that suggestion! I'll see if the Speaker would be interested in having me on board.
Click to expand...
In any case, thanks for pointing out that thread, maybe now I can keep up with Zyvet's dictatorial, arbitrary and capricious rules. :P

And if Pallaith turns you down, there's always the office of the Attorney General... let me know if you're interested in that!

Now, then, if I'm done stealing potential deputies from the Speaker, does anyone else have any ideas for this proposal? We've still got plenty of time to figure it out.
 
As Supree correctly notes, amendments to the proposal may be made until the conclusion of formal debate. Such amendments should be reflected in the version of the Bill in the OP.
 
SillyString:
I forget what I had as the original clause 6, but I am fine with how it has been amended. :P
Click to expand...
"6. Security Councilors must meet the same influence and endorsement requirements during their tenure on the Council as applicants to the Council, and may be suspended or removed if they fail to do so."

Almost perfect.
 
Gracius Maximus:
What is the definition of 'reckless endorsement gathering'? Seems ambiguous.
Click to expand...
It has the same definition in 5.4 as it does in the current section 5.4 of the Legal Code. Word-for-word.
 
Darcania:
Gracius Maximus:
What is the definition of 'reckless endorsement gathering'? Seems ambiguous.
Click to expand...
It has the same definition in 5.4 as it does in the current section 5.4 of the Legal Code. Word-for-word.
Click to expand...
You are correct. I would blame it on reading it on my phone but I think it was just laziness in not finishing the proposal. My mistake.
 
22. Nations banned for reckless endorsement gathering must remain banned at least until they update outside The North Pacific.
Click to expand...
Given that the exercise of the power to banject is discretionary, I don't think must needs to be used here. Presumably, the Delegate (and BC ROs) knows well enough that they must update outside of the region.
 
Can I ask what prompted so many citizens to change their mind on the vote? I didn't see much opposition in this thread. What is the argument against this?
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Can I ask what prompted so many citizens to change their mind on the vote? I didn't see much opposition in this thread. What is the argument against this?
Click to expand...
There was some points raised in Discord by a few people (who for whatever reason didn't look at this bill before it went to vote) that this bill has several issues. I would have loved to see these issues hammered out through debate through the three times this version of the bill has come up, but that apparently is not to be.

In essence, though, the people against believe that signing this bill would, in essence, amount to dismissing Tomb from his office. Plembobria has also stated his intent to veto this bill for the same reason.
 
I assume this is the offending clause?
12. If the Delegate or Vice Delegate fails to meet their required endorsement level for fifteen days, or fails to meet the required endorsement level for Council members for eight days, their office will be considered vacant.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of good reforms in this bill, so let's talk about how to fix this. Should the time period be lengthened? Should the minimum be lowered? Should we scrap the removal from office altogether? Should Tomb have gathered endorsements quicker? What say the citizens?
 
We all bear responsibility for that, Darcania. The mistake is better caught than put into our law system.

"10. The Vice Delegate is responsible for maintaining a minimum endorsement count at least that of the WA Delegate's endorsement count, minus one-tenth of the total number of WA nations in the region.

...

12. If the Delegate or Vice Delegate fails to meet their required endorsement level for fifteen days, or fails to meet the required endorsement level for Council members for eight days, their office will be considered vacant."

I'm not sure that those two clauses make sense, or that they are even needed. For one thing, the Vice Delegate just needs to have the 2nd highest amount of endorsements in the region -- and the Delegate needs to have the highest. That's it. There's no reason for overcomplicate it. On top of that, it appears that we are establishing a 15 day rule for transitions here. That's not possible given our in-game WA context. I don't remember a time period where we had a major transition occur within less than 15 days...it's simply not possible unless you spend months before hand endo-tarting and preparing. Should I have been faster? I don't think it'd been possible to be any faster than I was. I went from virtually no endorsements to 2nd endorsed in 25 days.
 
In such a case, then, it seems the main issue is that things are over-defined. Perhaps a shift in direction is needed... perhaps to something specifically more vague, but one that may still be used for indictments in case of nonfeasance, etc. Let me look through the problem clauses and come up with a new wording for them.

Edit: Another point was brought up about the bad numbering in the last section. I went ahead and fixed that in the OP.
 
Bootsie:
I also think the lack of a Sanity Clause was another complaint.
Click to expand...
It should go without saying that all of our laws are to be interpreted sanely. It is the very nature of law that it be predictable, orderly, and consistent. I think the sanity clause was motivated by two primary goals, neither of which are accomplished by a sanity clause, and both of which are accomplished by this new proposal (with some tweaking):

THE 1ST GOAL OF THE SANITY CLAUSE: Prevent SC members from being suspended because they used influence to keep the region safe
  • The Rationale: It would be insane to suspend an SC member because they performed their primary function of using in-game influence to secure the region. Therefore, if we codify that the law must be applied reasonably, this would prevent such suspensions.
  • How It Fails: It is not actually unreasonable to apply the law to the letter in this case. There is a valid and sane case to be made that SC members who do not meet the influence requirement are temporarily less fit to respond in a regional emergency, and therefore should be suspended until they regain the required amount of influence. Whether you agree with this argument or not, it is not insane to apply it, so the sanity clause does not prevent these kind of suspensions. The only way to prevent them would be to change the law, which leads me to...
  • How the Current Proposal Fixes This: By a two-thirds vote, the SC can give an exemption from the influence requirements to a member who has used influence in service to the region. The exemption would remain until they regained the necessary influence.
THE 2ND GOAL OF THE SANITY CLAUSE: Prevent the Vice Delegate from being in violation of the law during transitions
  • The Rationale: It would be insane to consider the VD in violation of their endorsement requirements when they have not had enough time to gather sufficient endorsements. Therefore, if we codify that the law must be applied reasonably, we can prevent the VD from any consequences of being out of compliance during the transition period.
  • How it Fails: There are not actually any consequences for the Vice Delegate being below the specified minimum in the current law (75% of the delegate's endorsement count). But supposing that consequences for being out of compliance were added, I would grant that it wouldn't make any sense to apply them to the Vice Delegate during a transition. However, that would be a problem with the law itself failing to provide for that situation, and not a problem with the application of the law. It is not unreasonable to apply the law as it is written in plain text. In fact, it would be unreasonable to suppose that there were unwritten exemptions to it.
  • How the Current Proposal Fixes This: The current proposal creates consequences for non-compliance with the Vice Delegate's endorsement requirement (removal from office), and also attempts to provide for the transition situation as well, albeit imperfectly (by instituting a minimum time for noncompliance before consequences are applied). I agree with the bill's detractors that this part of the proposal is unsatisfactory, but the solution is certainly not the introduction of a sanity clause. The solution is to either remove the penalty for noncompliance, increase the time period, or lower the minimum endorsement count for the vice delegate.

There are some other, less important goals of the sanity clause, but they all fail in similar ways. Either the unreasonable situation it tries to prevent is an unreasonable law, rather than an unreasonable application, or neither the law nor the application are actually unreasonable. In all cases, it is better to change the law to prevent unreasonable situations than to rely on a sanity clause (which has never been tested in court) as a proxy for good policy.
 
Probably missing something, but is there any reason that we can't just handle the situation of a Vice Delegate not having enough endorsements the same way we handle Security Councilors not having enough influence (SC holds vote, Vice Delegate is exempted from the endorsement requirement [could be temporary] if 2/3 vote in favor)?
 
Tomb:
For one thing, the Vice Delegate just needs to have the 2nd highest amount of endorsements in the region -- and the Delegate needs to have the highest. That's it. There's no reason for overcomplicate it.
Click to expand...
That is, in fact, not it, and it's already more complicated than that.

The constitution establishes that the VD must have the 2nd most endorsements in the region, that is true - limited by the regional security law, which removes the VD from office if they fall below the level required for SC members for more than 8 days. So let's call that a lower limit: 300.

The "2nd most" requirement is actually relatively meaningless and vague. Is it okay for the VD to have 5 endorsements fewer than the delegate? No, that's not safe. Really, really not safe. Is it okay for the VD to hold 305 endorsements indefinitely? No, because that forces everyone else to stay below them or risk being banned for "reckless endorsement gathering", and forces SC members to the bottom of their range to stay in compliance. But both of these very bad no good unsafe situations could happen, and would be and in compliance with the constitution.

What this bill does with the VD's endorsement count is attempt to establish what we actually think is a reasonable guideline for the VD. As of now, with the delegate holding 1267 endorsements and the total number of WAs at 1656, the VD would be held responsible for keeping at least 1101 endorsements themselves: significantly above the SC's minimum, and much more in line with the VD's role as head of security. If you're concerned about that number being accessible in 15 days, well, I did invite discussion on timeframes several times, and I'm always happy to make changes on that. I really picked 15 out of a hat. You said you managed it in 25 days: would 30 days be an acceptable change?

Also, I would note that you are also still below the level that would be required by this law, indicating that a change to the formula may be desirable. I think I suggested one fifth instead of one tenth as an alternative in clause 10; that would set the VD's minimum at 935 using the same numbers as before. At 936, you have met that level. I think that's probably more sensible, given the number of endorsements we're working with. And of course, it wouldn't keep the VD from tarting higher, as may be appropriate.

As a note, this clause and enforcement (loss of position) would not automatically apply to the constitutional provision. That is, if the VD had above their minimum, but some SC member was also above them for 15 days, the removal clause would not activate (because they had met their set minimum level) even though they weren't 2nd most in the region.

I would also be fine with amending the constitution to remove the 2nd-most language. Something like mashing 9 and 10 into "9. "The Vice Delegate will oversee regional security in The North Pacific and serve as Chair of the Security Council. They will maintain a high number of endorsements, as determined by law."

Wording is not perfect but I think it would be an improvement. And I think, combined with 30-days/one-fifth changes, will make the proposal stronger.

I wish we hadn't had to put it to vote to get some kind of input, but at least people are paying attention now. :P
 
I'm opposed to any deemed resignation clause. I don't see them as necessary. I believe the constitutional recall provisions are sufficient.

I don't see the need for a sanity clause, however. All legislation is to be interpreted having regard to its policy objective. If we wanted to formalise that, it should apply to the entire Code.
 
The percentage idea seems reasonable, but an expansion of how much time they have, given just how many endos the delegate has in game, makes the most sense to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top