Regional Officer Clarification Bill

Pallaith

Pallaith

TNPer
-
-
-
-
I propose the following change to the Legal Code:

Regional Officer Clarification Bill:
Chapter 7 of the Legal Code shall be amended as follows:

Chapter 7: Executive Government

Section 7.2: Regional Officers
5. Regional Officers may only be appointed and granted powers as explicitly allowed under this section.
6. The Serving Delegate may assign any Regional Power, with the exception of Border Control, to any government official or nation created for the purpose of performing government functions.
7. The Serving Delegate may assign Border Control powers to any of the three members of the Security Council earliest in the Order of Succession.
8. In the event of a Delegate Emergency, or with the permission of a majority vote of the Regional Assembly, the Serving Delegate may assign Border Control powers to any member of the Security Council.
9. The WA Delegate will promptly grant all Regional Powers to the Serving Delegate and assign additional powers to other government officials or regional nations as instructed.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

As the new Delegate, I have appointed ministers and have had them added as regional officers. As part of this process, our new Vice Delegate was also made a regional officer. Obviously the Delegate does not appoint the Vice Delegate, who is, of course, elected. I also directed the new Lead RMB Guardian's addition as a regional officer. It was during this process that I consulted with the attorney general and discovered that these positions may not actually be permitted to be regional officers under existing law. To my knowledge we have created regional officer roles for these two jobs even when said individuals were not also in the cabinet. I happen to believe, and I know several of you agree, that the way we've handled regional officers is fine and better than how the letter of the law reads. Regional officers are clearly displayed on the WFE and stand out to the nations in the region, and an obvious benefit of this in the case of the Vice Delegate is easier endorsement gathering. This term we went in a new direction with the Lead RMB Guardian, which used to be held by a member of the cabinet. The current Lead RMB Guardian had no cabinet position, and was not considered to be an executive officer. I have formally appointed him and directed that he take an oath to ensure we're compliant with the law as is, but for the flexibility I have in mind to properly be in accordance with the Legal Code, it needs to explicitly contemplate government officials. This bill also cleans up the language a bit and clarifies the Delegate involved in the appointment of Security Council members as regional officers.

I believe these slight tweaks to the Legal Code will allow us to continue handling regional officers as we have been and avoid minor technicalities that could trip us up. I would find it to be shame to have to remove both individuals from the regional officer list, but whenever possible I would like for the law to be consistent with our practices. I hope you will agree this change is a no-brainer and simply codifying how we've already practiced the use of regional officers, and I am hoping for a relatively short debate and so we can get it to vote soon.

Chapter 7: Executive Government

Section 7.2: Regional Officers
5. Regional Officers may only be appointed and granted powers as explicitly allowed under this section.
6. The Serving Delegate may assign any Regional Power, with the exception of Border Control, to any Executive Officer government official or nation created for the purpose of performing government functions.
7. The Serving Delegate may assign Border Control powers to any of the three members of the Security Council earliest in the Order of Succession.
8. In the event of a Delegate Emergency, or with the permission of a majority vote of the Regional Assembly, the Serving Delegate may assign Border Control powers to any members of the Security Council.
9. The WA Delegate will promptly grant all Regional Powers to the Serving Delegate and assigned additional powers to the respective Executive Officers or Security Council members other government officials or regional nations as instructed.
Click to expand...

Chapter 7: Executive Government

Section 7.2: Regional Officers
5. Regional Officers may only be appointed and granted powers as explicitly allowed under this section.
6. The Serving Delegate may assign any Regional Power, with the exception of Border Control, to any executive government official or regional nation.
7. The Serving Delegate may assign Border Control powers to any of the three members of the Security Council earliest in the Order of Succession.
8. In the event of a Delegate Emergency, or with the permission of a majority vote of the Regional Assembly, the Serving Delegate may assign Border Control powers to any member of the Security Council.
9. The WA Delegate will promptly grant all Regional Powers to the Serving Delegate and assign additional powers to other executive government officials as instructed.
Click to expand...
[/quote]

Chapter 7: Executive Government

Section 7.2: Regional Officers
5. Regional Officers may only be appointed and granted powers as explicitly allowed under this section.
6. The Serving Delegate may assign any Regional Power, with the exception of Border Control, to any government official.
7. The Serving Delegate may assign Border Control powers to any of the three members of the Security Council earliest in the Order of Succession.
8. In the event of a Delegate Emergency, or with the permission of a majority vote of the Regional Assembly, the Serving Delegate may assign Border Control powers to any member of the Security Council.
9. The WA Delegate will promptly grant all Regional Powers to the Serving Delegate and assign additional powers to other government officials as instructed.
Click to expand...
[/quote]

Chapter 7: Executive Government

Section 7.2: Regional Officers
5. Regional Officers may only be appointed and granted powers as explicitly allowed under this section.
6. The Serving Delegate may assign any Regional Power, with the exception of Border Control, to any Executive Officer executive government official or regional nation.
7. The Serving Delegate may assign Border Control powers to any of the three members of the Security Council earliest in the Order of Succession.
8. In the event of a Delegate Emergency, or with the permission of a majority vote of the Regional Assembly, the Serving Delegate may assign Border Control powers to any members of the Security Council.
9. The WA Delegate will promptly grant all Regional Powers to the Serving Delegate and assigned additional powers to the respective Executive Officers or Security Council members other executive government officials as instructed.
Click to expand...
Chapter 7: Executive Government

Section 7.2: Regional Officers
5. Regional Officers may only be appointed and granted powers as explicitly allowed under this section.
6. The Serving Delegate may assign any Regional Power, with the exception of Border Control, to any Executive Officer government official.
7. The Serving Delegate may assign Border Control powers to any of the three members of the Security Council earliest in the Order of Succession.
8. In the event of a Delegate Emergency, or with the permission of a majority vote of the Regional Assembly, the Serving Delegate may assign Border Control powers to any members of the Security Council.
9. The WA Delegate will promptly grant all Regional Powers to the Serving Delegate and assigned additional powers to the respective Executive Officers or Security Council members other government officials as instructed.
Click to expand...
 
These changes seem very sensible and have my full support.

Can I suggest replacing "any members" with "any member" in clause 8?
 
SillyString:
These changes seem very sensible and have my full support.

Can I suggest replacing "any members" with "any member" in clause 8?
Click to expand...

Done. And thank you!

Kasch:
I agree with SillyString. This is a well-needed proposal and it has my support.
Click to expand...

I am glad you agree, glad to have it.

Lord Ravenclaw:
Seems a good idea.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I thought so too.

I want this to be a relatively quick process, but I don't want to rush things too much. I will be busy the rest of the day so I figure I will leave this here for the duration, and we'll see about moving forward tomorrow. Please, keep any other thoughts and suggestions coming.
 
Praetor:
Use the and tags and I'll support it. :P
Click to expand...
Done. I look forward to your support.

And with that, I move for a vote. I also request that we suspend the standard formal debate period and schedule a vote tomorrow.
 
Mr. Speaker, I must reiterate my request. Please schedule a vote at your earliest convenience (which is, hopefully, conveniently soon).
 
Sorry for the delay Pallaith, we agree to suspending the formal debate period.

A vote has been scheduled and will begin in two days (25-05-2017).
 
Yep. Non-banning powers can be given to any government official, and banning powers are more restricted.

I debated suggesting making it open to anybody the delegate wants to give powers to, but since the powers could be abused (suppression, mass TGs, and whatnot) I do think it makes more sense to require people to take an oath to be able to wield them.
 
I object to the decision to schedule a vote on this proposal.

This proposal has been before the Assembly for a mere four days; it had barely been a single day, with comment only from a single citizen who does not sit in the Cabinet (unless I am mistaken as to the Vice Delegate, in which case from only two), when the Delegate moved for a vote and requested with the dispensation of formal debate (and a vote the next day), and only three when the request was granted (though the vote was, thankfully, scheduled for two days after that). That is no proper way for the Assembly to conduct consideration of a Bill which will extend the power of the Delegate and it is out of step with the past exercise of the discretion to curtail formal debate.

I accept that the extension proposed is, in the scheme of things, a modest one and, indeed, while I had some questions I had intended to ask, I had meant to support the Bill. Unfortunately, my opportunity and the opportunity of other members to conduct proper scrutiny of has been severely curtailed and no amendment could result from it. I had hoped to ask whether it was necessary for the Bill to make provision for any government official to be granted powers and why an addition of "or the Vice Delegate" could not suffice. I had also hoped to ask as to why so much focus was put on this issue of the RMB Guardian, when the proposal would, in fact, make no difference to their position: it is lack of being a government official which caused the deficiency under the present law and it would still do so under the proposal.

I hope the Delegate will still see fit to answer these questions.

In any event, the incredibly short consideration of this proposal is, in my view, an inappropriate way for this Assembly to conduct its business, particularly when there is no reason given for the urgency by the Delegate, beyond that they wish the proposal dealt with rapidly. This Assembly is an independent organ and ought not permit itself to be regarded as having as its purpose the passage of those laws the executive thinks convenient in the manner the executive finds most expeditious. I hope that my objection will be joined by others and heeded by the Delegate, and indeed by the Speaker, in both this and future matters, however, if it is not, I must note my intention to vote against the Bill, should it proceed to vote as scheduled.
 
I second the objection to the scheduling of the vote. A few more people weighing in on it would have been wise, as basic as it might seem, and there was no reason given for the need for speed. Indeed, I don't see that there is one. Formal debate should only be skipped when absolutely required and it isn't required here.

Pretty much, what Zyvet said.
 
Zyvetskistaahn:
I had also hoped to ask as to why so much focus was put on this issue of the RMB Guardian, when the proposal would, in fact, make no difference to their position: it is lack of being a government official which caused the deficiency under the present law and it would still do so under the proposal.
Click to expand...
For what it's worth, this is not true. The current law allows only "executive officers" to have regional officer powers. This term is most often used to refer to full ministers, though certainly under the text of the constitution any official appointed by the delegate should also qualify as such. Simply being a government official is not sufficient.

The workaround in this case was to make the Lead RMB Guardian an executive-appointed official, and that worked because they did not happen to hold any other concurrent position that might conflict. But had the LRG (LRMBG?) been, say, a deputy speaker, there would have been no solution except for them to resign from one position or be satisfied with not having any RO powers. That is also why simply adding "or the Vice Delegate" wouldn't suffice.

More broadly, I think it makes sense to open the possibility of granting RO powers to any government official. The taking of an oath means they will be accountable for any actions they take using those powers (where a non-official might not be), and it gives us more flexibility to deal with various situations as they arise. For example, during zombie outbreaks, the people running the crisis response team may not correspond to the people holding executive positions. It can nevertheless be helpful for them to have the power to handle mass TGs, RMB management, or pinning/unpinning dispatches.

As for moving this quickly to vote, I do think this is an important change to make. We are in the midst of a delegacy transition, and not being able to legally have the VD as a regional officer hinders their ability to gather endorsements. It's not the most critical issue in the world, sure, but it's still pretty important.
 
I apologize Zyvet, I thought the urgency was clear in my original post. A literal reading of the law means that the Vice Delegate should not even be a regional officer. We're trying to update the law so it matches current practice, and trying to do it quickly so that we don't have this situation continue to persist. We had quick expressions of support and utter silence from everyone else, even after I made the urgency clear (or thought I had) so I went forward with scheduling the vote. I'm not against hearing other thoughts, but I don't want this simple bill to take a week to discuss at some leisurely pace either. I am willing to delay the vote, how much time do you believe is appropriate?
 
If that's the only reason for urgency, then you could do what r3n did and appoint Kasch as the Minister of Regional Security, effectively giving the VD a spot in the cabinet for being the VD. That would allow you to give them RO powers without running afoul of the current law, by any interpretation.
 
SillyString:
Zyvetskistaahn:
I had also hoped to ask as to why so much focus was put on this issue of the RMB Guardian, when the proposal would, in fact, make no difference to their position: it is lack of being a government official which caused the deficiency under the present law and it would still do so under the proposal.
Click to expand...
For what it's worth, this is not true. The current law allows only "executive officers" to have regional officer powers. This term is most often used to refer to full ministers, though certainly under the text of the constitution any official appointed by the delegate should also qualify as such. Simply being a government official is not sufficient.

The workaround in this case was to make the Lead RMB Guardian an executive-appointed official, and that worked because they did not happen to hold any other concurrent position that might conflict. But had the LRG (LRMBG?) been, say, a deputy speaker, there would have been no solution except for them to resign from one position or be satisfied with not having any RO powers. That is also why simply adding "or the Vice Delegate" wouldn't suffice.

More broadly, I think it makes sense to open the possibility of granting RO powers to any government official. The taking of an oath means they will be accountable for any actions they take using those powers (where a non-official might not be), and it gives us more flexibility to deal with various situations as they arise. For example, during zombie outbreaks, the people running the crisis response team may not correspond to the people holding executive positions. It can nevertheless be helpful for them to have the power to handle mass TGs, RMB management, or pinning/unpinning dispatches.

As for moving this quickly to vote, I do think this is an important change to make. We are in the midst of a delegacy transition, and not being able to legally have the VD as a regional officer hinders their ability to gather endorsements. It's not the most critical issue in the world, sure, but it's still pretty important.
Click to expand...

The chapter contains a definition of "executive official", namely "government officials appointed by the Delegate to assist in the execution of their duties." which would appear to contemplate those other than Ministers; in any event, my point is that under the existing law and under the proposal, the position of the RMB Guardian to which the Delegate referred would, in essence, have been the same (presuming that they come within the definition). The possibility of a Guardian who is, at the time, also in office in another branch was not made clear in the Delegate's reasons behind the Bill (it had seemed to me to be primarily addressing the issue of the Vice Delegate) and, if I may, it seems to me, just as preliminary thoughts, to raise some concerns.

Particularly, it creates the possibility that there will be times where the Guardian is an official in that capacity and times where they are not; it would seem unusual to me, considering the past decisions of the Court (that is, those dealing with acting in different capacities (such as the content ownership ruling)), that it would be held that the oath they had sworn as Justice, say, applied to their actions as Guardian. Of course, one could say that their actions were in their capacity as Justice as it is by virtue of being Justice that they enjoy the regional powers, but that seems to me to be quite artificial when one considers that a Justice would have little or no reason to have and exercise those powers in relation to the duties of the office.

The issue of moving to vote quickly is addressed below.

Pallaith:
I apologize Zyvet, I thought the urgency was clear in my original post. A literal reading of the law means that the Vice Delegate should not even be a regional officer. We're trying to update the law so it matches current practice, and trying to do it quickly so that we don't have this situation continue to persist. We had quick expressions of support and utter silence from everyone else, even after I made the urgency clear (or thought I had) so I went forward with scheduling the vote. I'm not against hearing other thoughts, but I don't want this simple bill to take a week to discuss at some leisurely pace either. I am willing to delay the vote, how much time do you believe is appropriate?
Click to expand...

With respect, I am of the view that if the executive considers that it may be acting in a manner contrary to the law and it is within its power to end the action in question, that the course for the executive to take is to end the action rather than to press the Assembly to make the law consistent with the action as rapidly as possible. If there is a concern that the Vice Delegate's being a regional officer may be unlawful, then the answer is for them to cease to be a regional officer, not to hold the Assembly to ransom over potential unlawfulness which it simply must remedy at once.

I accept that it may well be desirous for the Vice Delegate to be a regional officer, for reasons related to gathering endorsements or for other reasons, but the fact of something being desirable does not mean that the Assembly must be pressed into making it law immediately, there are many desirable changes to law (both simple and complex) which the Assembly has considered at a deliberate pace or has not acted on. Indeed, there may well arise a point in time when there is a desirable change which is truly urgently necessary, what is to be done in relation to such a change if for this proposal, for which delay would not, I suggest, be too disastrous (indeed, delay would seemingly have no negative impact at present, for the Vice Delegate presently remains a regional officer), proceeds at such a rapid pace? Is such an urgent and desirable change to have no debate at all; a single day?

That is not to say that I consider that this Bill must be delayed for some incredible length of time, a few more days in which the Bill may still be open to amendment would seem to suffice to me, followed by such time as the Speaker would think necessary for any amendments made to be digested before the vote.
 
I don't know if there is such an urgent need to waive the formal debating period in this matter. I can't see a compelling reason for it. A few days will not hurt anyone, and you can always instruct Plembobria to remove Kasch as a regional officer at your discretion, Pallaith.
 
I thought it was better done sooner rather than later and mistakenly believed it was a non-controversial suggestion. I have no problem extending debate a few more days. Consider this a formal objection to the vote as scheduled, and I suggest the Speaker send the bill back to formal debate.
 
Motions noted. This Bill is now in Formal Debate, and will last for five days, after which a vote will be scheduled.
 
Zyvetskistaahn:
The possibility of a Guardian who is, at the time, also in office in another branch was not made clear in the Delegate's reasons behind the Bill (it had seemed to me to be primarily addressing the issue of the Vice Delegate) and, if I may, it seems to me, just as preliminary thoughts, to raise some concerns.

Particularly, it creates the possibility that there will be times where the Guardian is an official in that capacity and times where they are not; it would seem unusual to me, considering the past decisions of the Court (that is, those dealing with acting in different capacities (such as the content ownership ruling)), that it would be held that the oath they had sworn as Justice, say, applied to their actions as Guardian. Of course, one could say that their actions were in their capacity as Justice as it is by virtue of being Justice that they enjoy the regional powers, but that seems to me to be quite artificial when one considers that a Justice would have little or no reason to have and exercise those powers in relation to the duties of the office.
Click to expand...
To expand on this. I had thought that the widening of the category of those who may enjoy regional officer powers was aimed, primarily, at assisting government officials outside of those contained in the term "executive officer" in the performance in their duties. With relation to the Vice Delegate and Security Councillors, say, ensuring that those in the line of succession can perform actions without needing first to actually assume the Delegacy (together with the potential assistance in gaining endorsements); or with the Speaker or Election Commissioners, giving them greater opportunity to publicise votes.

That seems to me to be, broadly speaking, a good idea.

What seems like a less good idea is the one of using the wider category as a way to get around having the RMB Guardian be a government official in their own right.

First, it seems to me to be quite odd that a Speaker or a Justice could, in essence, co-opt the powers they enjoy by virtue of one position in order to serve another; second, it seems odd to have a position sometimes be a government official and sometimes not. I can't think of the first being done in relation to other powers that presently exist and while the second is the position with respect to Deputy Ministers, I don't think that I am alone in thinking that the position of Deputy Ministers should remain an aberration and not be introduced elsewhere where it is avoidable.

Third, beyond the oddness of it, it seems possible that a Speaker or Justice actually co-opting their powers could conceivably be unlawful, in that purporting to perform executive functions (namely the regulation of the RMB, which is a statutory function of the Delegate and those officers that assist them) using powers afforded to them by legislative or judicial office could be said to be an abuse of those powers.

Fourth, and (for now) last, it seems to be an unnecessary workaround of the prohibition on serving in offices in multiple branches; if there is a need for those serving as Speaker or as Justices to also serve as RMB Guardians (though I would hope there is sufficient competence in the wider populace as to prevent that need), then would the better solution not be to make a clear exception to the provision, as the Constitution does permit, rather than an odd somewhat obfuscated one.
 
I fear you are misunderstanding what I intended to explain regarding the Lead RMB Guardian. As a regional officer, Lead RMB Guardian is rather new. Until now, it was an additional duty performed by an existing cabinet member, so there was no question they were executive officers and allowed to be granted regional officer powers. Now we have a Lead RMB Guardian who would otherwise not be an executive officer. With all the discussion about the need for this change for the Vice Delegate, I feel I should point out that this does not change what had to be done regarding the Lead RMB Guardian. This proposed change allows government officials to be appointed, so the Lead RMB Guardian would still have had to take an oath whether this change is made or not. This line of discussion seems to be taking us away from the purpose of the bill and toward exploring the nature of the Lead RMB Guardian. I think that's an interesting conversation and you raise some good points. Truthfully we hadn't meant to explore that angle, we were primarily concerned with the Vice Delegate.

I don't think this would violate the separation of government branches. Regional officers have power over the RMB independent of their other powers. It's a gameside thing. The Lead RMB Guardian is given suppression power to help manage posts on the RMB. Our Lead Guardian doesn't have any authority outside of that and even if he did, I am not sure I see how it would be a conflict. In the last terms we saw a Lead Guardian who was a Minister of Communications and before that a Minister of Foreign Affairs. Please explain the conflict that would exist, I may be missing something obvious but we have been coming at this bill from different places.
 
Pallaith:
I fear you are misunderstanding what I intended to explain regarding the Lead RMB Guardian. As a regional officer, Lead RMB Guardian is rather new. Until now, it was an additional duty performed by an existing cabinet member, so there was no question they were executive officers and allowed to be granted regional officer powers. Now we have a Lead RMB Guardian who would otherwise not be an executive officer. With all the discussion about the need for this change for the Vice Delegate, I feel I should point out that this does me change what had to be done regarding the Lead RMB Guardian. This proposed change allows government officials to be appointed, so the Lead RMB Guardian would still have had to take an oath whether this change is made or not. This line of discussion seems to be taking us away from the purpose of the bill and toward exploring the nature of the Lead RMB Guardian. I think that's an interesting conversation and you raise some good points. Truthfully we hadn't meant to explore that angle, we were primarily concerned with the Vice Delegate.

I don't think this would violate the separation of government branches. Regional officers have power over the RMB independent of their other powers. It's a gameside thing. The Lead RMB Guardian is given suppression power to help manage posts on the RMB. Our Lead Guardian doesn't have any authority outside of that and even if he did, I am not sure I see how it would be a conflict. In the last terms we saw a Lead Guardian who was a Minister of Communications and before that a Minister of Foreign Affairs. Please explain the conflict that would exist, I may be missing something obvious but we have been coming at this bill from different places.
Click to expand...
I'm a bit confused with the history of the Lead RMB Guardian (LRG is what I've been abbreviating it as) that you've stated. I don't recall pretty much any of it happening as you told it. Indeed, prior to the most recent events, I was only able to find one post regarding the LRG and that was Kasch stating that in his position as LRG, he approved of a request for Tomb to receive RMBG masking on the Discord server. Prior to that, I have been unable to find a single mention on the forums of the position. Nor do I recall anything when McM or Bootsie was in charge of the program about a LRG.

To my knowledge, I was the first LRG. I was not appointed anywhere, I was looking at TNP's WFE one day and I noticed that I wasn't listed as just the MoFA anymore. I do not recall any discussion of me being appointed as such (may have missed it or forgotten about it though). It was rather impromptu. Now, I don't know why plem appointed me as LRG but I don't believe that it was due to being a member of Cabinet as you stated was a requirement for the position. The LRG was chosen among the RMB Guardians, I was the only Cabinet member at that time that was on the team and wasn't the MoHA. As well, after I resigned from the position, initially, Yalkan was appointed as LRG and given suppression powers. Yalkan was not an Executive Officer.

I don't recall when I got Communications power (Raven didn't give it to me and then plem moved some around (not saying I needed them)), but I don't believe it coincided with being given the position..? Also, don't remember when I was appointed LRG either...

Regardless, the LRG does not need suppression power albeit I believe they should. I'd like to take this moment to point out that I have been unable to find out what the LRG's stated responsibilities are on the forums...

Not a problem with the bill, just a problem with history being rewritten. :P
 
Pallaith:
I fear you are misunderstanding what I intended to explain regarding the Lead RMB Guardian. As a regional officer, Lead RMB Guardian is rather new. Until now, it was an additional duty performed by an existing cabinet member, so there was no question they were executive officers and allowed to be granted regional officer powers. Now we have a Lead RMB Guardian who would otherwise not be an executive officer. With all the discussion about the need for this change for the Vice Delegate, I feel I should point out that this does me change what had to be done regarding the Lead RMB Guardian. This proposed change allows government officials to be appointed, so the Lead RMB Guardian would still have had to take an oath whether this change is made or not. This line of discussion seems to be taking us away from the purpose of the bill and toward exploring the nature of the Lead RMB Guardian. I think that's an interesting conversation and you raise some good points. Truthfully we hadn't meant to explore that angle, we were primarily concerned with the Vice Delegate.

I don't think this would violate the separation of government branches. Regional officers have power over the RMB independent of their other powers. It's a gameside thing. The Lead RMB Guardian is given suppression power to help manage posts on the RMB. Our Lead Guardian doesn't have any authority outside of that and even if he did, I am not sure I see how it would be a conflict. In the last terms we saw a Lead Guardian who was a Minister of Communications and before that a Minister of Foreign Affairs. Please explain the conflict that would exist, I may be missing something obvious but we have been coming at this bill from different places.
Click to expand...
If I may, my point originally was that this proposal would appear to make no difference to the position of the RMB Guardian: they are required to be an executive officer under the current law, an executive officer being "[a] government official[] appointed by the Delegate to assist in the execution of their duties", the current officer has been appointed by yourself to assist in the execution of your statutory function of regulating the RMB; under the proposed law, they would simply be required to be a government official, but (ignoring the possibility of an extant official, a Deputy Speaker, say, being RMB Guardian) they would need to be appointed by yourself before in any event. The proposal then appears to make no difference to their position, as you yourself state.

My question then is why use "government official" and not "executive officer or the Vice Delegate". The former introduces the possibility of other government officials, such as Justices or the Speaker, enjoying regional officer powers, the latter limits it to its present position and the Vice Delegate, the area in which the change is said to be desired.

Now, on the proposition that regional officers' simply by being ingame are independent of their other powers, I would disagree. The law is, to my mind, clear: the power of regional officers is enjoyed contingent on and as part of their being executive officers, it is not independent of it, and were it to change as proposed then it would be contingent on and as part of their holding whatever office entitles them to be a regional officer. If it were otherwise then there would be no link in law between any office and holding regional officer powers. The present Guardian's lack of further portfolio beyond assisting in the regulation of the RMB (a statutory executive function) does not mean that the power is independent of the office to which they were appointed; nor does the fact that previous Guardians had further portfolio. It is for the Delegate to define the scope of the powers of the officers they appoint.

However, in relation to the Speaker, as an example, it is not so simple. The Speaker's role is defined in law and cannot be changed by the Delegate or by the Speaker themselves. The Speaker could not claim, as part of their office as Speaker, to oversee embassies nor could they be given the duty of doing so, for that is a role given by law to the Delegate and their executive officers. It follows then, that because the Speaker enjoys their regional officer powers as part of their being Speaker, they may be constrained to taking actions which are within the scope of their office: to open or close embassies or to regulate the RMB would be to take on a function given by law to the Delegate and could well be an abuse of their powers.

Further, whether it would be an abuse or not, I do not think it desirable. The law should be clear on what officials are government officials and the creation of another office where the answer is variable depending on circumstances does not give that clarity; the law should also be clear where it does or may allow for exceptions to the separation of powers, the notion of permitting powers which stem from legislative or judicial office to be co-opted for executive ends does not seem to provide that clarity, but seems to be likely to invite challenge which could be avoided.
 
Praetor's post is a great illustration of the new ground we're breaking with the Guardian role. At the risk of taking this discussion completely in the wrong direction, I'm going to try to once again explain what was said earlier. When I referred to ministers I was referring to Kasch and Praetor. I had actually forgotten that Yalkan had the role, and if he did he would have been in the same boat the Vice Delegate is in right now gameside. Until I had our Guardian swear an oath, there was never any mention of the position anywhere but on the RMB and in MoHA discussions. The oath was taken to keep the regional officer appointment consistent with the existing law. The fact that there's so many ways we can go with this and that the existence of regional officers is creating this problem is precisely why I am advancing this bill.

I have made no attempt to rewrite history, it just seems that we're all a bit hazy on what the history actually is. Again, this may mean we need to formally discuss the Lead RMB Guardian position, but as I understand it, it is a recent role that is still being defined and has had a different structure and process depending on who runs HA and who is Delegate. I took it for granted that the role was coincidentally always held by serving ministers but Yalkan's service obviously proves otherwise.
 
Zyvetskistaahn:
My question then is why use "government official" and not "executive officer or the Vice Delegate". The former introduces the possibility of other government officials, such as Justices or the Speaker, enjoying regional officer powers, the latter limits it to its present position and the Vice Delegate, the area in which the change is said to be desired.
Click to expand...

Because there could be very good reasons that justices or the speaker's office might want or need RO powers. Mass TGs spring to mind for the latter - a better way to publicize RA business than using the API.

I see no reason to restrict who is allowed to be given powers except to people required to swear an oath, in order to provide accountability for their use of it.
 
SillyString:
Zyvetskistaahn:
My question then is why use "government official" and not "executive officer or the Vice Delegate". The former introduces the possibility of other government officials, such as Justices or the Speaker, enjoying regional officer powers, the latter limits it to its present position and the Vice Delegate, the area in which the change is said to be desired.
Click to expand...

Because there could be very good reasons that justices or the speaker's office might want or need RO powers. Mass TGs spring to mind for the latter - a better way to publicize RA business than using the API.

I see no reason to restrict who is allowed to be given powers except to people required to swear an oath, in order to provide accountability for their use of it.
Click to expand...
And I have accepted that that may well be the case in an earlier post. However, that is not the rationale of the Delegate as the promoter of this legislation, which is an important thing to consider, as it will be the Delegate who will determine who does and who does not get granted the powers. If it is the intention of the Delegate to use this power in order to better enable the Speaker and others to carry out their functions, then that is to the good; if it is their intention not to do so, then it is relevant that they explain why they wish for wider discretionary powers than their purpose requires.

A matter related to this: if we think that it is the case that the Speaker or some other official independent of the Delegate would better fulfill their functions with regional officer powers, why make them dependent on the Delegate's discretion as to whether they have those powers? Why not mandate that the Delegate grant certain powers if requested (or generally)? That would, on the face of it, be less open to the possibility of a Delegate using their discretion to inhibit the performance of an official they disliked or to try to influence officials with the incentive (or disincentive) of gaining (or losing powers).

EDIT: extraneous "to"
EDIT: bracket positioning
 
Not sure whether this is affected by this bill: We need to be able to give communications RO powers to The Northern Light. Many of our telegramming systems are built around that nation's ability to send region-wide TGs.
 
I have modified the proposal. Given everything you guys have shared, I wanted to make sure that while broader, this section of the legal code would still stick to what we have been doing in practice. I have specified the government official should be an executive government official. This still allows us to include the Vice Delegate but also removes the possibility of legislative and judicial officers from having regional officer powers. I also added a reference to regional nations, as that is what TNL is currently called in the Regional Officer list, and it allows for the possibility of such accounts in the future. I hope this minimizes the concern for unintended conflicts and refocuses the change on what concerned us the most in the first place.
 
I would be interested in getting some more feedback before I jump the gun and ask for a vote too early again.
 
I'd still prefer Zyvet's recommended phrasing of "executive officer or the Vice Delegate". Right now your draft includes the Attorney General and their Deputies as valid targets to give RO powers to, even though the AG is an almost exclusively forumside office (some investigations may occur gameside, but most of the AG's duties are forumside).

Basically, same reason as excluding the judicial / legislative officers.
 
What about the regional nation provision? Would you be cool keeping that even if we tighten the executive appointments? I really do like the flexibility it gives us, I don't think there's much danger in a Delegate giving the AG such an appointment. Only if the AG was also something like the RMB Guardian I guess but I just don't find that likely. The deputies on the other hand could be an issue.
 
Good point, yes. Keep the regional nation provision. I forgot about that. However, if we're limiting the powers so legislative and judicial officers can't be appointed, I see no reason to nevertheless allow the AG or their Deputies to be appointed.

I agree that there's no danger in particular in allowing that, but if the bill disallows legislative and judicial officers from being ROs, I don't agree with allowing the AG still. Even if the AG were given these powers, I personally do not see any particular way the AG, let alone the Deputies, could use those powers in any beneficial way, so no reason to allow it in the first place.

As for the instance where the AG is also the LRG, they would already be a valid target to grant RO powers to due to the fact that they are the LRG (or even any other Executive appointee).
 
I really do continue to think it would be beneficial to allow for the possibility that it might make sense for other officials to be able to be given powers. Here are some examples off the top of my head:

1) Ability to give the Speaker the power to edit the WFE, so they can publicize ongoing votes or important legislative discussions.
2) Ability to make elected officials be even basic regional officers to improve visibility - for example, letting people more easily figure out who they should contact with regards to X issue without having to visit the forum
3) Ability to put any SC member on the regional officers list to promote endorsing them. Currently, only the top three are permitted to hold BC powers, and nobody else is allowed to hold any powers, but we like to rotate out who is promoted on the WFE based on who has the least endorsements
4) Ability to react to otherwise unusual or unprecedented situations without having to pass a law every time - for example, surprise April Fool's events. Sometimes the people best suited to run the show, who you want to be able to send region-wide TGs or update the WFE, don't correspond with ministers or the delegate or even, broadly, the executive.

None of this would require the delegate hand out powers, just provide them with the option to do so should they deem it appropriate.

I'd also be fine separating powers out into things that can be shared and things that can't. Border Control, for example, we regulate pretty highly for very good reasons. Embassy requests I think it would also be reasonable to restrict solely to the executive branch, since that's clearly a function of the FA department.

Appearance and Communications, on the other hand, make less sense to restrict. Anyone who can make a good case that they should be able to use them should be able to be granted that access.

Polls I'm torn on. On the one hand, they're not really something useful to anybody except maybe the culture/HA ministries, so it could be fine to keep them restricted to the executive branch. On the other hand, they're so utterly harmless that they also make sense as a "dummy" power to be given out to anyone you want to be able to list as a regional officer for whatever reason.
 
I would be willing to modify the proposal again to include the following:

"6. The Serving Delegate may assign any Regional Power, with the exception of Border Control, to any executive government official, with the exception of the Attorney General's office, or regional nation.

Alternatively, I can remove the clarification that we are talking about "executive" government officials and allow for the flexibility SillyString is advocating. It seems that's really what this is coming down to, but no one has really addressed her examples of why this flexibility could be a good thing to have. I'd like us to address that before I call a vote on this.
 
That phrasing is a little awkward... why not just have it be like this?
6. The Serving Delegate may assign any Regional Power, with the exception of Border Control, to any Executive Officer or regional nation, as well as the Vice Delegate.
Click to expand...
Much clearer that way, I believe. Also much less affected by any changes in governmental categories (for example, when the AG was moved from Judicial to Executive a while back).

As for the flexibility thing, I really just don't see much point in it, but if flexibility is desired I personally won't vote against either way. If we go with the all government officials route, may as well go with this wording:
6. The Serving Delegate may assign any Regional Power, with the exception of Border Control, to any government official or regional nation.
Click to expand...
 
That's what this comes down to. Do we want the flexibility or not? I see your point about the AG. I'll make it all or nothing, we either open the door to government officials or we don't. I'm leaning toward the latter. Some are not. But no one has really addressed why the examples SillyString provided would not be acceptable, I'd like to hear from the critics about this before we go for a vote.
 
How about "nations created for the purpose of performing government functions?" Eluvatar, I'm trying to leave this open for future TNL type accounts that we may create in the future. The idea is not to have to keep amending every time a new account or officer needs to be given RO powers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top