Executive Provisions Bill

[Kaschovia]

I propose the following changes to the Legal Code:

1. Section 7.6 of the Legal Code will be re-titled as follows:

Section 7.6: Executive Provisions

2. Section 7.6 will be amended as follows:

38. The Delegate will charge at least one Executive Officer with assisting in the execution of their duties for each of the following matters:

• foreign affairs, defined as the management and operation of embassies, the reporting of events in the North Pacific/other regions and the supervision of ambassadors;
• military affairs, defined as the use of raiding and defending missions and activities on NationStates in order to fulfill the training, security, stabilization and peacekeeping needs of the North Pacific.
• internal affairs, defined as the handling of internal matters of importance to the region such as recruitment, telegramming and mentoring.

This is a simple fix for a problematic and badly authored section of the legal code.

If this is passed, the section can be expanded in future bills or perhaps even during the discussion of this bill. This way, we won't have to create new sections for similar things, hence the new title.

I removed the parts of the clauses where duties and roles were wrongly prescribed, allowing further discretion on the Delegate's behalf in relation to the actions of their government.

I don't mention any documents or areas in particular because these things are liable to change and would invalidate the amendments, should they occur. The ECs are capable of recognizing such ministerial policies, practices and established duties mentioned in their respective areas and adhering to them in relation to this amendment.

I greatly encourage grammatical, verbal or general corrections/suggestions so that this bill can be improved to the highest extent.

Spoiler: Draft 1

1. Section 7.6 of the Legal Code will be re-titled as follows:

Section 7.6: Executive Provisions

2. Section 7.6 will be amended as follows:

38. The Delegate will charge at least one Executive Officer with executing their orders for and attending to the functional needs of, in accordance with ministerial policies, practices and established duties mentioned in their respective areas, each of the following matters:

• foreign affairs;
• military affairs;
• internal affairs.

39. An Executive Officer cannot be charged with executing orders for more than one of the aforementioned matters.

Spoiler: Draft 2

1. Section 7.6 of the Legal Code will be re-titled as follows:

Section 7.6: Executive Provisions

2. Section 7.6 will be amended as follows:

38. The Delegate will charge at least one Executive Officer with executing their orders for and attending to the functional needs of, in accordance with ministerial policies, practices and established duties mentioned in their respective areas, each of the following matters:

• foreign affairs;
• military affairs;
• internal affairs.

39. No person may simultaneously serve as a minister for more than one ministry.

Spoiler: Draft 3

1. Section 7.6 of the Legal Code will be re-titled as follows:

Section 7.6: Executive Provisions

2. Section 7.6 will be amended as follows:

38. The Delegate will charge at least one Executive Officer with executing their orders for and attending to the functional needs of, in accordance with ministerial policies, practices and established duties mentioned in their respective areas, each of the following matters:

• foreign affairs;
• military affairs;
• internal affairs.

Spoiler: Draft 4

1. Section 7.6 of the Legal Code will be re-titled as follows:

Section 7.6: Executive Provisions

2. Section 7.6 will be amended as follows:

38. The Delegate will charge at least one Executive Officer with assisting in the execution of their duties for each of the following matters:

• foreign affairs;
• military affairs;
• internal affairs.

---

1. Edit 001, 05/07/2017
   A new clause was added to prevent people from simultaneously serving as minister for more than one ministry. This was added so that ministers can focus solely on the ministry they have been appointed to work for, and so that, in the case of a vacancy, only one ministry lacks management, and not any more than that.
   
2. Edit 002, 05/07/2017
   Clause 39 removed. The new clause covers what is intended for the bill nicely without confusing them both. If the Delegate and the Executive Officer in question come to an agreement, and they decide that they want that Executive Officer to serve and execute orders in relation to more than one of those matters, then it is up to them to do so. However, since the new clause 39 removes 'ministers' from the possible roles the Executive Officer could actually fill for more than one ministry, there is a favourable equilibrium between the two.
   
3. Edit 003, 05/07/2017
   New clause 39 removed completely in accordance with discussions conducted over its legality, purpose and efficiency.
   
4. Edit 004, 11/07/2017
   Clause 38 amended in accordance with Chapter 7, Section 7.1: Definitions, Clause 2 of the Legal Code. The definition there suits the purpose of the amendment much better and further simplifies the clause.
   
5. Edit 005, 15/07/2017
   Clause 38 amended to further detail the duties of each of the ministries, but retain the language before the list so that the Delegate can still give orders of their own.
   

 

[Eluvatar]

For reference, this would be replacing:

Section 7.6: Mandatory Ministries
38. There will be an Executive Officer charged with the North Pacific's foreign affairs. They will ensure the continued operation of any embassies of the North Pacific and will report on events in the region.
39. There will be an Executive Officer charged with military affairs. They will carry out such legal missions as are authorized by the Delegate, expressly or categorically.
40. There will be at least one Executive Officer charged with focusing primarily on matters of internal interest to The North Pacific.

 

[abc]

39. An Executive Officer cannot be charged with executing orders for more than one of the aforementioned matters.

This is good, although one could argue that the Speaker counts as handling Internal Affairs and would be unable to serve as both Speaker and as a minister.

 

[Darcania]

39. An Executive Officer cannot be charged with executing orders for more than one of the aforementioned matters.

This is good, although one could argue that the Speaker counts as handling Internal Affairs and would be unable to serve as both Speaker and as a minister.

The Speaker is not an Executive Officer. As well, the Speaker already cannot be a Minister under Article 7 of the Constitution.

 

[Owenstacey]

ABC One, I'm pretty sure executive officers are only government side of TNP because executive officers are appointed by the Delegate. And secondly Speaker cannot serve as both Speaker and Minister because no person may simultaneously serve in government official positions in more than one of the executive, legislative, or judicial categories. Exceptions to this provision may be established by law (article 7.10 of the constitution).

 

[Egalotir]

I like this wording and format a lot more than the old one. Also gives the delegate/gov a lot more flexibility to create/dismiss positions that are necessarily or aren't required anymore. Although there's something about the wording that can maybe make it...flow better? But that's just nitpicking.

Quick edit: we currently cannot be minister of more than one ministry correct? Just curious if 39 was adding preventions for cross appointments or whatever.

 

[abc]

Never mind. I have no problem with this bill.

 

[Kaschovia]

I like this wording and format a lot more than the old one. Also gives the delegate/gov a lot more flexibility to create/dismiss positions that are necessarily or aren't required anymore. Although there's something about the wording that can maybe make it...flow better? But that's just nitpicking.

Quick edit: we currently cannot be minister of more than one ministry correct? Just curious if 39 was adding preventions for cross appointments or whatever.

Incorrect, I believe. I can't find anything in the Constibillocode that rules against a person simultaneously being a minister of more than one ministry, but doing so just isn't traditionally advised, nor is it beneficial for the government of the minister and ministries, so it, therefore, is not done.

39 prevents overworking. It's never good when someone has to juggle responsibilities, especially if they are of such high legal and executive importance. Perhaps it may be useful to finally include such a ruling in the legal system; one that says a person cannot simultaneously serve as minister for more than one ministry, instead of ruling so for just internal, military and foreign affairs. It would be immensely helpful if introduced.

 

[Egalotir]

I like this wording and format a lot more than the old one. Also gives the delegate/gov a lot more flexibility to create/dismiss positions that are necessarily or aren't required anymore. Although there's something about the wording that can maybe make it...flow better? But that's just nitpicking.

Quick edit: we currently cannot be minister of more than one ministry correct? Just curious if 39 was adding preventions for cross appointments or whatever.

Incorrect, I believe. I can't find anything in the Constibillocode that rules against a person simultaneously being a minister of more than one ministry, but doing so just isn't traditionally advised, nor is it beneficial for the government of the minister and ministries, so it, therefore, is not done.

39 prevents overworking. It's never good when someone has to juggle responsibilities, especially if they are of such high legal and executive importance. Perhaps it may be useful to finally include such a ruling in the legal system; one that says a person cannot simultaneously serve as minister for more than one ministry, instead of ruling so for just internal, military and foreign affairs. It would be immensely helpful if introduced.

I agree having something in law that prevents holding more than one ministry position at a time should be introduced. It'd be the fasting ticket to Overworkedville.

Other than that, bill has my full approval.

 

[Kaschovia]

I have edited the proposal in accordance with some feedback, spoilered Draft 1 and noted the edits made.

 

[Egalotir]

Was about to ask if you could include exactly that. Perfect for me, thanks Kasch.

 

[Kaschovia]

Was about to ask if you could include exactly that. Perfect for me, thanks Kasch.

Thank you!

Any and all feedback helps the proposal.

 

[Deleted User (Guest)]

And with that amendment to prevent people holding more than one ministry, I will now be voting against this bill. I last recall Delegate Silly String appointing McMasterdonia as a dual minister for Defence and Education back in the September 2015 - January 2016 executive term. The reasons were if I recall that there was a lack of suited candidates who had applied for the position and McMasterdonia was a strong and robust figure able to handle the responsibilities.

It is not something done often, but has been done. There is little harm in it given the RA has the supreme power of recall against any Government Official.

Do not try to be adventurous with this proposal. There is no restriction in place because the restriction on current positions only matters for cross-branch roles, excluding the security council to prevent someone being both a Justice and the Speaker, or Justice and the Delegate.

It makes no sense to include conflict of interest provisions when referring exclusively to the cabinet unless you intend to include the executive staff within it - what about the Senior Diplomats and the NPA High Command? Should these important roles not also be factored into considering a conflict of interest amendment as both are part of the Executive, no?

 

[Kaschovia]

And with that amendment to prevent people holding more than one ministry, I will now be voting against this bill.

I wouldn't advise holding yourself to a vote before further amendments are made. The amendments that might be made could change the bill more to your liking and you may feel inclined to change your mind.

I last recall Delegate Silly String appointing McMasterdonia as a dual minister for Defence and Education back in the September 2015 - January 2016 executive term. The reasons were if I recall that there was a lack of suited candidates who had applied for the position and McMasterdonia was a strong and robust figure able to handle the responsibilities.

Let's suppose that I change that clause to "No person may simultaneously serve as a minister for more than one ministry unless it is necessary and or approved by the Delegate."

Does this fix your issue with that clause?

It is not something done often, but has been done. There is little harm in it given the RA has the supreme power of recall against any Government Official.

Understood.

Do not try to be adventurous with this proposal. There is no restriction in place because the restriction on current positions only matters for cross-branch roles, excluding the security council to prevent someone being both a Justice and the Speaker, or Justice and the Delegate.

I hope my amendment to the clause in relation to your feedback in the response above fixes the problem you mention.

It makes no sense to include conflict of interest provisions when referring exclusively to the cabinet unless you intend to include the executive staff within it - what about the Senior Diplomats and the NPA High Command? Should these important roles not also be factored into considering a conflict of interest amendment as both are part of the Executive, no?

I understand.

How would you go about factoring in those roles as part of this bill?

 

[Deleted User (Guest)]

Thank you, but I have concerns that your amendment might be illegal. The RA may appoint ministers for the mandatory ministries if they remain unfilled for a certain length of time, and it may be that they choose to appoint someone who holds an existing ministry. They can appoint this citizen without the Delegate's consent or belief that they are capable.

As it stands, the entire limitation was fluff and is easily avoided around so long as the Delegate maintains the authority to shape their cabinet as they wish. As to how I would factor in the other civil service/military roles: I wouldn't since it would cause untold amount of issues that we really have no need to force upon ourselves. My point was that the clause you added was unnecessary.

I did see the argument it was to prevent people being overworked... it wouldn't manage to achieve that either, people will just hold positions in other regions or get burned out due to stress on other matters as well.

 

[Kaschovia]

Thank you, but I have concerns that your amendment might be illegal. The RA may appoint ministers for the mandatory ministries if they remain unfilled for a certain length of time, and it may be that they choose to appoint someone who holds an existing ministry. They can appoint this citizen without the Delegate's consent or belief that they are capable.

As it stands, the entire limitation was fluff and is easily avoided around so long as the Delegate maintains the authority to shape their cabinet as they wish. As to how I would factor in the other civil service/military roles: I wouldn't since it would cause untold amount of issues that we really have no need to force upon ourselves. My point was that the clause you added was unnecessary.

I did see the argument it was to prevent people being overworked... it wouldn't manage to achieve that either, people will just hold positions in other regions or get burned out due to stress on other matters as well.

So, remove the clause completely?

 

[Deleted User (Guest)]

That would be my recommendation, yes.

 

[Kaschovia]

I have edited the proposal in accordance with some feedback, spoilered Draft 2 and noted the edits made.

 

[Deleted User (Guest)]

Thank you, I appreciate your cooperation on this. It'll save us a lot of potential issues in the future.

 

[Kaschovia]

Thank you, I appreciate your cooperation on this. It'll save us a lot of potential issues in the future.

No, thank you.

Your insight is always invaluable.

 

[Rocketdog]

I do like this bill, there would less ambiguity and is more efficient wording.

 

[Kaschovia]

I do like this bill, there would less ambiguity and is more efficient wording.

Thanks!

 

[Eluvatar]

Less ambiguity? Isn't it more ambiguous, or at least less specific?

 

[Kaschovia]

Less ambiguity? Isn't it more ambiguous, or at least less specific?

"The Delegate will charge at least one Executive Officer with executing their orders for each of the following matters:"

Does this make it any more specific? And if not, how would you change it? I figured the second part of 38 might be interpreted as confusing or ambiguous, so how can I fix that?

 

[Kaschovia]

After looking over Chapter 7, Section 7.1, Clause 2 of the legal code, I can further specify the bill.

Instead of 'The Delegate will charge at least one Executive Officer with executing their orders for and attending to the functional needs of, in accordance with ministerial policies, practices and established duties mentioned in their respective areas, each of the following matters:"

I can include the definition of an Executive Official and amend it so as to read "The Delegate will charge at least one Executive Officer with assisting in the execution of their duties for each of the following matters:"

I will change the bill in accordance with this.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

I believe, though I may be incorrect, that Eluvatar means that it is more ambiguous in that it removes from the present law the specification of duties which fall within the portfolios (in relation to "military affairs" this is "carry[ing] out such legal missions as are authorised by the Delegate"). This makes what each of the portfolios actually means somewhat less clear and leaves it to the Delegate (and the Court, should that arise) to divine what is and is not "foreign affairs" or "military affairs". The present law isn't much better in this regard, but there is some specification at the moment.

On altering the title of Section 7.6, I am not sure how I feel about "Executive Provisions", it is not overly descriptive (it is about as descriptive as the Chapter title of "Executive Government"). I think some retention of the concept of it containing mandatory functions of the executive should be retained in the title.

May I ask the proposer, as I'm not entirely sure I have understood, what issue it is that this Bill seeks to address? Is it that the current law, minimal as it is, is seen as overly restrictive on the Delegate; that it is not restrictive enough (the opening post refers to adding requirements); or something else?

 

[Kaschovia]

I believe, though I may be incorrect, that Eluvatar means that it is more ambiguous in that it removes from the present law the specification of duties which fall within the portfolios (in relation to "military affairs" this is "carry[ing] out such legal missions as are authorised by the Delegate"). This makes what each of the portfolios actually means somewhat less clear and leaves it to the Delegate (and the Court, should that arise) to divine what is and is not "foreign affairs" or "military affairs". The present law isn't much better in this regard, but there is some specification at the moment.

Then wouldn't it be better to stick with Draft 3?

If it says in the clause "executing their orders for and attending to the functional needs of, in accordance with ministerial policies, practices and established duties mentioned in their respective areas, each of the following matters:" then wouldn't this allow more lenient interpretation of the Delegate? By mentioning the respective areas of policy, the Delegate is then limited to the areas in which the management of each ministry is detailed but also allows for the Delegate to freely give orders of their own discretion and reasoning.

On altering the title of Section 7.6, I am not sure how I feel about "Executive Provisions", it is not overly descriptive (it is about as descriptive as the Chapter title of "Executive Government"). I think some retention of the concept of it containing mandatory functions of the executive should be retained in the title.

How about Executive Requirements?

May I ask the proposer, as I'm not entirely sure I have understood, what issue it is that this Bill seeks to address? Is it that the current law, minimal as it is, is seen as overly restrictive on the Delegate; that it is not restrictive enough (the opening post refers to adding requirements); or something else?

The bill simply aims to clarify the section so that there is a balance between the limitations of what the Delegate can and cannot do with each ministry, and what the Delegate may want to do with each ministry.

 

[Mystery Player]

What would define what internal affairs, foreign affairs, and military affairs are? You are replacing the part that does so.

 

[Kaschovia]

What would define what internal affairs, foreign affairs, and military affairs are? You are replacing the part that does so.

"the functional needs of, in accordance with ministerial policies, practices and established duties mentioned in their respective areas" defines what they are. The Delegate, with that definition, can then interpret it leniently and suitably according to their priorities, needs, and plans.

 

[Mystery Player]

What would define what internal affairs, foreign affairs, and military affairs are? You are replacing the part that does so.

"the functional needs of, in accordance with ministerial policies, practices and established duties mentioned in their respective areas" defines what they are. The Delegate, with that definition, can then interpret it leniently and suitably according to their priorities, needs, and plans.

Established duties where? What defines the requirements for a ministry to function?

 

[Kaschovia]

What would define what internal affairs, foreign affairs, and military affairs are? You are replacing the part that does so.

"the functional needs of, in accordance with ministerial policies, practices and established duties mentioned in their respective areas" defines what they are. The Delegate, with that definition, can then interpret it leniently and suitably according to their priorities, needs, and plans.

Established duties where? What defines the requirements for a ministry to function?

For example, the established duties of Foreign Affairs can be found in the Diplomatic Corps Protocol, Guide to Writing an Ambassador's Report and other places. It doesn't take much for a reasonably intelligent Delegate to know that this is what they must align their orders with.

It is the same with military affairs, there is the North Pacific Army Doctrine. Once again, if the Delegate cannot even fathom that this is what they must acknowledge as the duties and principles of military affairs, then I question their leadership ability. A Delegate doesn't need directly telling what 'military' entails in terms of NationStates, it cannot be more obvious unless we elect someone who isn't experienced enough, in which case it is almost exactly the same.

As with internal affairs, the duties are not explicitly stated, but neither are they in the current legal code! All it says is "focusing primarily on matters of internal interest to the North Pacific." That could literally mean anything, and not align with the practices and traditions of the Home Affairs ministry. The Delegate could decide that a matter of internal interest is something completely unrelated to the work of Home Affairs, and distract from more important work.

This is what I am trying to do with this bill. I am trying to make it easier for the Delegate to interpret what orders they must give in equal accordance with both their own discretion and the 'the functional needs of, in accordance with ministerial policies, practices and established duties mentioned in their respective areas'.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

I believe, though I may be incorrect, that Eluvatar means that it is more ambiguous in that it removes from the present law the specification of duties which fall within the portfolios (in relation to "military affairs" this is "carry[ing] out such legal missions as are authorised by the Delegate"). This makes what each of the portfolios actually means somewhat less clear and leaves it to the Delegate (and the Court, should that arise) to divine what is and is not "foreign affairs" or "military affairs". The present law isn't much better in this regard, but there is some specification at the moment.

Then wouldn't it be better to stick with Draft 3?

If it says in the clause "executing their orders for and attending to the functional needs of, in accordance with ministerial policies, practices and established duties mentioned in their respective areas, each of the following matters:" then wouldn't this allow more lenient interpretation of the Delegate? By mentioning the respective areas of policy, the Delegate is then limited to the areas in which the management of each ministry is detailed but also allows for the Delegate to freely give orders of their own discretion and reasoning.

What would define what internal affairs, foreign affairs, and military affairs are? You are replacing the part that does so.

"the functional needs of, in accordance with ministerial policies, practices and established duties mentioned in their respective areas" defines what they are. The Delegate, with that definition, can then interpret it leniently and suitably according to their priorities, needs, and plans.

Established duties where? What defines the requirements for a ministry to function?

For example, the established duties of Foreign Affairs can be found in the Diplomatic Corps Protocol, Guide to Writing an Ambassador's Report and other places. It doesn't take much for a reasonably intelligent Delegate to know that this is what they must align their orders with.

It is the same with military affairs, there is the North Pacific Army Doctrine. Once again, if the Delegate cannot even fathom that this is what they must acknowledge as the duties and principles of military affairs, then I question their leadership ability. A Delegate doesn't need directly telling what 'military' entails in terms of NationStates, it cannot be more obvious unless we elect someone who isn't experienced enough, in which case it is almost exactly the same.

As with internal affairs, the duties are not explicitly stated, but neither are they in the current legal code! All it says is "focusing primarily on matters of internal interest to the North Pacific." That could literally mean anything, and not align with the practices and traditions of the Home Affairs ministry. The Delegate could decide that a matter of internal interest is something completely unrelated to the work of Home Affairs, and distract from more important work.

This is what I am trying to do with this bill. I am trying to make it easier for the Delegate to interpret what orders they must give in equal accordance with both their own discretion and the 'the functional needs of, in accordance with ministerial policies, practices and established duties mentioned in their respective areas'.

If I may, the purpose of requiring the executive to do certain things would seem to be undermined by leaving it open to the executive to define what those things are. Relying on the Diplomatic Protocol is not a good way to define what this Assembly means by "Foreign Affairs", because it can be revoked or varied at any point by the Delegate or their Minister thereby removing any need to align their behaviour with it. "Military Affairs" is somewhat different as the giving effect to the NPAF Doctrine can, I think fairly easily, be said to be within the scope of "Military Affairs" by implication, but it would nonetheless be less ambiguous to have the meaning be express.

This is not to say that the current section is ideal, I do believe that its statement of the mandatory duties associated with each area can be improved, but I do not see that relying on the executive to define what the mandatory areas consist of is the way to go, it seems to me that it would risk the mandatory part being rendered meaningless.

 

[Kaschovia]

In agreement with the suggestions and ideas submitted by Zyvetskistaahn, I believe I may have found a solution to the current problem with editing the bill. Instead of removing the definitions of each matter, it might prove more beneficial if the matters were more clearly defined, but without constraining the Delegate any further than the current section.

"38. The Delegate will charge at least one Executive Officer with assisting in the execution of their duties for each of the following matters:

• foreign affairs, defined as the management and operation of embassies, the reporting of events in the North Pacific/other regions and the supervision of ambassadors;
• military affairs, defined as the use of raiding and defending missions and activities on NationStates in order to fulfill the training, security, stabilization and peacekeeping needs of the North Pacific.
• internal affairs, defined as the handling of internal matters of importance to the region such as recruitment, telegramming and mentoring."

 

[Malayan Singapura]

Erm how does this bill affect normal citizens like me ?
I really cannot keep it up on this bill.

 

[Kaschovia]

Erm how does this bill affect normal citizens like me ?
I really cannot keep it up on this bill.

It doesn't affect you because it is not a bill to do with citizens. It is a bill to do with the executive.

 

[Malayan Singapura]

Erm how does this bill affect normal citizens like me ?
I really cannot keep it up on this bill.

It doesn't affect you because it is not a bill to do with citizens. It is a bill to do with the executive.

Ok, so just wrap it in a nutshell, will this make bureaucracy more efficent, clear or is it just an update on the constitution to make the ends justify the means ?

 

[Kaschovia]

Erm how does this bill affect normal citizens like me ?
I really cannot keep it up on this bill.

It doesn't affect you because it is not a bill to do with citizens. It is a bill to do with the executive.

Ok, so just wrap it in a nutshell, will this make bureaucracy more efficent, clear or is it just an update on the constitution to make the ends justify the means ?

The purpose of the bill can be found in previous posts if you look over the thread.