Plembobria's SC Application

Kaschovia

Kaschovia

Winter Phantom
-
-
-
-
-
-
Pronouns
He/Him/His
TNP Nation
Kaschovia
Discord
kaschovia
I, plembobria, an apprentice with 518 endorsements and 280023 SPDR wish to apply for the Security Council.
Click to expand...
Plembobria has applied to rejoin the Security Council. As they were previously nominated by the SC, their re-application is presented to the Regional Assembly.
 
I have a number of questions for the applicant.

I would like to ask about whether you consider the present state of disclosure of information from the Security Council to be adequate and whether you would, if on the Council, support the amendment of the Rules of the Council so as to create a disclosure mechanism? (particularly, though not exclusively, I would like to know whether you consider the present state of disclosure in relation to discussion of applicants to the Council to be appropriate, given the paucity of information that it leaves this Assembly to make its decision with)

Would discussion of an amendment to the rules of the Council, in order to provide for the disclosure of information, require secrecy, considering the abstract nature of such a discussion?

There have been two recent applications to the Security Council which have required the Council to vote on whether to nominate the applicant or not (one Pallaith's and the other Siwale's). If you had been on the Council in time, how would you have voted in relation to each of them, what concerns would you have about their applications, and what do you think were their merits?

The most recent application to the Council was voted on by only two members of the Council (a minority of the whole voting membership), and in two of the three votes prior to that a minority of members of the Council were, effectively, able to reject an applicant. Do you have any opinion on this?

What is your view on the exemption from Council nomination which those previously nominated to the Council enjoy? Do you think that the Council should consider revoking any of its previous nominations (that is, are there any previous nominees you specifically think ought to have their nominations revoked and do you think it should generally be part of the practice of the Council to review its previous nominees to discover if any particular nominee ought to have their nominations revoked)?
 
I would like to ask about whether you consider the present state of disclosure of information from the Security Council to be adequate and whether you would, if on the Council, support the amendment of the Rules of the Council so as to create a disclosure mechanism? (particularly, though not exclusively, I would like to know whether you consider the present state of disclosure in relation to discussion of applicants to the Council to be appropriate, given the paucity of information that it leaves this Assembly to make its decision with)
Click to expand...
The discussion in private of applicants to the council is in private for good reason. If a member of the council takes a critical position on the acceptance of an applicant, and that information is later released, that could cause unnecessary political strife. Moreover, if a council member is aware that his opinions can be released in shortly, he will be wary of taking a critical position on an applicant, even if that critical position is well-needed, and necessary for the council to make its decision. That is why we allow for the Security Council to make nominations before the RA as its input.

Would discussion of an amendment to the rules of the Council, in order to provide for the disclosure of information, require secrecy, considering the abstract nature of such a discussion?
Click to expand...
Yes.

There have been two recent applications to the Security Council which have required the Council to vote on whether to nominate the applicant or not (one Pallaith's and the other Siwale's). If you had been on the Council in time, how would you have voted in relation to each of them, what concerns would you have about their applications, and what do you think were their merits?
Click to expand...
I have would have voted for the nomination of Pallaith, since as delegate, he has yet to coup :P . I am not certain as to whether I think Siwale is quite ready for SC membership at this time. He has shown himself a competent official, and an efficient endo-tarter, however, his relatively short period of activity here leaves open some concerns.

The most recent application to the Council was voted on by only two members of the Council (a minority of the whole voting membership), and in two of the three votes prior to that a minority of members of the Council were, effectively, able to reject an applicant. Do you have any opinion on this?
Click to expand...
I think all council members should vote when votes are held.

What is your view on the exemption from Council nomination which those previously nominated to the Council enjoy? Do you think that the Council should consider revoking any of its previous nominations (that is, are there any previous nominees you specifically think ought to have their nominations revoked and do you think it should generally be part of the practice of the Council to review its previous nominees to discover if any particular nominee ought to have their nominations revoked)?
Click to expand...
The nomination feature, if I remember correctly, was introduced after r3n's membership lapsed three times for failure to post a citizenship oath. If the SC has determined that someone is a decent addition to the Council, there is no need for them to discuss and vote on it more than once, if there is an issue with that council members admission, or later resignation. If new information comes to light that ought to prevent someone from rejoining the SC, the SC can revoke their nomination.
 
plembobria:
I would like to ask about whether you consider the present state of disclosure of information from the Security Council to be adequate and whether you would, if on the Council, support the amendment of the Rules of the Council so as to create a disclosure mechanism? (particularly, though not exclusively, I would like to know whether you consider the present state of disclosure in relation to discussion of applicants to the Council to be appropriate, given the paucity of information that it leaves this Assembly to make its decision with)
Click to expand...
The discussion in private of applicants to the council is in private for good reason. If a member of the council takes a critical position on the acceptance of an applicant, and that information is later released, that could cause unnecessary political strife. Moreover, if a council member is aware that his opinions can be released in shortly, he will be wary of taking a critical position on an applicant, even if that critical position is well-needed, and necessary for the council to make its decision. That is why we allow for the Security Council to make nominations before the RA as its input.
Click to expand...
If I may, the question, while focused on the issue of applicants to the Council, was also aimed at eliciting a more general answer with respect to the issue of disclosure of the business of the Council.

However, in connection with the issue of applicants, may I ask how it is expected that the Assembly will function as any sort of independent check if necessary information to a decision is withheld from it; why not move to make the Council wholly self-selecting if the information necessary to decide on the applicants to the Council can only be seen by the Council with the Assembly being required, necessarily, to accept whatever recommendation (in the form of nomination or lack thereof) that the Council makes?

plembobria:
Would discussion of an amendment to the rules of the Council, in order to provide for the disclosure of information, require secrecy, considering the abstract nature of such a discussion?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Click to expand...
Why?

EDIT: Further question:

The Council will, presuming that you and Kasch are confirmed, have eleven members (the Vice Delegate included), making it larger than it has been for some time, though not, I think, larger than it has ever been. Do you think that there is some upper-bound on the number of Councillors that their ought to be? Do you think that we may be near that upper-bound at present?
 
I object to scheduling a vote. The applicant has unanswered questions.
 
I object to the decision to schedule a vote on this matter.

The applicant has not answered the questions that have been put to him. To permit a vote on his application without those questions being answered or the applicant giving reasons for his failure to answer them (despite the considerable opportunity to do so) is damaging to the ability of this Assembly to function as an effective scrutiny body and it is unfair to those applicants who have candidly answered the questions put to them. In the event that the objections are not raised to halt this vote and these questions (and necessary follow-ups) remain unanswered or non-answers unexplained, then I will have to vote against the confirmation of the applicant.
 
Zyvet:
plembobria:
I would like to ask about whether you consider the present state of disclosure of information from the Security Council to be adequate and whether you would, if on the Council, support the amendment of the Rules of the Council so as to create a disclosure mechanism? (particularly, though not exclusively, I would like to know whether you consider the present state of disclosure in relation to discussion of applicants to the Council to be appropriate, given the paucity of information that it leaves this Assembly to make its decision with)
Click to expand...
The discussion in private of applicants to the council is in private for good reason. If a member of the council takes a critical position on the acceptance of an applicant, and that information is later released, that could cause unnecessary political strife. Moreover, if a council member is aware that his opinions can be released in shortly, he will be wary of taking a critical position on an applicant, even if that critical position is well-needed, and necessary for the council to make its decision. That is why we allow for the Security Council to make nominations before the RA as its input.
Click to expand...
If I may, the question, while focused on the issue of applicants to the Council, was also aimed at eliciting a more general answer with respect to the issue of disclosure of the business of the Council.

However, in connection with the issue of applicants, may I ask how it is expected that the Assembly will function as any sort of independent check if necessary information to a decision is withheld from it; why not move to make the Council wholly self-selecting if the information necessary to decide on the applicants to the Council can only be seen by the Council with the Assembly being required, necessarily, to accept whatever recommendation (in the form of nomination or lack thereof) that the Council makes?
Click to expand...
The RA has the final say on acceptance of Security Council members because non-Councillors may have potential information which could lead to the eventual rejection of the applicant. The difference is a non-councilor need not worry that their fears be aired in the open if they have no problem airing them in the first place.

Zyvet:
plembobria:
Would discussion of an amendment to the rules of the Council, in order to provide for the disclosure of information, require secrecy, considering the abstract nature of such a discussion?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Click to expand...
Why?

EDIT: Further question:

The Council will, presuming that you and Kasch are confirmed, have eleven members (the Vice Delegate included), making it larger than it has been for some time, though not, I think, larger than it has ever been. Do you think that there is some upper-bound on the number of Councillors that their ought to be? Do you think that we may be near that upper-bound at present?
Click to expand...
I don't think there should be an upper limit, considering quite a few members of the council at any given moment are usually inactive.
 
plembobria:
Zyvet:
plembobria:
I would like to ask about whether you consider the present state of disclosure of information from the Security Council to be adequate and whether you would, if on the Council, support the amendment of the Rules of the Council so as to create a disclosure mechanism? (particularly, though not exclusively, I would like to know whether you consider the present state of disclosure in relation to discussion of applicants to the Council to be appropriate, given the paucity of information that it leaves this Assembly to make its decision with)
Click to expand...
The discussion in private of applicants to the council is in private for good reason. If a member of the council takes a critical position on the acceptance of an applicant, and that information is later released, that could cause unnecessary political strife. Moreover, if a council member is aware that his opinions can be released in shortly, he will be wary of taking a critical position on an applicant, even if that critical position is well-needed, and necessary for the council to make its decision. That is why we allow for the Security Council to make nominations before the RA as its input.
Click to expand...
If I may, the question, while focused on the issue of applicants to the Council, was also aimed at eliciting a more general answer with respect to the issue of disclosure of the business of the Council.

However, in connection with the issue of applicants, may I ask how it is expected that the Assembly will function as any sort of independent check if necessary information to a decision is withheld from it; why not move to make the Council wholly self-selecting if the information necessary to decide on the applicants to the Council can only be seen by the Council with the Assembly being required, necessarily, to accept whatever recommendation (in the form of nomination or lack thereof) that the Council makes?
Click to expand...
The RA has the final say on acceptance of Security Council members because non-Councillors may have potential information which could lead to the eventual rejection of the applicant. The difference is a non-councilor need not worry that their fears be aired in the open if they have no problem airing them in the first place.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I follow. Members of the Council and those not on the Council alike are notionally open to political response if they raise a concern (presuming such a response would be likely, which seems one of the predominant reasons given for defending the current opacity); were I to raise a concern which was so unpopular as to give rise to some retaliation that could be effected by removing me from office or by not reelecting me, should I stand again, or even by voting against my becoming a member of the Council, were I to apply. These are, essentially, the same pressures as could be put on a Councillor, are they not?

In any event, if the objective of having the matter considered by this Assembly is to raise new evidence, could that not be accomplished by simply having the Council take evidence of an applicant's suitability from the public? Indeed, could that not be more effective, as such members of the public would not open themselves up to political ramifications, thereby ensuring all concerns were raised?

Further, as it seems my hint was missed, what about disclosure more widely? Ought the current situation of near total secrecy continue?

Zyvet:
plembobria:
Would discussion of an amendment to the rules of the Council, in order to provide for the disclosure of information, require secrecy, considering the abstract nature of such a discussion?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Click to expand...
Why?
Click to expand...
It seems that this "Why?" was missed also.
 
I'm not sure I follow. Members of the Council and those not on the Council alike are notionally open to political response if they raise a concern (presuming such a response would be likely, which seems one of the predominant reasons given for defending the current opacity); were I to raise a concern which was so unpopular as to give rise to some retaliation that could be effected by removing me from office or by not reelecting me, should I stand again, or even by voting against my becoming a member of the Council, were I to apply. These are, essentially, the same pressures as could be put on a Councillor, are they not?
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about future political response, I'm talking about having to cooperate with a perceived enemy on the council. Note that there are also could be classified security concerns tangential to an application which would necessitate secrecy.

In any event, if the objective of having the matter considered by this Assembly is to raise new evidence, could that not be accomplished by simply having the Council take evidence of an applicant's suitability from the public? Indeed, could that not be more effective, as such members of the public would not open themselves up to political ramifications, thereby ensuring all concerns were raised?
Click to expand...
No.

It seems that this "Why?" was missed also.
Click to expand...
Because of the abstract nature of such a discussion.

Can we vote now.
 
Seeing a motion and a second, a vote is scheduled to begin in five days. I am delaying the vote because debate has only recently resumed after nearly two months of silence, and many members of the assembly will need to familiarize themselves with this thread before voting. Many also joined in the intervening time, and haven't necessarily had the opportunity to post.
 
plembobria:
I'm not sure I follow. Members of the Council and those not on the Council alike are notionally open to political response if they raise a concern (presuming such a response would be likely, which seems one of the predominant reasons given for defending the current opacity); were I to raise a concern which was so unpopular as to give rise to some retaliation that could be effected by removing me from office or by not reelecting me, should I stand again, or even by voting against my becoming a member of the Council, were I to apply. These are, essentially, the same pressures as could be put on a Councillor, are they not?
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about future political response, I'm talking about having to cooperate with a perceived enemy on the council. Note that there are also could be classified security concerns tangential to an application which would necessitate secrecy.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid that I still do not follow, is your suggestion that a Councillor would hold back information which raises concerns about an applicant on the basis that the applicant may later oppose them on the Council if that information were revealed?

Where there are not security concerns, does it follow secrecy is not necessitated then?

plembobria:
In any event, if the objective of having the matter considered by this Assembly is to raise new evidence, could that not be accomplished by simply having the Council take evidence of an applicant's suitability from the public? Indeed, could that not be more effective, as such members of the public would not open themselves up to political ramifications, thereby ensuring all concerns were raised?
Click to expand...
No.
Click to expand...
Why not?

Additionally, it seems that this was missed, again, "Further, as it seems my hint was missed, what about disclosure more widely? Ought the current situation of near total secrecy continue?"

plembobria:
It seems that this "Why?" was missed also.
Click to expand...
Because of the abstract nature of such a discussion.
Click to expand...
Why so? What about an abstract discussion of principle would necessitate total secrecy? I can see a need to censor, say, a particular example to which a Councillor may allude, but abstract conversations around the need or lack thereof for secrecy of the Council's deliberations frequently occur in spaces outside of the Council's chamber, ought the questions and answers that I put to applicants to the Council or prospective Vice Delegate's be censored, given that they disclose some of the abstract arguments for secrecy?

I object to the decision to schedule a vote in relation to this matter. The applicant again, did not answer, or explain not answering, all of the questions put to him.
 
Seeing that the applicant has more questions to be answered, I also object to the decision to schedule a vote.
 
I have a question toward the applicant.

Who has responsibility for the execution of Article 5 of the SC Procedures, specifically clause b?
b. In the interest of protecting the delegacy from rogue elements, the Council will observe and report on nations whose endorsements reach two-thirds of the Vice Delegate's endorsement count, exceed the endorsement count of multiple Council members, or are otherwise notably high or rapidly growing; who are endorsed by a particularly unusual group of nations; or who otherwise raise suspicions or concerns.
Click to expand...

What nations do the procedures currently mandate observation of purely based on their current endorsement count?
 
A wider discussion about disclosure may be necessary. But I don't see why this should hold up the applicant who is a former Delegate and SC member in good standing.

I motion for an immediate vote.
 
Not sure if I am thirding or fourthing McM's motion, or if those are even legitimate words, but I am joining McM's motion all the same.
 
I'm in agreement with McMasterdonia and second their motion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top