The Legal Code currently calls for a suspension of members of the Security Council when certain requirements are not met, however, there is no real definition of what a suspension entails. Therefore, I, in collaboration with the Security Council, propose the following changes:
Security Council Suspensions Amendment
- Thread starter Siwale
- Start date
- Discord
- COE#7110
I have a few suggestions.
1. In the new clause 15, consider substituting "unavailable" for "absent." That would more closely mirror the constitution, which says "11. In the case of a vacancy or absence in the office of Delegate or Vice Delegate, the first available person in the line of succession will assume the duties of the vacated position."
2. I see a loophole in the the new clause 18. If someone comes back into compliance with SC requirements, say, 100 days after their suspension, they could claim "I should be reinstated because I did come into compliance after 45 days...a long time after! Har har." To close this, I would substitute "within" for "after."
3. In the new clause 20, "the same positioning" is a bit vague. Does this mean that if they were third before, they will be third again, even if the line of succession is changed in the meantime? Also, it seems to contradict clause 15, which implies that they are still in the line of succession, just absent/unavailable. Why would they be "added back" if they were still there all along? I would suggest removing this clause entirely, and perhaps rewording clause 15 to make clear that they are never actually removed from the LoS, they just lose all the powers associated with being in the LoS.
1. In the new clause 15, consider substituting "unavailable" for "absent." That would more closely mirror the constitution, which says "11. In the case of a vacancy or absence in the office of Delegate or Vice Delegate, the first available person in the line of succession will assume the duties of the vacated position."
2. I see a loophole in the the new clause 18. If someone comes back into compliance with SC requirements, say, 100 days after their suspension, they could claim "I should be reinstated because I did come into compliance after 45 days...a long time after! Har har." To close this, I would substitute "within" for "after."
3. In the new clause 20, "the same positioning" is a bit vague. Does this mean that if they were third before, they will be third again, even if the line of succession is changed in the meantime? Also, it seems to contradict clause 15, which implies that they are still in the line of succession, just absent/unavailable. Why would they be "added back" if they were still there all along? I would suggest removing this clause entirely, and perhaps rewording clause 15 to make clear that they are never actually removed from the LoS, they just lose all the powers associated with being in the LoS.
- Discord
- COE#7110
So far there haven't been any substantive comments on this legislation, which makes me nervous, because with fewer critical eyes, flaws can skip through more easily. I also would have thought that anything to do with the SC would have generated more controversy.
Anyone care to weigh in?
Anyone care to weigh in?
Barbarossistan
TNPer
I object to scheduling a vote, I think more debate is required before a vote
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
I think the bill is mostly straightforward and I support the move for a vote.
R
Rivercastle
Guest
A few points:
1. When you say "within 45 days", is that counted from the point the warning is issued or from the point the Councilor is suspended?
2. The Security Council Procedure mentions that an Acting Chair may be designated by the Chair. Should the new Clause 15 expand the list of duties to include being designated as Acting Chair?
1. When you say "within 45 days", is that counted from the point the warning is issued or from the point the Councilor is suspended?
2. The Security Council Procedure mentions that an Acting Chair may be designated by the Chair. Should the new Clause 15 expand the list of duties to include being designated as Acting Chair?
Barbarossistan and Mall,
If you feel that more debate is needed, would you care to weigh in? I'm willing to listen to your concerns but I can't do that unless you contribute to the discussion. This bill has been up for 10 days now. While I realize not everyone checks the RA on a daily basis, I think 10 days is ample amount of time to read over these changes and raise any concerns that fellow citizens may have. These changes are relatively minor and may not warrant a ton of discussion. They involve the addition of 2 clauses to address the lack of a current definition in our legal code. If you are simply objecting to the vote because there are not a ton of posts in this thread, I ask you to reconsider.
If you feel that more debate is needed, would you care to weigh in? I'm willing to listen to your concerns but I can't do that unless you contribute to the discussion. This bill has been up for 10 days now. While I realize not everyone checks the RA on a daily basis, I think 10 days is ample amount of time to read over these changes and raise any concerns that fellow citizens may have. These changes are relatively minor and may not warrant a ton of discussion. They involve the addition of 2 clauses to address the lack of a current definition in our legal code. If you are simply objecting to the vote because there are not a ton of posts in this thread, I ask you to reconsider.
1. 45 days from the point when the Councillor is suspended. When the warning is first issued, the Councillor is not suspended until they fail to come back into compliance after 8 days.Rivercastle:
2. The acting chair is responsible for performing the duties of the Vice Delegate. I think the new Clause 15 covers that scenario.
Barbarossistan
TNPer
Well, I do agree with CoE that we need a bit more consideration in general. I also intended to say something before but got distracted by a recent court decision I felt I had to respond to.
ok, to the matter at hand
Since suspensions hapen due to low endorsement count and a suspended SC member may not become delegate or vice-delegate would it not be better to remove them from the line of succession altogether? They can be reinstated when their count is back up. This seems more in line with the intent here as being in a line of succession where you cannot meaningfully succeed anyone makes little sense and leaving suspended members in line could end up forcing SC members notionally lower in line to succeed instead, rather inelegegant.
Clause 18 is ambiguous as to when the 45-day term starts, add "from the start of the suspension" would solve that I think, it is also ambiguous as to who does the removing, the vice delegate perhaps? If so, say so. If it is intended that removal is automatic by law, say that.
Clause 20 seems to create a problem in that security risks are often immediate and the procedure provided for here will be inherently slow, should a clause be added that the SC may suspend members by (weighted) majority vote if they are though a security risk, this must then be put before the RA for a vote within say 2-3 days, failure to do so means the suspension automatically ends and may not be reissued within 30 (or more) days, the RA then votes wether the member is a security risk, if he is thought so, he is ejected from the council, if not the suspension ends.
ok, to the matter at hand
Since suspensions hapen due to low endorsement count and a suspended SC member may not become delegate or vice-delegate would it not be better to remove them from the line of succession altogether? They can be reinstated when their count is back up. This seems more in line with the intent here as being in a line of succession where you cannot meaningfully succeed anyone makes little sense and leaving suspended members in line could end up forcing SC members notionally lower in line to succeed instead, rather inelegegant.
Clause 18 is ambiguous as to when the 45-day term starts, add "from the start of the suspension" would solve that I think, it is also ambiguous as to who does the removing, the vice delegate perhaps? If so, say so. If it is intended that removal is automatic by law, say that.
Clause 20 seems to create a problem in that security risks are often immediate and the procedure provided for here will be inherently slow, should a clause be added that the SC may suspend members by (weighted) majority vote if they are though a security risk, this must then be put before the RA for a vote within say 2-3 days, failure to do so means the suspension automatically ends and may not be reissued within 30 (or more) days, the RA then votes wether the member is a security risk, if he is thought so, he is ejected from the council, if not the suspension ends.
1. I agree that Clause 18 is a bit ambiguous as to when the 45 day term starts. I will edit this portion of the bill.Barbarossistan:
2. Clause 14 clearly states who is responsible for suspending members of the Council. Adding it to Clause 18 as well is a bit redundant.
How the Security Council responds to threats from among their own members is an entirely different topic. I have not edited this clause and have no intentions to do so for the purpose of this bill.Barbarossistan:
The request to shorten formal debate is rejected due to the ongoing holiday season and the lack of need for celerity on this matter.Siwale:
This bill is now in formal debate, which will last for five days, after which a vote will be scheduled.
I haven't weighed in on this until now, but I like and support this bill. The lack of clarity about the meaning of an SC suspension, and its ability to go on indefinitely, has bothered me for quite some time. I'm very glad the Vice Delegate took the initiative to correct this!