Security Council Member Standards

[Praetor]

There is a rather strange phrase in the constitution which singles out members of the Security Council for an exemption of maintaining citizenship. This was a phrase which I always thought to be bizarre and always planned to present legislation to this effect, given recent discussion on standards for Security Council members, I thought this was an appropriate time to bring this to the Regional Assembly.

Article 7, Section 7 was originally edited to exempt Security Councillors from being Members of the Regional Assembly—before citizenship existed—membership in the RA was harder to maintain since individuals could be removed for failing to log in to the North Pacific forum for over 30 consecutive days; or failing to vote for 20 consecutive days and missing four consecutive RA votes. The argument was SC members should not be forced to participate in the day-to-day happenings in the RA. After all, SC members are often veterans of TNP and may want to take a step back from the legislative process after their years of dedicated service to the region. Members of the Regional Assembly are now Citizens with a broader way to meeting activity requirements as such, there is no longer a logical justification for exemption.

Security Council members are charged with protecting our region: to do so effectively they need the trust of residents in the region—a nation which is never seen to interact with the community will have a harder time gaining endorsements than one who does not, all else remaining equal. With the recent Citizenship Amendment permitting citizenship activity requirements to be met by posts on the forum or on the Regional Message Board, I do not think it poses an undue burden on Security Council members to maintain citizenship.

Thus, I submit this bill to the Regional Assembly:

Article 7, Clause 7 of the Constitution shall be amended to:

7. All government officials must maintain citizenship while in office.

Spoiler: Markup

7. All government officials , with the exception of members of the Security Council, must maintain citizenship while in office.

 

[Pallaith]

While I am inclined to agree with this amendment, I do not think recent changes to the law or the change from RA membership to all citizens being the RA fundamentally changes the picture for SC members. One could make the exact same argument about them taking a step back and not doing day to day things that was made back then. All that changed is that it's harder for them to lose their office by virtue of losing citizenship than it was to lose RA membership. Put another way, your case for making this change, I feel, would have been as valid back then as it is now. If we make this change it is not because it's even harder to lose citizenship, but because our standard for the activity we expect of our officials has changed to the point where we expect this to be the new norm. I happen to believe that our standard has changed and we are ready to make this change.

So for what it's worth, I agree and I support this proposal, but I don't think the argument is more compelling for the reasons you stated. I want to put that out there now before potential counterpoints arguing those particulars get us distracted from the underlying argument.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

All for it. The original intent was to widen the pool of available candidates by being able to include long-time TNP nations who mainly played gameside. Times have definitely changed, and this exemption is no longer needed. Indeed, it would be unlikely that an app from a non-citizen would pass muster with the RA.

 

[El Fiji Grande]

I think the norm for SCers has changed, and that this amendment is actually far beneath the minimum expectation for SCers. Full support.

 

[Siwale]

I don't think there is anything more to add. This proposal seems to be a no-brainer. Where should I put my "Aye"?

 

[Praetor]

Motion to vote.

 

[SillyString]

I agree that our expectations for government officials, and in particular SCers, have changed.

I also agree that the change from citizenship being linked to legislative activity in the RA has removed the original argument for this exemption.

I support this bill.

 

[Oracle]

The motion for a vote is recognized. We are now in 5 days of formal debate. A vote is scheduled to begin 2 days after the end of formal debate.

 

[Oracle]

A reminder, the formal debate period is now closed and the vote is scheduled to begin in 2 days.

 

[punk d]

Ah, I remember a couple of review cases around the question as to whether SC members were government officials or not.

The good ol' days!I think the intent of allowing people who were not active as RA members was to value in-game activity. I've always been a player more active offsite than on. But there are players who are just the opposite and I believe we wanted to give those players who were involved in the onsite community a path to protecting the entire community.

I haven't been around long enough to understand the recent law changes but did want to add my two cents into the history.

 

[Praetor]

The (relatively) recent law changes are that to maintain citizenship one may post anywhere on the forums or on TNP's RMB every 30 days.

Under the previous situation, I think the law made sense. However, it makes more sense to be open in how one can maintain citizenship and with the broad requirements, there is no need to exclude them (and quite honestly, the community has higher standards than just citizenship).

 

[Oracle]

This bill is now at a vote.