Changes to the Line of Succession

[Cretox]

With several new additions to the Security Council, the Line of Succession is in need of updating. This proposed Line of Succession is the result of several factors, and was reached by consensus and debate among the SC. We believe the proposed LoS meets the needs of the region and regional security.

1. The Vice Delegate
2. Pallaith
3. Siwale
4. Great Bights Mum
5. Former English Colony
6. Sil Dorsett
7. El Fiji Grande
8. Cretox State
9. TlomzKrano
10. Dreadton
11. Nessuno
12. Marcus Antonius
13. Lord Lore
14. Rocketdog

 

[Bobberino]

Corrupt Cretox State just wants to propel himself up the Line of Succession. See through this charade, sheeple!!!

In seriousness, if you feel like this needs elaboration, Mr. Vice Delegate @Cretox State, I welcome a statement. Or not, if you deem the above sufficient.

 

[Honeydewistan]

I should be 1.

 

[Tim Kasto]

I should be 1.

yes

 

[Robespierre]

This proposed Line of Succession is the result of several factors, and was reached by consensus and debate among the SC. We believe the proposed LoS meets the needs of the region and regional security.

In the interests of the Regional Assembly at-large, I ask the following:

As was the case when the Line of Succession was last amended on 25 June 2019, I'm wondering if you could provide a brief statement that elaborates on the several factors you refer to in your opening post. As for the proposed changes, then-Vice Delegate Sil Dorsett said that "[the] line is generally decided by overall activity, tenure in the Security Council, and delegacy experience" when the aforementioned most recent LoS amendment was being discussed and debated.

Is this still the case with the Security Council's current proposal for an amendment to the LoS? I mostly ask as a formality, not as a criticism

 

[Cretox]

As was the case when the Line of Succession was last amended on 25 June 2019, I'm wondering if you could provide a brief statement that elaborates on the several factors you refer to in your opening post. As for the proposed changes, then-Vice Delegate Sil Dorsett said that "[the] line is generally decided by overall activity, tenure in the Security Council, and delegacy experience" when the aforementioned most recent LoS amendment was being discussed and debated.

Is this still the case with the Security Council's current proposal for an amendment to the LoS? I mostly ask as a formality, not as a criticism

Good question. Yeah, those are the usual factors considered when it comes to the LoS.

 

[Cretox]

Any more questions/comments/concerns?

 

[Rocketdog]

I move for a vote

 

[Gorundu]

I have some questions that I've been meaning to ask but was too busy to, so apologies for these questions coming in very last minute.

Mainly, I would like to ask if the Vice Delegate and the Security Council would be willing to release discussions relating to amending the Line of Succession. It does not seem to me that discussions on this area would be particularly sensitive to the degree that it requires complete secrecy . As the Vice Delegate has stated in response to a previous question, the LoS is determined based on "overall activity, tenure in the Security Council, and delegacy experience", none of which are really sensitive regional security issues.

Secondly, regarding the three aforementioned factors, is there more emphasis is placed on certain factors than others?

 

[Sil Dorsett]

Mainly, I would like to ask if the Vice Delegate and the Security Council would be willing to release discussions relating to amending the Line of Succession. It does not seem to me that discussions on this area would be particularly sensitive to the degree that it requires complete secrecy . As the Vice Delegate has stated in response to a previous question, the LoS is determined based on "overall activity, tenure in the Security Council, and delegacy experience", none of which are really sensitive regional security issues.

There's a procedure for that.

Section 5.5 Disclosure of Security Council Information
...
28. At any time a citizen may request the release of any private record from the Security Council through the Vice Delegate.
29. The Vice Delegate will retrieve the information and present it for a review to the Security Council. The Security Council will have 14 days to review the compiled information for any information that should be deemed classified and redact said information. Once the 14 days has elapsed, the information requested will be presented as is, with the exception of Real-life information.
...

Fill out the request in this thread:

Security Council Information Disclosure Request Thread

North Pacific Security Council Disclosure Request Citizens may use this thread to request the release of private Security Council records. Records that are requested must go through a declassification process and information may be redacted for the following reasons: Real life information...

forum.thenorthpacific.org

Ignore the part about records needing to be 1 year old. That doesn't apply to specific requests.

 

[Gorundu]

snip

I'm aware of the thread. I suppose my question is more of - why did the discussion need to take place in secrecy in the first place?

 

[Sil Dorsett]

It probably didn't. We have a new Vice Delegate who's new to the Security Council themselves, and they probably just didn't realize that not every conversation we start needs to be started in the private subforum. That's probably all it was.

 

[Cretox]

I'm aware of the thread. I suppose my question is more of - why did the discussion need to take place in secrecy in the first place?

It probably didn't. We have a new Vice Delegate who's new to the Security Council themselves, and they probably just didn't realize that not every conversation we start needs to be started in the private subforum. That's probably all it was.

Alright, let's clear this up:

1. LoS discussions for years were started in the private subforum. This isn't a new thing.
2. Private SC discussions are similar to private executive discussions in this regard: sometimes, nothing highly sensitive is actually discussed. However, certain matters (such as the LoS in this case) are a direct concern of the SC, and there is always the possibility of sensitive information informing context or decision-making. A given change in executive policy could also probably be discussed publicly, but rarely is prior to being presented publicly for this same reason. To use another example: discussions on WA IFVs could also be held publicly, but IFVs can easily be influenced by more sensitive FA concerns, even if they aren't all the time. If a member of the general public feels it important to have access to these discussions themselves, well, that's why FOIA requests exist (someone has filed one over this discussion, and I'll act on that shortly).

Whether we (the SC) should continue to discuss LoS changes in private in the future before presenting them to the RA is an interesting subject, but not entirely relevant to this specific LoS proposal.

Secondly, regarding the three aforementioned factors, is there more emphasis is placed on certain factors than others?

This is difficult to quantify. I'd say that no individual "factor" as it were lies distinctly above the others.

Does anyone have any questions or comments on the actual LoS proposal itself?

 

[Pallaith]

Since my proposed suggested changes to the LoS during the SC's discussion are what the SC ultimately agreed to accept and bring to the RA, I figured I should explain my reasoning, in the hopes that it will serve illuminating enough that we can get on with a vote on this. I would like to remind everyone that the stakes here are incredibly low - we will never see a point where we have to go to the end of the list for someone who will only be acting delegate pending a new election. This is not something that really requires a ton of thought and where you place most of the people on it is symbolic at best. Having said that, I think the middle of the list is where we had the most potential for different orders. I prioritized Cretox over Tlomz and Dreadton because he's the sitting Vice Delegate and has greater seniority over the other two. Tlomz was a former delegate, while Dreadton was a former Vice Delegate. Everyone below Dreadton on the list has not served as either Vice Delegate or Delegate. In the past more emphasis would likely be placed on seniority first but this is a list that places more emphasis on ability to serve in the role of Delegate and generally the members in the last section are less active than the ones higher on the list (Rocketdog being the exception, and who is there due to seniority since he lacks the higher executive experience of the others I named).

Some people would lean even more in the direction of recent experience and activity and move the middle people up higher, and put the more experienced but not-served-in-executive-in-years category people loser to the bottom. Others would go in a direction mostly governed by seniority with a few exceptions. This LoS is a good blend of both approaches and agreeable to the SC as a whole.

I would also like to acknowledge and echo Cretox's previous post, I think it also helps puts things in perspective.

 

[Fregerson]

I move for a vote. If the speaker's office still considers this as valid, then this can be treated as seconding the motion to vote.

 

[Robespierre]

I move for a vote

I move for a vote. If the speaker's office still considers this as valid, then this can be treated as seconding the motion to vote.

The motion for a vote, as well as its second, has been recognized by the Speaker’s Office.

A vote is scheduled to begin immediately and will last for a period of four days

Additionally, in response to Fregerson: Regardless of the time between Rocketdog's initial motion for a vote and your own, the wording is clear enough for us to understand that it's essentially you saying "I second the motion to vote." Thus, it satisfies the Standing Procedures' second clause in regards "a functional equivalent" on motioning votes for non-legislative proposals

 

[Gorundu]

I prioritized Cretox over Tlomz and Dreadton because he's the sitting Vice Delegate and has greater seniority over the other two. Tlomz was a former delegate, while Dreadton was a former Vice Delegate. Everyone below Dreadton on the list has not served as either Vice Delegate or Delegate.

I'm not sure how being the sitting Vice Delegate matters when considering the LoS, since they are currently first in line anyway. The placement of Cretox should be based on their status after their tenure as Vice Delegate. As for seniority between the three, seeing as Tlomz and Dreadton were serving as Delegate and Vice Delegate respectively when Cretox joined the SC, I don't think it really matters. Anyhow, I'm someone who places experience, especially recent experience, over seniority, so I have several quarrels with this list, but I don't think it's necessary to expand on it here.

 

[Pallaith]

I'm not sure how being the sitting Vice Delegate matters when considering the LoS, since they are currently first in line anyway. The placement of Cretox should be based on their status after their tenure as Vice Delegate. As for seniority between the three, seeing as Tlomz and Dreadton were serving as Delegate and Vice Delegate respectively when Cretox joined the SC, I don't think it really matters. Anyhow, I'm someone who places experience, especially recent experience, over seniority, so I have several quarrels with this list, but I don't think it's necessary to expand on it here.

The LoS can outlast a current VD's term. I was basing the placement on his status after his tenure, which is that he has more seniority than the other two and would have served as a VD.

You are right that it doesn't matter all that much. These people will never have to assume the delegacy, they are too far on the list for that to ever happen anyway. I think you're not alone in having issues with the list based on your preferred criteria, and it doesn't hurt to state what they are. If more people did, we would stat to see which criteria the RA cared about most, and that would be useful in future LoS drafts. This one was designed as a compromise that is probably weighed a bit more heavily toward seniority than you would refer, but I have heard a few others who would have preferred even greater weight be given to seniority. As far as I am concerned, that's the main sticking point on these lists, and all I can say to that is, please remember that the list is hypothetical and only applicable in emergencies, and we have never had to go further than having the VD assume office, and if we have gone further, it was only the very next place. The other thing I would remind you of is that if someone does assume the office, we're talking about a period of time that is only as long as it takes to complete a special election for Delegate.