[PASSED] The Surgeon General Act

Dreadton

Dreadton

PC Load Letter
-
-
-
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
Dreadton
Discord
Dreadton
During Z-Day the delegate tends to appoint a Surgeon General to lead the regional response. But since the Delegate appoints the Surgeon General, this would make them a government officially subject to the dual office holding laws. It seems a bit silly that a person cant be the Surgeon General for this event without losing a more important office. As the Surgeon General only exist for this event and its response, along with having no other responsibility outside of this event, I am proposing a minor addition to the Disease Control section of the Legal Code. The intent is for the Delegate to be able to choose the best persona available without them having to choose between the event and their current office. As this section already limits and defines the Delegates authority within the scope of this event, it is the best spot for this addition .

Section 8.2 shall be amended as follows and following sections shall be renumber as needed:
5. During an outbreak, the delegate is authorized to act in any reasonable manner to pursue the adopted plan. This includes, but is not limited to, ejecting or banning nations from the region who have entered the region during the crisis, imposing restrictions on national movement into the region, and granting Border Control to other government officials for the duration of the event.
6. No more than 30 days before the historical start of the event, the Delegate may appoint a Citizen to assist in the regional response to an infectious disease outbreak. The appointee is exempt from constitutional restrictions on holding multiple government offices for purposes of their appointment. The appointee's term shall end at the conclusion of the event.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Section 8.2 shall be amended as follows and following sections shall be renumber as needed:
9. No more than 30 days before the historical start of the event, the Delegate may appoint a Citizen to assist in the regional response to an infectious disease outbreak. The appointee is exempt from constitutional restrictions on holding multiple government offices for purposes of their appointment. The appointee's term shall end at the conclusion of the event.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Section 8.2 shall be amended as follows and following sections shall be renumber as needed:
9. No more than 30 days before the historical start of the event, the Delegate may appoint a Surgeon General to assist in the regional response to an infectious disease outbreak. The Surgeon General is exempt from constitutional restrictions on holding multiple government offices for purposes of their appointment as Surgeon General. The Surgeon General's term shall end at the conclusion of the event.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I have no objections to the proposal as written. This feels like a simple loophole to correct.
 
This seems unnecessary. If there is a concern for branch crossing then just don't have them take an oath as Surgeon General.
 
Does the Surgeon General require any Regional Officer powers? They have to be a government official to be given any RO powers. (LC 7.2)

Or, do you think Section 8 covers a non-government official having RO powers?
 
Last edited:
The Surgeon General has been utilized in different was over the years. If you want them to handle communications, then you need the be able to RO them. It could be easier to just tap an existing minister, as that nips that problem in the bud. Sometimes we had issues because of the multi-branch thing, sometimes we just went without the RO powers.

I am supportive of removing this block from the Surgeon General, but I don't think I would do it quite in this way. I like the flexibility of the timing and even what we name the role (I will acknowledge this draft does preserve the flexibility somewhat by allotting them 30 days), so I would propose simply adding a provision explicitly saying the delegate's appointees for the sake of responding to this event are exempt from the restrictions on holding multiple offices. Let's say we have a weird year and the region decides to go full zombie. Would it still make sense to call the role Surgeon General? Or what if we just shoot everything? I also happen to believe that we can already skirt this requirement, as it is reasonable in response to the emergency, but an explicit provision is obviously safer because people have been litigious in this event before.
 
Sil Dorsett:
Does the Surgeon General require any Regional Officer powers? They have to be a government official to be given any RO powers. (LC 7.2)

Or, do you think Section 8 covers a non-government official having RO powers?
Click to expand...

Depending on the Delegate and the plan for the year, generally APPEARANCE, COMMUNICATIONS, and BORDER CONTROL are used during the event, with Border Control being held by one of the existing people legally allowed to have it.

You could put forth the case that giving a non-government offical Regional Powers is within the Delegates ability for the emergency, but it would be limited to the actual event and wouldn't allow for any use in any pre-event use of the powers. It would also be a dangerous precedent I'm not comfortable with.

Pallaith:
The Surgeon General has been utilized in different was over the years. If you want them to handle communications, then you need the be able to RO them. It could be easier to just tap an existing minister, as that nips that problem in the bud. Sometimes we had issues because of the multi-branch thing, sometimes we just went without the RO powers.

I am supportive of removing this block from the Surgeon General, but I don't think I would do it quite in this way. I like the flexibility of the timing and even what we name the role (I will acknowledge this draft does preserve the flexibility somewhat by allotting them 30 days), so I would propose simply adding a provision explicitly saying the delegate's appointees for the sake of responding to this event are exempt from the restrictions on holding multiple offices. Let's say we have a weird year and the region decides to go full zombie. Would it still make sense to call the role Surgeon General? Or what if we just shoot everything? I also happen to believe that we can already skirt this requirement, as it is reasonable in response to the emergency, but an explicit provision is obviously safer because people have been litigious in this event before.
Click to expand...

I put in the term limit to prevent a Delegate from using this provision to get around the Minister restrictions. If the region wants the Ministers to be able to dual office hold, that would be better addressed else where. I feel that 30 days before and the end of the event gives enough flexibility for the appointee to have regional authority without opening too much of a security window. Nothing would stop the Delegate from getting a team and plan together before the event, but the actual office holding and authority for the appointee would be reasonably restricted.

I see the point about the title. I will change the first occurrence to Citizen, and the other two to Appointee.
 
I have some additional feedback.

I actually don’t like where you’re trying to put this clause. I think it’s more appropriate earlier in that chapter, around 4 or 5. And along those lines, I’m wondering if this could be folded into those clauses instead of having its own. My first thought on this is amend clause 5 to include “appointing citizens to assist in the region’s response to the outbreak, including border control.” Then perhaps you do add a clause after that one, something like “Any officials appointed to assist in the region’s response are exempt from constitutional restrictions on holding multiple government offices for purposes of their appointment, and their office will automatically expire when the event ends.”

My thinking here is that it’s easy enough to appoint someone ahead of the event, and if you do so they can basically do everything but BC since there’s no emergency. This is the section on emergencies - it doesn’t make much sense to me to dictate how they assign offices out of an emergency. However, explicitly acknowledging appointees in the clause about the extra powers during an emergency, and putting BC on the table explicitly instead of just allowing it in the broad sweep of powers seems to be in keeping with what you’re aiming with this bill. It also extends the constitutional exemption to the appointees prior to the event, and still terminates the offices by law. I don’t know, I think it’s cleaner this way and also flows more naturally in the chronological order of things.
 
Pallaith:
I have some additional feedback.

I actually don’t like where you’re trying to put this clause. I think it’s more appropriate earlier in that chapter, around 4 or 5. And along those lines, I’m wondering if this could be folded into those clauses instead of having its own. My first thought on this is amend clause 5 to include “appointing citizens to assist in the region’s response to the outbreak, including border control.” Then perhaps you do add a clause after that one, something like “Any officials appointed to assist in the region’s response are exempt from constitutional restrictions on holding multiple government offices for purposes of their appointment, and their office will automatically expire when the event ends.”

My thinking here is that it’s easy enough to appoint someone ahead of the event, and if you do so they can basically do everything but BC since there’s no emergency. This is the section on emergencies - it doesn’t make much sense to me to dictate how they assign offices out of an emergency. However, explicitly acknowledging appointees in the clause about the extra powers during an emergency, and putting BC on the table explicitly instead of just allowing it in the broad sweep of powers seems to be in keeping with what you’re aiming with this bill. It also extends the constitutional exemption to the appointees prior to the event, and still terminates the offices by law. I don’t know, I think it’s cleaner this way and also flows more naturally in the chronological order of things.
Click to expand...

Adding it to those provision, would make them too clunky I think .
During an outbreak, the delegate is authorized to act in any reasonable manner to pursue the adopted plan. This includes, but is not limited to, ejecting or banning nations from the region who have entered the region during the crisis and imposing restrictions on national movement into the region, appointing citizens to assist in the region’s response to the outbreak. Any citizen appointed to assist in the region’s response are exempt from constitutional restrictions on holding multiple government offices for purposes of their appointment, and their office will automatically expire when the event ends.
Click to expand...

That just seems to be overwritten and I think having it in its own provision is best. But We can move it up to 6 instead of at the end.

As for Border Control. I am not open to granting it to the appointee outside of the actual event. The other regional authorties have a use pre-event. Appearance an communications are good for the poll part and prep communications and information to be sent to the region. Border control is only needed for the event and has no pre event use. You could specifiy that its a grantable power for the event and only the event, but I would think the existing provision can cover that.
 
Dreadton:
Adding it to those provision, would make them too clunky I think .


That just seems to be overwritten and I think having it in its own provision is best. But We can move it up to 6 instead of at the end.

As for Border Control. I am not open to granting it to the appointee outside of the actual event. The other regional authorties have a use pre-event. Appearance an communications are good for the poll part and prep communications and information to be sent to the region. Border control is only needed for the event and has no pre event use. You could specifiy that its a grantable power for the event and only the event, but I would think the existing provision can cover that.
Click to expand...
Yes, my suggestion was to add BC to the list of “including but not limited to” things the delegate can do during the emergency. My suggestion was not to give them BC ahead of the event. I think that was unclear with how I talked about it.

I also agree about clunkiness, I had said maybe you do that separate clause and putting it as 6 would work. That way you introduce the idea of appointing people and then give them the exemption.
 
I’m still not enthused by the stipulation of 30 days before the event, I’m also wary of referring to the historical start because I’m always paranoid they may switch things up on us and go with a different date. You also still arguably limit this to a single appointee, and we have often have more than one person appointed to this role. You don’t have to use the wording I suggested verbatim, but the reason I went for it is because it granted the constitutional exemption and expired the role at the end of the event, which is really what we’re aiming for. Everything else is potentially more restrictive than necessary, and I want to maintain flexibility for the delegate.

Your language for clause 5 is fine as far as I’m concerned, mind that extra space near the comma though.
 
Pallaith:
I’m still not enthused by the stipulation of 30 days before the event, I’m also wary of referring to the historical start because I’m always paranoid they may switch things up on us and go with a different date. You also still arguably limit this to a single appointee, and we have often have more than one person appointed to this role. You don’t have to use the wording I suggested verbatim, but the reason I went for it is because it granted the constitutional exemption and expired the role at the end of the event, which is really what we’re aiming for. Everything else is potentially more restrictive than necessary, and I want to maintain flexibility for the delegate.

Your language for clause 5 is fine as far as I’m concerned, mind that extra space near the comma though.
Click to expand...

NS tends to not annouce the event until 2-3 days before the 31st. I do not know how else to put some sort of limit on it to prevent a Delegate from misusing the provision.
 
Dreadton:
NS tends to not annouce the event until 2-3 days before the 31st. I do not know how else to put some sort of limit on it to prevent a Delegate from misusing the provision.
Click to expand...
Right now I as the delegate can appoint whoever I want to whatever I want. Most of the time though those are going to be titles that don’t really have any concrete power. Unless I give them an RO spot, what practically are you concerned with? A surgeon general appointed in July isn’t going to have much of anything to do anyway. I don’t see delegates even making the appointment 30 days in advance.
 
Pallaith:
Right now I as the delegate can appoint whoever I want to whatever I want. Most of the time though those are going to be titles that don’t really have any concrete power. Unless I give them an RO spot, what practically are you concerned with? A surgeon general appointed in July isn’t going to have much of anything to do anyway. I don’t see delegates even making the appointment 30 days in advance.
Click to expand...

You can, but none of them can dual office hold, except for the person in this position.
 
Dreadton:
You can, but none of them can dual office hold, except for the person in this position.
Click to expand...
Yes…but my point was more, what can they do that’s so horrible if your bill isn’t strictly controlling the timeline? The more concerning bit is the hypothetical BC, and that gets shut down with the bit abolishing the office when the event is over. And the BC can’t be assigned except during the event.
 
Pallaith:
Yes…but my point was more, what can they do that’s so horrible if your bill isn’t strictly controlling the timeline? The more concerning bit is the hypothetical BC, and that gets shut down with the bit abolishing the office when the event is over. And the BC can’t be assigned except during the event.
Click to expand...

The last time that issue was brought before the region, it failed at vote. Why risk this bill here on that point?
 
Dreadton:
The last time that issue was brought before the region, it failed at vote. Why risk this bill here on that point?
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you’re talking about. This isn’t a BC powers bill. This isn’t creating something that doesn’t already exist, it’s being specific about a type of thing that can happen during the event to avoid future disputes surrounding it. And all I’m suggesting is you eliminate an unnecessary provision that restricts the number of appointees and when they can be appointed. I thought you were worried about some sort of abuse but now BC is the concern? What am I missing?
 
We moved on, you asked about removing the start point on when a person can be appointed to this position. I do not want to because they will have a dual office holding provision as a government official and that opens the executive into having the equivalent of an adviser to the delegate exempt from dual office holding. This hasn’t flown in the past, most recently I believe, was a push for the justices to be able to dual hold.

lets Say we remove that 30 days before provision. What will stop me from running in January and appointing the Speaker as the Surgeon General and using them as an Advisor ? Besides what I hope would be a potential push back from the region.
 
Oh, is that the concern? Well I should point out that advisers already have the constitutional exemption. I was serving as an adviser while a Court Justice.

3. Advisors to the Delegate are government officials appointed by the Delegate who serve only to advise the Delegate, and are exempt from constitutional restrictions on holding multiple government offices for purposes of their appointment.
Click to expand...
If I want to appoint the Speaker as an adviser, something I agree most people would find weird, I can already do it. There is no reason for me to hide that in the Surgeon General appointment.
 
The way the current version is written, would this allow the delegate to give BC to a citizen who is not on the Security Council?
 
Great Bights Mum:
The way the current version is written, would this allow the delegate to give BC to a citizen who is not on the Security Council?
Click to expand...

It explicitly states it as an option for the event and only the event. It does not allow it for the term of the appointee. The current version that is in law, theoretically allows it under the "act in any reasonable manner" provision. The only change this law would do is make it an explicit action for the event.
 
Pallaith:
Oh, is that the concern? Well I should point out that advisers already have the constitutional exemption. I was serving as an adviser while a Court Justice.


If I want to appoint the Speaker as an adviser, something I agree most people would find weird, I can already do it. There is no reason for me to hide that in the Surgeon General appointment.
Click to expand...

Advisor may not be the best comparison. If the appointees are executing duties in relation to this event on behalf of the Delegate, then by definition they are Executive Officers. Thanks for pointing that section of the legal code out. Equaling them to advisors as we commonly define it in law would prevent what is trying to be accomplished with this bill.
 
The five days of Formal Debate have elapsed. No more amendments may be made. This will go to vote at around (time=1665435600).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top