[Passed] Executive Absence Act

Pallaith

TNPer
-
-
-
-
I have noticed a curious thing in our law. While it provides for scenarios where the Speaker or the Vice Delegate may mitigate periods where they will be absent from office, it does not give the Delegate the same option. The Delegate cannot trigger the absence clause through their own volition, but must somehow be prevented by law from carrying out their duties. However, the law does not give them the option to declare such a period. We have seen this come in handy with the Vice Delegate, rather than wait for their possible vacating office or recall to ensure their duties continue uninterrupted. But the Delegate has no such option, instead relying on a delegate directive which is obviously limited in scope, and may not adequately handle the situation where a Delegate may deem it necessary to declare an absence from office. Therefore, I propose a simple change to the Legal Code to provide for just these sorts of scenarios.

Executive Absence Act:
Chapter 7 of the Legal Code is amended as follows:
Section 7.1: Definitions:
4. The Serving Delegate is the person holding the constitutionally-mandated elected office of the Delegate or, in the case of a vacancy or absence in that office, the person that has assumed the duties of that office.
Section 7.8: Absence:
48. If the Delegate is temporarily unavailable, they may declare themselves absent.
49. In the event the Delegate ceases communication with the region or is otherwise not responsive for 7 days, the Executive Officers and the Vice Delegate may declare the Delegate absent by majority vote.
50. During an absence, the Delegate will continue to serve as the WA Delegate.
51. The absence will cease when the Delegate declares their return and resumes their duties.

Executive Absence Act:
Chapter 7 of the Legal Code is amended as follows:
Section 7.1 Definitions:
4. The Serving Delegate is the person holding the constitutionally-mandated elected office of the Delegate or, in the case of a vacancy or absence in that office, the person that has assumed the duties of that office.
Section 7.8: Absence:
48. If the Delegate is temporarily unavailable, they may declare themselves absent.
49. In the event the Delegate ceases communication with the region or is otherwise not responsive for 7 days, the Executive Officers and the Vice Delegate may declare the Delegate absent by majority vote.
50. During an absence, the Delegate will continue to serve as the WA Delegate.
51. The absence will cease when the Delegate declares the resuming of their duties.

For starters, I added an explicit reference to absences in the definition section. Just seemed like a prudent thing to do. In addition to allowing for self-declaration of absence, I have also added a provision for scenarios where the delegate vanishes and the region loses contact with them, but they mechanically keep themselves in office. We have seen previous officials do this, and the only remedy was to recall them or fire them (if they were ministers). This way, business can continue while other ways of handling the situation can work their way to the finish. I figured we may as well cover that base if we were going to create this new section. I would be interested to hear if you think any other scenarios should be contemplated while we're putting this together. Finally, this bill also clears up the next potential area of concern if we provide for absences, by explicitly maintaining the Delegate's gameside role and not forcing us to do an impromptu transition back and forth. If a Delegate declares an absence and it gets to be too long, there are plenty of options to handle them, so if gameside presence becomes a problem, those avenues can be explored.
 
Last edited:
I take it this isn’t too controversial then. In that case I’ll motion for a vote with the full formal debate period initially so you still have some time to weigh in. Not a fan of keeping simple changes like this one in limbo forever though.

@Sil Dorsett
 
Everything looks good with this bill. Since you did cite the legal provisions on the absence of the Vice Delegate as an inspiration though, I did notice some inconsistencies in that area between the Constitution and the Legal Code. Perhaps something for another time.
 
I have some points concerning the mechanism for the Delegate being declared absent by the Executive Officers and the Vice Delegate.

The main one is whether this is intended to cover all those who are Executive Officers or some sub-set?

Presumably, Ministers are definitely supposed to be covered. But what about other positions that have at times been Executive Officers but who maybe shouldn't be deciding whether the Delegate is pushed out, even if it would only be temporary, like the University's Chancellor or members of oversight committees? Also, are Advisors supposed to be caught? At the moment Advisors are executive officers under the Constitution but the Legal Code (Section 7.1) defines Executive Officers more narrowly to separate them from those that just advise, so it might be necessary to have it read "Executive Officers and Advisors" if they should be included.

Another points is whether "a majority of the Executive Officers and the Vice Delegate" is meant to be counted as a singular unit or as two. That is, is it the case that the Vice Delegate's involvement is necessary (so a declaration would require the Vice Delegate plus a majority of Executive Officers) or not?
 
I have some points concerning the mechanism for the Delegate being declared absent by the Executive Officers and the Vice Delegate.

The main one is whether this is intended to cover all those who are Executive Officers or some sub-set?

Presumably, Ministers are definitely supposed to be covered. But what about other positions that have at times been Executive Officers but who maybe shouldn't be deciding whether the Delegate is pushed out, even if it would only be temporary, like the University's Chancellor or members of oversight committees? Also, are Advisors supposed to be caught? At the moment Advisors are executive officers under the Constitution but the Legal Code (Section 7.1) defines Executive Officers more narrowly to separate them from those that just advise, so it might be necessary to have it read "Executive Officers and Advisors" if they should be included.

Another points is whether "a majority of the Executive Officers and the Vice Delegate" is meant to be counted as a singular unit or as two. That is, is it the case that the Vice Delegate's involvement is necessary (so a declaration would require the Vice Delegate plus a majority of Executive Officers) or not?
Great input Zyvet. The intention of the majority vote mechanism was for the cabinet and the VD to vote on it. Advisors were not intended to be part of that vote so there’s no need to change the wording. However, who is in the cabinet can vary depending on the delegate, and it may include people who are not ministers. Executive officers is indeed a broad term, and we appoint a lot of non-cabinet people, so I’m open to suggestions for how to exclude them. I would have just said cabinet, but I don’t believe that’s a recognized term in our laws, and there’s always the chance a delegate doesn’t have a “cabinet” per se. If I change it “ministers” I have a similar problem.
 
Another points is whether "a majority of the Executive Officers and the Vice Delegate" is meant to be counted as a singular unit or as two. That is, is it the case that the Vice Delegate's involvement is necessary (so a declaration would require the Vice Delegate plus a majority of Executive Officers) or not?
On this point, perhaps the wording can be changed to
49. In the event the Delegate ceases communication with the region or is otherwise not responsive for 7 days, the Executive Officers and the Vice Delegate may declare the Delegate absent by majority vote.
 
On this point, perhaps the wording can be changed to
I accept this input and have made the change.

@Zyvetskistaahn I gave it some thought. While it was my intention for the cabinet to be the executive officers who do the vote, the cabinet is defined differently depending on who the delegate is. The cabinet model may not even be the way the delegate constitutes the government. We do not name the cabinet or even the ministries in law, and for good reason. I do not want to try to get this specific here, so I will actually leave it at this.

@Sil Dorsett I would request truncating formal debate to end Sunday evening, so as to give a bit more time, but all in all given the engagement on this bill and the rather straightforward nature of it, I see no reason to drag it along much further.
 
I accept this input and have made the change.

@Zyvetskistaahn I gave it some thought. While it was my intention for the cabinet to be the executive officers who do the vote, the cabinet is defined differently depending on who the delegate is. The cabinet model may not even be the way the delegate constitutes the government. We do not name the cabinet or even the ministries in law, and for good reason. I do not want to try to get this specific here, so I will actually leave it at this.
I think this is a fair choice, it would be difficult to narrow it and maintain the flexibility generally around executive officers. My thought on a way around it would be to allow the Delegate to specify on appointment which executive officers would count but I do not think it is too much of a problem to simply have it be left as is.
 
@Sil Dorsett I would request truncating formal debate to end Sunday evening, so as to give a bit more time, but all in all given the engagement on this bill and the rather straightforward nature of it, I see no reason to drag it along much further.
I'll accept your request and end debate at (time=1668387600), and then formally schedule a vote. Just know that I intend to schedule to vote to begin at (time=1668398400).
 
Alright, formal debate is over, as per Pallaith's request. Voting is scheduled to begin at (time=1668398400).
 
Back
Top