[DRAFT] Continuous Commissioners Act

Well, the EC has been discussing some changes that are long overdue, and one of them relates to when commissioners must be absent from elections based on when their terms expire or begin. One concern is that the term starts whenever an oath is taken, and depending on when commissioners are appointed, this can push their terms into range of elections and sometimes cause them to be absent even when they would otherwise be available. This is one reason that we have often tried to be deliberate with when commissioners are appointed and when to time the confirmation votes, and this has notably come up during my own recent appointment to the commission, where the effort to keep my term in line with when it expired led to the RA scrapping a planned vote on it with an eye toward resuming it when the date approached, only to nearly forget about it entirely. Putting these careful timing considerations at the mercy of the Speaker, especially when he is not inclined to give any weight to them, does not guarantee that our best intentions will amount to anything, and that's a frustrating outcome we can easily avoid. I propose a fix to this issue, so that it does not matter when a Delegate appoints a commissioner, and reappointed commissioners can serve the entirety of their terms without needless interruptions in service, which have ancillary effects on the commission itself. Please consider the below:

Continuous Commissioners Act:

1. Chapter 4 of the Legal Code is amended as follows:

Section 4.3: The Election Commission:

13. The term of an Election Commissioner will be six months, beginning on the day they take the Oath of Office, or at the conclusion of their previous term if they are reconfirmed and take the Oath of Office before their term expires. The Delegate does not have the power to remove an Election Commissioner.
14. All elections will be supervised by two Election Commissioners.
15. An Election Commissioner will be considered absent during any election in which they are a candidate, or during any election which began prior to the start of their term. Absent Election Commissioners may not supervise an election or participate in any decisions made by the Election Commission as a whole.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I like this proposal. It fills up the holes the previous rules had and clears any transparencies to be a clear, concise rule to fill the hole of not making a situation which happened with you do not happen again. I have a few questions to ask about this if you are happy to get queries on it.

First, should there be a time limit mentioned I think elsewhere in another discussion thread on the discord server that could be between 1-3 days to have somebody post an Oath of Faith and if not, that could possibly lead to denying their application unless they have a good reason of being absent. If they are absent, an election commissioner can fill the absentee's absence as interim election commissioner appointed or elected as an assistant election commissioner. That solution can help ingrain what the responsibilities are and being active when needed is essential to an election commissioner role. Should we apply this? 2) Should we apply the Election Commission to be flexible with starting nominations for election commissioners and be put on votes or let the election commission do it themselves? And what should we do if the Delegate doesn't nominate an Election Commissioner at all to be part of the EC (Election Commission)? 3) It might be good to make checks and balances on Election Commissioners as well to make sure things are working well and they are transparent to the public.

Hope you enjoy my thoughts, suggestions, and queries. I just want to make sure our Election Commission institution is as premier that the region deserves to have and should honor as the beacon of TNP democracy. These discussions can help make sure transparency, integrity, and clarity can be heard from the Election Commission and be known that they are being represented well for the citizenry.

I’m not sure I understand your questions/suggestions but I’ll try to address them.

1)Once confirmed, a commissioner has 7 days to take an oath. The term won’t start until the oath is sworn. Hypothetically we can still have timing issues if their term expires before they get around to taking the oath. I’m glad you asked though because I realized the wording could be clearer and so I have adjusted it. We cannot prevent all mishaps due to people forgetting their oath but at least we avoid the migrating term lengths with this change. I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the denial of applications though, is your question about people not taking the oath being held against them? The RA can judge nominees on any criteria they want, and if you don’t take an oath in a week, you have to be reappointed anyway.

2)I don’t know, do you think the commission should select its own members? That requires changing a lot more than the one line I added, and is a totally different idea for the EC that deserves its own proposal. It’s not one I think I would support but you’re welcome to draft it if you want.

Delegates failing to fill the EC is arguably a serious breach of their basic duties, and perhaps one reason to initiate a recall or otherwise pressure them to act. The RA can revise the law to reflect that reality as well if they so choose. If you’re asking about contingencies due to the EC being allowed to be emptied, I don’t know that we need to have any, but again, if you have ideas for what that looks like, feel free to make a proposal. I didn’t feel the EC needed any major legislative changes or I would have included this change as part of a larger package.

3)The EC members are subject to recall, and are confirmed by the RA after being appointed by the Delegate. What checks do you feel are missing? I think they have sufficient checks/balances.

I would intend to support the Bill as drafted but do want to probe on one point. Namely, whether it might be worth framing the provision to apply if the Commissioner is reconfirmed within one month of when their term would end (or some other period). I don't think we are likely to see any proposed renominations outside of that anyway, but I do think there may be a case for saying that the law should keep the renominations reasonably close to the terms themselves.

Turbiatop:

First, should there be a time limit mentioned I think elsewhere in another discussion thread on the discord server that could be between 1-3 days to have somebody post an Oath of Faith and if not, that could possibly lead to denying their application unless they have a good reason of being absent. If they are absent, an election commissioner can fill the absentee's absence as interim election commissioner appointed or elected as an assistant election commissioner. That solution can help ingrain what the responsibilities are and being active when needed is essential to an election commissioner role. Should we apply this? 2) Should we apply the Election Commission to be flexible with starting nominations for election commissioners and be put on votes or let the election commission do it themselves? And what should we do if the Delegate doesn't nominate an Election Commissioner at all to be part of the EC (Election Commission)? 3) It might be good to make checks and balances on Election Commissioners as well to make sure things are working well and they are transparent to the public.

Click to expand...

I am not aware of delegates failing to fulfill their duties to nominate Election Commissioners. This is obviously a serious dereliction of duty. (I may be biased here since I am both delegate and myself an election commissioner, but I am obviously not the only EC in TNP to have been a former Delegate).

Election commissioners' official discussions are generally always in public discord and forum channels, there's no private discussions.

Zyvetskistaahn:

I would intend to support the Bill as drafted but do want to probe on one point. Namely, whether it might be worth framing the provision to apply if the Commissioner is reconfirmed within one month of when their term would end (or some other period). I don't think we are likely to see any proposed renominations outside of that anyway, but I do think there may be a case for saying that the law should keep the renominations reasonably close to the terms themselves.

Click to expand...

I understand your concern. I trust the RA to police super premature nominations. And as we’ve seen from the most recent confirmation vote, that is very much what took place.

This is a sensible change which I support.

As a broader matter, my position may be somewhat extreme, in that the Oath of Office serves little purpose and should be abolished. Its provisions can be better enforced through specific legislation, and the actual procedure of the Oath generally only is relevant because it generates bureaucratic headaches.

I support the change. The issue arose because I wasn't expecting the motion to vote to be so quick, which was my fault.

I motion for a vote.

I second the motion.

Pallaith:

I motion for a vote.

Click to expand...

Motion recognised. This will now be in formal debate for 5 days, which will end at around (time=1722571200), after which a vote will be scheduled.

Here is an excellent example of why formal debate is great. There is an amendment I want to make to my bill, as I overlooked that this change needed to be done in the legal code. It concerns absences on the commission. I am adding it to my original proposal:

15. An Election Commissioner will be considered absent during any election in which they are a candidate, and during any election which began prior to the start of their term. Absent Election Commissioners may not supervise an election or participate in any decisions made by the Election Commission as a whole.

Click to expand...

Timing of absences can be tricky when people's terms migrate over time. This shouldn't be an issue anymore with the change to clause 13, but it's still good to avoid shutting down commissioners because they will be absent at some point in the future. If they fall off the commission in an election, obviously they are not on the commission.

Shame on me for not paying attention to this.

You AND gated two different conditions in new 4.3.15, meaning both must apply. In order for an ECer to be considered absent, they must both be a candidate AND for the election to begin prior to the start of the ECer's term, meaning any ECer who was already an ECer when the election started can be a candidate and still be an active ECer.

To be clear on what this means... because Election Commissioners do have access to private ballot information, if it passes, the logic error means that any candidate who was also an ECer prior to the start of the election cycle is considered active and can see the private ballot data even though they are a candidate. I'm sure you can see the problem here.

Pallaith, you need to change that to an OR gate.

15. An Election Commissioner will be considered absent during any election in which they are a candidate or during any election which began prior to the start of their term. Absent Election Commissioners may not supervise an election or participate in any decisions made by the Election Commission as a whole.

Click to expand...

Critical error. Delegate should Veto.

I disagree. And this is annoying. But whatever.

Please vote against the bill so we can employ Sil’s proposed alternative wording.

This is a cross post of the reply I made on Discord:
While I can see the logic (heh) you're applying, and this would be exactly how a Boolean logic gate resolves it, I don't think that is the only reading.
I would read it thusly:

15. An Election Commissioner will be considered absent (during any election in which they are a candidate) and (during any election which began prior to the start of their term).

Click to expand...

Because both are independent conditions -- both are prefaced by "during any election" -- they attach separately. In this reading the and isn't a statement of Boolean logic.
Contrast this with the following hypothetical:

15. An Election Commissioner will be considered absent during any election in which they are a candidate and which began prior to the start of their term.

Click to expand...

Here I have removed the second "any election", so the only valid reading is the one you present here.

I read it the same as AS

My view is that the "and" can be read disjunctively as Attempted Socialism says but if it be that the intention is to redraw the proposal, I will vote against.

Sil’s change has been adopted. I motion for a vote @Cloud

Out of an abundance of caution, I will not request a truncated formal debate period, just in case there’s some other unexpected thing we haven’t caught yet.

I notice that your second amendment, by allowing Election Commissioners to supervise elections during which their current term expires, allows for two potential edge cases. First, an Election Commissioner could be supervising an election, and then not re-nominated by the Delegate, meaning that when their term ended, they would lose office in the midst of supervising an election. Second, during their reconfirmation process occurring at the same time as en election they were supervising, an Election Commissioner could not be reconfirmed (for whatever reason), and the same situation would result. The current law makes both of these cases impossible by barring Commissioners from supervising elections during which their presently scheduled terms will end - yours allows for them, as unlikely as they may be.

Do you think that's a serious concern? The scenarios discussed here are probably a little far-fetched, but it would be quite cumbersome to have to replace an Election Supervisor - especially the primary supervisor - in the middle of an election cycle. It also raises the possibility of someone who has lost office on the Election Commission, and thus being not accountable to the public, having access to sensitive tools like the @The Voting Booth account and the ballot-counting spreadsheet, albeit for a probably brief period.

Pallaith:

Sil’s change has been adopted. I motion for a vote @Cloud

Out of an abundance of caution, I will not request a truncated formal debate period, just in case there’s some other unexpected thing we haven’t caught yet.

Click to expand...

Motion recognised. This will now be in formal debate for 5 days, which will end at around (time=1723467600), after which a vote will be scheduled.

Comfed:

I notice that your second amendment, by allowing Election Commissioners to supervise elections during which their current term expires, allows for two potential edge cases. First, an Election Commissioner could be supervising an election, and then not re-nominated by the Delegate, meaning that when their term ended, they would lose office in the midst of supervising an election. Second, during their reconfirmation process occurring at the same time as en election they were supervising, an Election Commissioner could not be reconfirmed (for whatever reason), and the same situation would result. The current law makes both of these cases impossible by barring Commissioners from supervising elections during which their presently scheduled terms will end - yours allows for them, as unlikely as they may be.

Do you think that's a serious concern? The scenarios discussed here are probably a little far-fetched, but it would be quite cumbersome to have to replace an Election Supervisor - especially the primary supervisor - in the middle of an election cycle. It also raises the possibility of someone who has lost office on the Election Commission, and thus being not accountable to the public, having access to sensitive tools like the @The Voting Booth account and the ballot-counting spreadsheet, albeit for a probably brief period.

Click to expand...

Well…this makes the selection of supervisors, and the timing of reconfirmation, that much more important. Avoiding the selection of a supervisor who is nearly at the end of a term, or whose reconfirms room hasn’t completed in time for the election, would avoid these scenarios. You always have the freak possibility of an active supervisor needing the be replaced, I guess due to sudden resignation, because the other scenarios that come to mind (vacating office, being recalled) are also predictable and can be guarded against by not appointing the supervisor. So I would consider the risk of these scenarios to be very low, but I agree they wouldn’t be possible under the old wording.

I will point out that the Rules of the Election Commission already consider the possibility of the loss of an Election Supervisor.

Section Two: Election Supervisors:

3. If, during an election, an Election Supervisor becomes absent or vacates their office, the Chief Election Commissioner will promptly designate a willing replacement.

Click to expand...

The scenario proposed isn't new. We wouldn't even need to amend the rules in that case, as reaching the end of term without reappointment results in vacating the office. In the case of a supervisor losing office in the middle of a reconfirmation effort... it may be inconvenient, but the quoted rule would still apply.

Common sense would say to appoint a new supervisor, change TVB's password, and adjust counting spreadsheet permissions accordingly. It's really not that big of a deal.

Okay, fair enough. I just wanted to point it out to make sure the possibility was considered.

Personally, I have suggested adding a couple of extra Election Commissioners might be helpful just in case, but I think I am in a minority on this point.

Formal debate period is over, voting will begin in a few minutes.