On the definition of powers in the event of emergency

[Awesomiasa]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Awe" data-cid="112700" data-time="1388499293">
<div>
I'd say once it starts. I think the continuation resolution should be put up probably some 12 or 24h after the SoE. In the extremely hypothetical event of a no-show, it will fail.

 

That, in my opinion, is too small of a time frame and would encourage voting with the CSS purely out of uncertainty. I like the 72 hours time frame better. A State of Emergency lasting less than 72 hours is probably not a danger to TSP's democracy. Also, I agree that a no-show for a vote is very unlikely-- we tend to be very active during crises.

</div>
</blockquote>
But what if the crisis goes beyond 72h? Wouldn't the Assembly need to extend the SoE?

[Sandaoguo]

But what if the crisis goes beyond 72h? Wouldn't the Assembly need to extend the SoE?

 

Well yeah, but before then, we generally wouldn't know enough information to make an informed decision. 12-24 hours isn't a lot of time for debate.

[Hileville]

There would still be Assembly confirmation in a Delegate appointed Security group.

[Sandaoguo]

There would still be Assembly confirmation in a Delegate appointed Security group.

 

I guess you're going to need to explain things in greater detail. I don't understand what the differences are, since the CSS is basically delegate-appointed and Assembly-confirmed already.

[Hileville]

Anyone can apply to be a member of the CSS.  You don't currently have to be suggested by the Delegate but can be.

 

I think I'm just having second thoughts on bringing this type of body to TSP in the first place.

[Escade]

I have to second Southern_Bellz suggestion. I've noticed both problems here.


And if previous incidents have proven anything, we need to keep the CSS and delegate separate. On Christmas we were dealing with the Delegate-elect, and in April we were dealing with our official and elected Delegate. In both instances the threat was the legitimate delegate and with our current endorsements our members are arguably a greater threat than spontaneous external invaders.

 

Let's just be clear here that in April of 2013 we were dealing with a delegate who couped.

 

On December 25th, 2013 we were dealing with a completly false accusation which was malicious in intent and a SOE for which no evidence has yet been shown. If the evidence of a random puppet nation is enough to indict a delegate candidate then we will be having an SOE every few days whenever some random malcontent tries to stir up trouble.

 

We need to be careful about how this is worded so that the CSS is not manipulated into couping a legally elected delegate as could have happened and was far more likely on 12/25/2013.

 

The recent SOE was far more likely to have resulted in couping because neither the legally elected delegate nor the legally elected vice delegate were aware of what was going on and why and actually still don't know the legal basis (ie evidence) on which the SOE was based.  The head of the CSS, the current vice delegate, was kept in the dark and continues to be kept in the dark because he's not part of the old boys club.

 

At this point in time I see a power struggle in which the delegate and their vice-delegate candidate, both of whom should have been vetted by forum administration or the CSS during the elections, are in an interesting position where while legally elected they are limited in what they know by those who should no longer be in power but are holding on as if it were their birthright.

 

If we can never trust new or newish people in positions of government then perhaps this should be clearly stated during elections. I'm wary of any legislation that is meant to enforce the same old group of people staying in power ad inifitum. That is not democracy.

 

As for other points:

1. Delegate and Vice-Delegate running on their own tickets. I think this could be optional so that a delegate may run on their own without a VD. However, since the two have to work closely together preventing two people from running on ticket would detract from the process. Make it optional but don't prevent two people from running together.

 

2. Expand the CSS. First and foremost, the new influence changes in the game mean that members of the CSS need to be active. Then, I don't see why we can't have multiple methods of adding members to the CSS. If the CSS as a body or the delegate suggests a nominee, then why not take it to a vote in the assembly?  After all, in democractic terms who better than the assembly to help choose the people they trust and beleive will be active members?

 

3. Amendment to Article 5, Section 2 of the Charter

8. Upon recovery from a State of Emergency, a Committee of Inquiry should be set up by the Committee for State Security to investigate the incident, and that a report detailing the incident and evaluation of measures taken should be published in appropriate time


 

I'd like to amend as follows:

 

8. Within 48 hours of recovery from a State of Emergency, a report detailing the incident and the particular evidence used to justify it along with an evaluation of measures taken should be submitted to the current delegate and their cabinet.

[tsunamy]

 

The recent SOE was far more likely to have resulted in couping because neither the legally elected delegate nor the legally elected vice delegate were aware of what was going on and why and actually still don't know the legal basis (ie evidence) on which the SOE was based.  The head of the CSS, the current vice delegate, was kept in the dark and continues to be kept in the dark because he's not part of the old boys club.

 

Just to expand upon this here -- there was no deliberate attempt to keep Kris in the dark on this. It was a masking error that has since been fixed. That shouldn't take away from the problems, but I feel it's a bit unfair to paint this as a "old boys club" issue.

 

I think part of the problem with the CSS is that, as currently structured, it needs to be a group of former regional officials. Going back to the Milo incident, no one was going to move Fudge because of her huge amount of influence. It's similar with the other members of the CSS -- Bels, B&N, and SB -- in that their influence helps in these situations. I fear if we turn it over to an election base, we'll be losing that.

 

But ... at the same time ... weren't the members put up for a vote before joining the CSS?

[Escade]

Tsu, the outgoing cabinet including the outgoing vice delegate should have debriefed Kris who is the head of CSS. Part of the problem is a huge gap in communication. I wouldn't have minded a debriefing from the outgoing delegate either.

 

It's not an issue of maskings but rather a, "Hey, congratalutions on being elected. Here is what I've been up to or my area of jurisdiction that you are now taking over because you were elected."

 

Outgoing cabinet members should debrief or at least give a summary of what has been going on from their perspective to all incoming members. It's a sensible thing to do especially if TSP is actually open to new people gaining entry into governement positions who don't know what older members are accustomed to taking for granted.

 

With the new changes in influence in NS, we may want to rethink how members of CSS are selected or chosen.  Will the current members of CSS still hold large amounts of influence within the next six months?

 

Of course I want to add that I absolutely trust B&N, he's a great person and from my perspective the best person in TSP because he tries to keep people informed and aware and is also very impartial.

 

However, the issue is one of democracy vs. retaining power in the same people because of a threats to security. There should be checks and balances in place so that any one person can't trash TSP in any way but that doesn't mean concentrating power in the same few hands either.

[tsunamy]

Since I haven't been in the government in several years ... I don't know what the procedure for power transfers are. But what Es is suggesting sounds incredibly reasonable.

 

My point was that -- even as it's more than just the masking issue -- Bels and RT weren't in a dark room saying "Eff, Es and Kris!" (At least, I don't think that was the situation.) I fear calling it an "old boys club" attributes more deliberateness and malice to their actions. That's all.

[Kris Kringle]

I really don't believe this is a thing about an "old boys club" keeping people in the dark. I do understand that our maskings had never been used before, so problems are understandable and the masking problem has now been fixed. That said, I do think the CSS itself is a very ambiguous thing, and as I understand there isn't a transition procedure beyond changing maskings. Perhaps there should be a joint Cabinet meeting between the outgoing and the incoming one to discuss what has been done and what needs to be done. I agree that lack of coordination, while most likely unintentional, can lead to these misunderstandings and uncomfortable situations.

[Sandaoguo]

8. Within 48 hours of recovery from a State of Emergency, a report detailing the incident and the particular evidence used to justify it along with an evaluation of measures taken should be submitted to the current delegate and their cabinet.

 

It might make more sense for such a report to be submitted to the Assembly, rather than the Cabinet alone.

[Escade]

GR, I had thought of that myself but was afraid of something about "security" being brought up.  I think once the delegate and cabinet receive it and deem there to be no insecure information then we'd post it in the assembly.

 

Either way, it should be public and the amendment is retroactive in that the recent SoE is also reported.

[Sandaoguo]

It can be put in the Private Halls if it's security sensitive. I don't think the CSS should be doing anything secretly. If they declare a state of emergency, the Assembly better be given a thorough debriefing of what happened.

[Awesomiasa]

Updated the OP to reflect suggestions by a few people, notably references to 'current Delegate' and 'Delegate-elect' by 'incoming Delegate' and 'outgoing Delegate' respectively.

 

Also, point 8 has been amended to reflect both Escade's and tsu's suggestions that a report should be submitted by the CSS to the Assembly after a maximum of 48h since recovery from an SoE

[Cormac]

This is definitely starting to shape up. A few suggestions:

 

• This should be an amendment to Article 6, Section 2 of the Charter. The OP currently says Article 5.
  
• In paragraph 5, you have "outing Delegate" where you meant "outgoing."
  
• I'm confused by what you mean with "hypothetical or otherwise" in paragraph 6, but I'm fairly certain regardless of the meaning behind it that wording is going to be too ambiguous and needs clarification.
  
• I'm not sure what you mean by "vote of conscience" in paragraph 7. Did you mean vote of confidence, or something else? Either way, I think it might be fine as "The Assembly may vote to end a State of Emergency by a vote of 60% in favour."
  
• I'm not sure about paragraph 9. Any citizen can already bring a recall motion, so that seems superfluous. This is where my ignorance of the region is going to show a bit because I'm newish to it, but who can file criminal charges as it stands? If any citizen can, I'm not sure any of paragraph 9 is needed.
  

I think this is definitely almost there though. Well done.

 

Edit: Missed this on my first read through, but I'm concerned paragraph 1 is too broad too. Which actions are we worried about the Delegate carrying out that requires CSS supervision? Regarding paragraph 4, I can see why we wouldn't want the Bill of Rights suspended but I'm concerned that Article 2.6 contradicts paragraph 2 of your draft. I still don't think the entire Bill of Rights should be suspended but we need to make it clear that the Delegate can banject nations without demonstrating reasonable cause and following due process during States of Emergency, even if we require such after the dust has settled and the State of Emergency has ended.

[Awesomiasa]

This is definitely starting to shape up. A few suggestions:

 

• This should be an amendment to Article 6, Section 2 of the Charter. The OP currently says Article 5.
  
• In paragraph 5, you have "outing Delegate" where you meant "outgoing."
  
• I'm confused by what you mean with "hypothetical or otherwise" in paragraph 6, but I'm fairly certain regardless of the meaning behind it that wording is going to be too ambiguous and needs clarification.
  
• I'm not sure what you mean by "vote of conscience" in paragraph 7. Did you mean vote of confidence, or something else? Either way, I think it might be fine as "The Assembly may vote to end a State of Emergency by a vote of 60% in favour."
  
• I'm not sure about paragraph 9. Any citizen can already bring a recall motion, so that seems superfluous. This is where my ignorance of the region is going to show a bit because I'm newish to it, but who can file criminal charges as it stands? If any citizen can, I'm not sure any of paragraph 9 is needed.
  

I think this is definitely almost there though. Well done.

 

Edit: Missed this on my first read through, but I'm concerned paragraph 1 is too broad too. Which actions are we worried about the Delegate carrying out that requires CSS supervision? Regarding paragraph 4, I can see why we wouldn't want the Bill of Rights suspended but I'm concerned that Article 2.6 contradicts paragraph 2 of your draft. I still don't think the entire Bill of Rights should be suspended but we need to make it clear that the Delegate can banject nations without demonstrating reasonable cause and following due process during States of Emergency, even if we require such after the dust has settled and the State of Emergency has ended.

• Article 5, Section 2, Part 5 mentions the Delegate's power to declare an SoE
  
• Fixed typo
  
• I'm not sure if I should use 'hypothetical or otherwise' or rephrase it as 'when a coup/hostile takeover/attack (pick one) of the region is imminent'
  
• Vote of conscience actually means conscience vote, poor use of the English language on my part
  
• Anyone can file a case in the Courts, but I'm rather wary of anyone involved getting off scot-free. Perhaps the CSS could make recommendations in their report pertaining to further actions to be undertaking instead of having the entire body recall or file charges against an accused?
  
• Just as a checks-and-balances system. I see your point in the broadness of point 1, but I'd rather have everyone duly informed of plans rather than disagreeing later
  
• I'll change that appropriately
  

EDIT: OP updated to reflect suggestions

 

[Belschaft]

The proposed amendment needs reformatting to be consistent with the current legislative format; I would suggest splitting it off into a third section of the article.

[Awesomiasa]

The proposed amendment needs reformatting to be consistent with the current legislative format; I would suggest splitting it off into a third section of the article.

Can you clarify what this means?

[Belschaft]

The existing legislative format is Article>Section>Clause


Your proposal adds a forth layer bellow clause; Article>Section>Clause>?


The consistet/neater thing to do is to add a new section.

[Awesomiasa]

The existing legislative format is Article>Section>Clause


Your proposal adds a forth layer bellow clause; Article>Section>Clause>?


The consistet/neater thing to do is to add a new section.

 

Spilt OP into an amendment to an existing section and a new section detailing SoE powers.

[Awesomiasa]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
Amendment to Article 5, Section 2 of the Charter

6. With the majority approval of the Committee for State Security taken by a vote
, the Delegate may declare a State of Emergency with reasonable justification that a threat to regional security is imminent, subjected to provisions granted by Article 6, Section 3 of the Charter

 

Addtion of Article 6, Section 3 to the Charter


Section 3- State of Emergency

1. In the event of a State of Emergency,
   the Delegate must confer with the Committee for State Security (CSS) before carrying out any actions
   
   
2. The Delegate may lower or increase the endorsement cap or ask that the region endorse a CSS member as a proxy.
   
   
3. The Delegate may also make statements to the region with regards to the situation, and delegate responsibilities or directives to other Cabinet members to ensure cohesion in the region.
   
   
4. The Bill of Rights cannot be suspended during a State of Emergency, except where the Delegate may
   eject or ban nations from the in-game region and/or forums on reasonable grounds of suspicion that the nation(s) are participating in actions that attempt to subvert the legitimate government of the region without due process of law.
   
   
5. In the event of a Delegate transition, both the outgoing Delegate and incoming Delegate may call for a State of Emergency, with the decision to grant the declaration resting in the Committee for State Security
   
   
6. In the event that a hostile takeover of the region by the sitting Delegate has occurred or is imminent, the Committee for State Security is empowered to grant the Vice-Delegate temporary provisions as Acting Delegate, by a vote of 60% in favour in the Assembly.
   
   
7. The Assembly, by a conscience vote, may vote to override or end a State of Emergency by a vote of 60% in favour
   .
   
8. Within 48 hours of recovery from a State of Emergency, a report detailing the incident and the particular evidence used to justify it along with an evaluation of measures and recommendations of further actions to be taken by the Assembly, Cabinet and/or Judiciary should be submitted to the Assembly, <span style="color:rgb(0,0,255);">which includes but is not limited to: recall motions, charges to be filed and grants of amnesty.
   </span>
   

 

</blockquote>
This is the final version of the bill to be brought to vote. I'll leave this here for a day to hear any more comments! Feel free to motion for a vote if you have no issues with it.

[QuietDad]

Shouldn't Addtion of Article 6, Section 3 to the Charter Section 3- State of Emergency really go into The Code of Laws? My Current feelings are the Charter defines the "What" and the Code of Laws defines the "How".

[Awesomiasa]

Shouldn't Addtion of Article 6, Section 3 to the Charter Section 3- State of Emergency really go into The Code of Laws? My Current feelings are the Charter defines the "What" and the Code of Laws defines the "How".

I'm rather confused about this as well, I'll let someone else clarify this

[Aistos]

Normally you would include the basics of each government branch along with the weights and balances that define their relationship in the supreme law of the country, ours being the Charter. Going by that logic, I'm more surprised about articles 2 and 3 of the Code of Laws being in the Code of Laws than about the State of Emergency being in the Charter. The CoL, as I see it, is better suited for developments in civil, criminal or procedural law. But yeah, this is just especulation until someone with more concrete knowledge can clear it up.

 

This is a good job. I'm a bit uncomfortable having an institution like the CSS, but the more we define its roles the better. Maybe we would need to adapt article 6.1 of the Code of Laws:

 

Treason shall be defined as plotting against the Coalition, seeking to lower the delegate's endorsement count without his or her consent, breaking the endorsement cap after receiving an official warning, aiding any entity in which the Coalition is taking defensive action against, or any entity in which a state of war exists with. Nations and citizens that refuse to endorse the Delegate, or the CSS member specified by the Delegate 
during a State of Emergency shall be considered guilty of treason, and refusing to disclose the name of one's WA nation whilst the aforementioned circumstances are in effect is also considered an act of treason.

 

Also I would suggest this:

 

<p style="margin-left:40px;">10.- Nations that have been ejected or banished from the region without a trial during a State of Emergency may appeal the case to a full court.

[Belschaft]

It could go in either the Charter or CoL depending on how it is worded.