+- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz)
+-- Forum: Hall of Historical Records (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-8.html)
+--- Forum: Archives (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-141.html)
+---- Forum: Fudgetopia Hall of Government (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-12.html)
+----- Forum: Assembly of the South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-91.html)
+----- Thread: At Vote: Separation of Powers (/thread-4818.html)
RE: [DRAFT] Separation of Powers - Ausstan - 02-03-2017
I reckon it would be better to have the vote. That way there is absolutely no way you could deny that the clause is now law. Has the legal question been asked yet, Sandaoguo? If they say it is law still, then I don't support the vote, but until then, a vote would be the safest course of action.
RE: [DRAFT] Separation of Powers - Omega - 02-04-2017
Okay, so I have a legitimate question as to why 7.6 exists. Could someone explain that?
RE: [DRAFT] Separation of Powers - Kris Kringle - 02-04-2017
(02-04-2017, 12:19 AM)Omega Wrote: Okay, so I have a legitimate question as to why 7.6 exists. Could someone explain that?
I guess the idea is to prevent conflicts of interest. For example, someone serving as foreign minister here while also serving as foreign minister elsewhere, and the difficulty of determining where one role ends and the other one starts.
RE: [DRAFT] Separation of Powers - Belschaft - 02-04-2017
Kris has the right idea. I don't see how someone being Delegate and MoFA of TSP is a conflict of interest that we're going to forbid, but at the same time someone being Delegate of another region and MoFA of TSP isn't a conflict of interest.
RE: [DRAFT] Separation of Powers - Tsunamy - 02-04-2017
(02-04-2017, 01:22 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Kris has the right idea. I don't see how someone being Delegate and MoFA of TSP is a conflict of interest that we're going to forbid, but at the same time someone being Delegate of another region and MoFA of TSP isn't a conflict of interest.
Wait. Does this mean I *can* run for MoFA?
*goes to get campaign ready*
RE: [DRAFT] Separation of Powers - Belschaft - 02-04-2017
(02-04-2017, 03:53 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:(02-04-2017, 01:22 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Kris has the right idea. I don't see how someone being Delegate and MoFA of TSP is a conflict of interest that we're going to forbid, but at the same time someone being Delegate of another region and MoFA of TSP isn't a conflict of interest.
Wait. Does this mean I *can* run for MoFA?
*goes to get campaign ready*
Yeah, but once this is voted on (assuming it's adopted) you'd have to resign from one of the two jobs
RE: [DRAFT] Separation of Powers - Belschaft - 02-06-2017
With this amendment capable of being brought to vote tomorrow, I would like to submit such a motion.
RE: [DRAFT] Separation of Powers - Sam111 - 02-06-2017
Second.
RE: [DRAFT] Separation of Powers - Roavin - 02-06-2017
Once this passes, it will be very hard to fix it, and I see a couple of problems with it - namely, that conflicts between various pairs of offices are surely not equivalent, especially considering that Delegate and CoA are no longer cabinet positions (with good reasoning!).
I would hope that this is intuitive that with our new Delegate role, the only conflict would be with an LC role. Delegate and MoFA - who cares, PM and MoFA - big problem, obviously.
There is no conflict between CoA and any other position except possibly the LC — and there are some legitimate arguments to be made why this may or may not be the case, and only as it currently stands (and we'll surely be tweaking the LC role a bit going forward, which would swing this in one or the other direction).
Furthermore, I hope that our court will interpret 7.6 sensibly and look not just at the name of foreign positions but at their responsibilities. TSP Delegate and TNP Delegate are two very different jobs, for instance.
RE: [DRAFT] Separation of Powers - sandaoguo - 02-06-2017
I do think there's merit to the idea that Chair is an apolitical role and should probably be exempt. Are you proposing a more case-by-case approach in general, though?