Users browsing this thread:

TAC Saxton · 04-15-2015, 03:25 PM

On the matter of the term "involvement" it does state one must disclose all involvement. As such, I believe that it may cover any positions one may have held in a region. However, it is worded so generally that its interpretation is of such a wide variety that it could go either way. I would have to agree with you Hile.

I am a Super Villain

Hileville · 04-15-2015, 09:47 PM

[Image: HCSeal.png]

HCLQ1511

- 15.04.15 -

Petitioner

Kris Kringle - Wolf

Presiding Justices

Hileville, TAC, and JUSTICE GOES HERE

Non-Presiding Justice

JUSTICE GOES HERE

Question: Must Conflict of Interest Disclosures, as established and described in Article 1, Clause 9 of the Code of Laws, include a list of all past positions held?

Majority Opinion

Hileville, TAC, JUSTICE MIGHT GO HERE

Article 1, Clause 9 as set out below outlines what a Conflict of Interest Disclosure must include :

Quote:9. Conflict of Interest Disclosures must include current World Assembly Nation, all past and present aliases used, all past and present involvement in other regions and organizations, and all current positions held across NationStates.

The Court would first like to note the difference in the text:

Quote:all past and present involvement in other regions and organizations

Quote:all current positions held

It is the view of this Court that the usage of the different terms attempts to distinguish what is required. Those filing a Conflict of Interest Disclosure are required to include all current positions held but are only required to list their past and present involvement in other regions and organizations.

To answer the question directly; the Court believes that the CoI Disclosure does not have to include all past positions held and the filer is only required to list the region or organization in which they were involved in.

I don't like my wording here. But this is at least a start of a draft. It has been a while since I had to write NS legal stuff.

TAC Saxton · 04-16-2015, 03:44 PM

I like the wording just fine. As I said before, Rulings don't need to look so grand. All they need is to establish a simple and direct response to a case.

I am a Super Villain

Hileville · 04-16-2015, 05:42 PM

That works for me then. As soon as either Faren or Sopo acknowledges this it can be posted.

Apad · 05-07-2015, 05:08 PM

(04-15-2015, 09:47 PM)Hileville Wrote:
[Image: HCSeal.png]

HCLQ1511

- 15.04.15 -

Petitioner

Kris Kringle - Wolf

Presiding Justices

Hileville, TAC, and JUSTICE GOES HERE

Non-Presiding Justice

JUSTICE GOES HERE

Question: Must Conflict of Interest Disclosures, as established and described in Article 1, Clause 9 of the Code of Laws, include a list of all past positions held?

Majority Opinion

Hileville, TAC, JUSTICE MIGHT GO HERE

Article 1, Clause 9 as set out below outlines what a Conflict of Interest Disclosure must include :

Quote:9. Conflict of Interest Disclosures must include current World Assembly Nation, all past and present aliases used, all past and present involvement in other regions and organizations, and all current positions held across NationStates.

The Court would first like to note the difference in the text:

Quote:all past and present involvement in other regions and organizations

Quote:all current positions held

It is the view of this Court that the usage of the different terms attempts to distinguish what is required. Those filing a Conflict of Interest Disclosure are required to include all current positions held but are only required to list their past and present involvement in other regions and organizations.

To answer the question directly; the Court believes that the CoI Disclosure does not have to include all past positions held and the filer is only required to list the region or organization in which they were involved in.

I don't like my wording here. But this is at least a start of a draft. It has been a while since I had to write NS legal stuff.

Im not in total agreement on this ruling. Doesnt involvement suggest positions held in other regions and organizations? Involvement to me means more than simply association with or member of regions and organizations. The text should read: past and present membership in other regions and organizations.

Apad
King of Haldilwe

TAC Saxton · 05-07-2015, 09:31 PM

Involvement could mean [nation] was in [region] and [organization], but not necessarily mean [nation] was a Deputy in [organization].

I am a Super Villain

**Farengeto** · 05-08-2015, 10:25 AM

I agree with TAC there.

Apad · 05-08-2015, 11:43 AM

Involvement here is a bit ambiguous because it can mean two things in this context. It could mean "i was a part of the jazz band at my high school" or it could just as equally mean "I was first chair and section leader of the jazz band at my high school". I think the question we have to ask is how specific the assembly meant for the COI to be? And that is an answer I dont think we have.

Thoughts?

Apad
King of Haldilwe

Hileville · 05-08-2015, 07:16 PM

We aren't ruling on what we believe the Assembly might have thought. We are ruling on the text of the law. The text clearly makes a separation of involvement and current positions. It is that reason I still believe that you are only required to list that you were involved in said region/org not what positions/titles you held.

TAC Saxton · 05-08-2015, 09:18 PM

I still stand with the current draft. The difference in text is the defining part of this issue.

I am a Super Villain