We've moved, ! Update your bookmarks to https://thesouthpacific.org! These forums are being archived.

Dismiss this notice
See LegComm's announcement to make sure you're still a legislator on the new forums!

Executive Order: Local Council Election
#21

An in-game vote is going to be needed on this one. Although UUI should not run that vote. However, there is the problem of the fact that where this is currently being enacted it would be retroactively approving the measures laid out here.
Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?
 
CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021
#22

(01-01-2017, 11:30 PM)Omega Wrote: An in-game vote is going to be needed on this one. Although UUI should not run that vote. However, there is the problem of the fact that where this is currently being enacted it would be retroactively approving the measures laid out here.

We have no way to replace an LC member. I think the Executive Order is more than appropriate in this fashion. After the elections are over we can have the change voted on via the RMB and it'll be set up for future vacancies.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
#23

(01-01-2017, 11:40 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:
(01-01-2017, 11:30 PM)Omega Wrote: An in-game vote is going to be needed on this one. Although UUI should not run that vote. However, there is the problem of the fact that where this is currently being enacted it would be retroactively approving the measures laid out here.

We have no way to replace an LC member. I think the Executive Order is more than appropriate in this fashion. After the elections are over we can have the change voted on via the RMB and it'll be set up for future vacancies.

Sounds good!
Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?
 
CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021
#24

(01-01-2017, 11:09 PM)Roavin Wrote: The "hole in law" part is applicable, since while the bill had been passed it was (and still isn't) in the normative copy since gameside approval is still missing.

Gesendet von meinem Xtouch mit Tapatalk


The Elections Act was passed during the Great Council, when that requirement wasn't needed. The EC section of the law hasn't changed. There's no ambiguity at all with who's restricted from sitting on the EC. So the Cabinet can't just ignore that and say there's a "pressing need." The executive order authority was heavily reined in to avoid just that.

Tsu being on the EC isn't a big deal to me, but he won't always be Delegate. And future Cabinets might use this as precedent for more disagreeable EOs.

The Cabinet doesn't get to ignore the law just because it's inconvenient. The scramble for finding ECs happened in the first place because people keep ignoring the permanent status of the EC. We aren't supposed to be finding new ECs every election, but apparently nobody's taking into account the permanence of the appointment when making it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
#25

(01-02-2017, 09:34 AM)sandaoguo Wrote:
(01-01-2017, 11:09 PM)Roavin Wrote: The "hole in law" part is applicable, since while the bill had been passed it was (and still isn't) in the normative copy since gameside approval is still missing.

Gesendet von meinem Xtouch mit Tapatalk


The Elections Act was passed during the Great Council, when that requirement wasn't needed. The EC section of the law hasn't changed. There's no ambiguity at all with who's restricted from sitting on the EC. So the Cabinet can't just ignore that and say there's a "pressing need." The executive order authority was heavily reined in to avoid just that.

Tsu being on the EC isn't a big deal to me, but he won't always be Delegate. And future Cabinets might use this as precedent for more disagreeable EOs.

The Cabinet doesn't get to ignore the law just because it's inconvenient. The scramble for finding ECs happened in the first place because people keep ignoring the permanent status of the EC. We aren't supposed to be finding new ECs every election, but apparently nobody's taking into account the permanence of the appointment when making it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Glen — we can't take that into account. 5 out of 6 members of the EC are officials have been involved in elections recently and 2 of 3 admins. If we consider LOAs, we simply don't have the standing members to make that happen.

I'll agree in theory with what you're saying (which is also why I didn't start elections causally or lightly). But, practically we're having a lot of issues here — despite the intention. Maybe it's time to rethink our Election Law?
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
#26

That there are issues don't matter. That's a failing of the admins and the CRS. The Cabinet can't just decide the law is inconvenient and then issue an executive order violating it. That's the concern here.

People on the EC aren't supposed to have ambitions for elected office. That was the whole point, because accusations of bias and corruption were flung about every damn time there was any minor issue. So it appears we've been making bad choices for EC, not that the permanent status of EC appointments are a problem.

It's also an issue that the Permanent Justice is supposed to actually be around for elections, or appoint someone in their stead. Neither of which has happened, afaik.

We can discuss changing the EC to downsize it. (I suggested in the CRS discord channel going down to one EC, with an audit every election.) But that still doesn't make it okay to just ignore the law as it is.

Like I said before, it's a moot point now. But we should be clear that it wasn't legal at the time, so future Cabinets don't try to use this as precedent for worse decisions.
#27

(01-02-2017, 04:43 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: That there are issues don't matter. That's a failing of the admins and the CRS. The Cabinet can't just decide the law is inconvenient and then issue an executive order violating it. That's the concern here.

People on the EC aren't supposed to have ambitions for elected office. That was the whole point, because accusations of bias and corruption were flung about every damn time there was any minor issue. So it appears we've been making bad choices for EC, not that the permanent status of EC appointments are a problem.

It's also an issue that the Permanent Justice is supposed to actually be around for elections, or appoint someone in their stead. Neither of which has happened, afaik.

We can discuss changing the EC to downsize it. (I suggested in the CRS discord channel going down to one EC, with an audit every election.) But that still doesn't make it okay to just ignore the law as it is.

Like I said before, it's a moot point now. But we should be clear that it wasn't legal at the time, so future Cabinets don't try to use this as precedent for worse decisions.

As I said above, it's essentially breaking one law for another.

Your points are noted (and agreed with), but practically speaking ... no one was moving toward starting the election.

I do like the idea of moving to a one-person election commission with a verification. Perhaps we should write this up?
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
#28

*cough cough Feir4PermECExceptWhenHe'sOnVacation cough cough*

In any case, does this mean I can or can't take over the LC election?
#EC4Lyfe
#29

(01-02-2017, 09:20 PM)Feirmont Wrote: *cough cough Feir4PermECExceptWhenHe'sOnVacation cough cough*

In any case, does this mean I can or can't take over the LC election?

You can. The debate was whether or not I had power to do anything in the first place.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)





Theme © iAndrew 2018 Forum software by © MyBB .