For some time now the South Pacific has been brushing up against a limit imposed by Nationstates on our Regional Officer positions. While we would ideally have an unlimited number of these positions, we are restricted to a hard limit of 12 (not counting the Delegate). With current membership, we now no longer have sufficient slots to grant regional officer powers to everyone.

Article 2 of the Regional Officers Acts specifies that the following positions should have RO powers:

• Prime Minister
  
• Minister of Regional Affairs
  
• Minister of Foreign Affairs
  
• At least one member of the Local Council. With its current structure, this represents between 1 and 3 regional officers.
  

Under Article 9, Section 11 of the Charter, members of the Council on Regional Security are also granted Regional officer powers. This clause does offer provisions for when insufficient slots are available.

(11) The Delegate must grant members of the Council on Regional Security appropriate Regional Officer powers to fulfill their duties. When there is a limited number of Regional Officer positions available, those positions must be given to the most senior Council members. 

CRS regional officers are further affirmed and outlined in Article 2 of the Regional Officers Act.

Additionally, the Election Commissioner will temporarily be granted Regional Officer powers during the election.

As you can see, with the current CRS roster of 7 this can result in a worst-case maximum of 14 potential regional officers, already in excess of the limit of 12.

The matter is further complicated by Article 3 of the Regional Officers Act, which allows the granting of discretionary regional officer powers to other regional members. The most notable use of this has been the Minister of Military Affairs, where it has been an unofficial executive precedent to grant them this discretionary power for a couple of years now.

This matter thus raises several related questions of legal interpretation:

1. Can discretionary regional officer slots - granted by Article 3 of the Regional Officers Act - be granted over other "flexible" slots such as those of the additional Local Council or Council on Regional Security members?
   
2. When a limited number of regional officer slots exist, do the Local Council or Council on Regional Security slots have legal priority?
   
3. Given that the Council on Regional Security regional officer position is defined in the Charter, if insufficient slots existed would their slots potentially overrule those granted by the Regional Officers Act entirely?
   
4. How are the "most senior Council members" determined on a legal basis?
   

I thank the court for its consideration of the subject.

(This post was last modified: 09-01-2019, 10:44 PM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC 1917.NR | Notice of Reception

Notice is provided that this petition has been received by the High Court and has been assigned all necessary naming information as follows: Docket File Number 1917 Reference Name Priority of Regional Officer Slots Question Can discretionary regional officer slots - granted by Article 3 of the Regional Officers Act - be granted over other "flexible" slots such as those of the additional Local Council or Council on Regional Security members? When a limited number of regional officer slots exist, do the Local Council or Council on Regional Security slots have legal priority? Given that the Council on Regional Security regional officer position is defined in the Charter, if insufficient slots existed would their slots potentially overrule those granted by the Regional Officers Act entirely? How are the "most senior Council members" determined on a legal basis? The petitioner and other interested parties are invited to explain the necessity of a decision on this matter while the Court considers the justiciability of this petition. Briefs Amicus Curiae on the eventual preferred outcome of this case are not required at this time.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

The necessity for this decision is a simple one: the interpretation of this subject is already affecting the region. We have already run out of Regional Officer slots, and this dispute can only get worse within the current structure of our regional government. The Delegate has already been forced to revoke the Regional Officer position of the Minister of Military Affairs due to a lack of slots. Conflicting interpretations and interests feed disputes over who should be cut first. The priority or lack thereof on these more "dynamic" regional officer positions can dramatically change these discussions.

Reply

With due respect to the Justices of the Court, it has now been almost two months since I submitted this case and I have still yet to receive a ruling of justicability.

Reply

I would like to offer the Court's apologies for this unacceptable delay. A determination will be issued before the end of the present week.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

PRIORITY OF REGIONAL OFFICER SLOTS Determination of Justiciability

Document Code 1917.DJ

Submission 31 Aug 2019

Admission 04 Nov 2019

Whereas FARENGETO has petitioned this Court that a review be conducted on the applicability of the law to certain situations, through the following questions: Can discretionary regional officer slots - granted by Article 3 of the Regional Officers Act - be granted over other "flexible" slots such as those of the additional Local Council or Council on Regional Security members? When a limited number of regional officer slots exist, do the Local Council or Council on Regional Security slots have legal priority? Given that the Council on Regional Security regional officer position is defined in the Charter, if insufficient slots existed would their slots potentially overrule those granted by the Regional Officers Act entirely? How are the "most senior Council members" determined on a legal basis? Whereas this Court has considered the merits of such a petition on the basis of its legal necessity and further requirements contemplated in the Charter, the Judicial Act and all applicable law. It is resolved as follows: This petition is deemed justiciable and is admitted into the docket as a legal question. This petition shall be assigned the case code HCLQ1905 and shall be referred to in full as Priority of Regional Officer Slots. The Court invites all able and willing members to submit their views and stances on this legal question, in the form of amicus curiae briefs, no later than seven days following the publication of this determination. The Court reserves the right to consult with, and request private testimony from, individuals, government institutions and other entities, as appropriate and necessary, for the purposes of research, clarification of context and the finding of truth. The Court retains, in compliance with the Charter, the Judicial Act and all applicable law, the sole right to decide on this petition. It is so ordered.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

Your Honourable Justices,

Acknowledging the Court's deadline for amicus brief submission has passed, I respectfully petition the court to allow this late submission. If the Court deems the brief time barred, I respectfully support that position.

The following amicus brief is respectfully submitted by BEEPEE to aide the Court in its consideration of the legal questions posed by FARENGETO

• Can discretionary regional officer slots - granted by Article 3 of the Regional Officers Act - be granted over other "flexible" slots such as those of the additional Local Council or Council on Regional Security members?

• When a limited number of regional officer slots exist, do the Local Council or Council on Regional Security slots have legal priority?

• Given that the Council on Regional Security regional officer position is defined in the Charter, if insufficient slots existed would their slots potentially overrule those granted by the Regional Officers Act entirely?

• How are the "most senior Council members" determined on a legal basis?

Known as
Priority of Regional Officer Slots. [HCLQ1905]
___________________________________________

The Legal Question submitted by FARENGETO, is in fact four set questions, to aide the court I shall take each in turn

Can discretionary regional officer slots - granted by Article 3 of the Regional Officers Act - be granted over other "flexible" slots such as those of the additional Local Council or Council on Regional Security members?

Article 1 of the Regional Officers Act states that “Executive" power is the power to appoint or remove regional officers.

Article 2 states that the Delegate has all the powers outlined in Article 1, thereby including executive power. No other regional officer has executive power, to appoint or otherwise.

Article 3 of the Regional Officers Act allows the cabinet, delegate and Council on Regional Security provide additional powers to regional members. It does not give power to grant or allocate slots to non “regional members” or “flexible members".

There is no definition of "Regional Members" in the Act. The Regional Officers Act only mentions ”members” in respect of the Council of Regional Security.

The question arises as to where the definition of Regional Member exists. A number of potential definitions may exist however none appear to be “Regional Members". The closest version I have been able to find is, in the Charter which discusses “Member of the Coalition”, which is effectively all residents within South Pacific.

It is not clear from the discussion related to the Act what the intent of “Regional Members" is. A reasonable interpretation of "Regional members" must be regional officers, and this is simply a drafting error which should be flagged to the chair of the assembly or an inconsistency which could be alleviated through the Court.

Even assuming the broadest of interpretations of “Regional Member" afforded by the Charter, and the Delegate could grant powers to a citizen of the South Pacific, above those of a named regional officer. No priority exists, one would expect a reasonable executive working in a reasonable mind to favour the list of Regional officers indicated in Article 2 of the Regional Officers Act.

When a limited number of regional officer slots exist, do the Local Council or Council on Regional Security slots have legal priority?

FARENGETO correctly states that the number of Regional Officer posts are limited. Indeed they are limited to 13 spaces including Delegate.

The Regional Officers Act (Article 2) sets out the Officers as follows:

(1) The in-game Delegate will be granted all Regional Officer powers.

(2) The Minister of Foreign Affairs will be granted the Embassies power.

(3) The Minister of Regional Affairs will be granted the Appearance and Communications powers.

(4) The Prime Minister will be granted the collective set of powers granted to the other Cabinet ministers herein.

(5) Members of the Council on Regional Security will be granted the Border Control power.

(6) At least one member of the Local Council will be granted the Appearance, Communications, and Polls power.

(7) During elections, the Election Commissioner will be granted the Polls and Communication powers.

Assuming the most busy time for the Regional Officers would be at election (and the election Commissioner would be included as a Regional Officer), and the Delegate, MoFA, MoRA, EC and PM are to be given slots 8 spaces exist.

The article directs that at least one member of the Local Council is included in the Regional Officers List, and does not specify “all" or a number of members of the CRS to be provided powers. It would therefore seem in line with legislation that as long as at least 1 member of the LC is included as a regional officer, 7 regional officer positions exist for CRS members and/or Local Councillors.

A Minimum of 1 space must also be given to the CRS to accord with the Charter. As the delegate is instructed to provide the CRS with the power to undertake its role in border security.

FARENGETO rightly points out that The Charter (Article 9(11)) states that should the CRS contain more than 7 members the CRS should determine the order of seniority for the remaining slots. It is clear therefore that in the event of a large CRS would not be expected to fill all slots and take a lower priority than delegate, MoRA, MoFA, PM, LC1, CRS1 and, when relevant, EC.

No priority CRS is Inferred or given, between Local Councillors (2 and 3 : Local Councillor 1 is however given priority) and CRS Members. It would be for the Executive (I.e. Delegate) to determine the make up of the Regional officers for the remaining slots.

Given that the Council on Regional Security regional officer position is defined in the Charter, if insufficient slots existed would their slots potentially overrule those granted by the Regional Officers Act entirely?

The Charter does not give full rights to the CRS for all spaces in the Regional Officers list. Indeed the Charter at Article 9(11) states only where positions are ‘available’.
“When there is a limited number of Regional Officer positions available, those positions must be given to the most senior Council members. “

The Delegate , as per the Regional Officers Act, is the only authorised executive and as such, beyond those listed previously, it is for her/his determination as to the set up of the remaining regional officers. Beyond the MoRA, MoFA, PM, LC1, andwhen appropriate, EC. The Delegate must however give the CRS the positions able to carry out its function. Therefore the Delegate must provide at least one space to be given to the CRS to accord with the Charter.

Given the Regional Officer Act, The Regional Officer list could not be made up of 1 delegate and 12 CRS members (unless members of the CRS also had dual roles)

The wording of the Charter allows for remaining spaces and the Regional Officer Act sets out what spaces must be given to certain officers. I would urge the Courts not to find ambiguity between the Charter and the Act.

How are the "most senior Council members" determined on a legal basis?

There is no legal basis for determining seniority. The CRS must determine it’s own methodology for seniority.

Yours, respectfully

BEEPEE

Check my links.....

SWAN 4 Life
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1086117

Reply

With due respect to the Justices of the Court, it has been another two months since the last update and there has been no further progress on this case. We are at the limit of our Regional Officer slots presently, so this case remains relevant.

Reply

PRIORITY OF REGIONAL OFFICER SLOTS Opinion

Document Code 1917.O

Submission 01 Sep 2019

Admission 05 Nov 2019

Opinion 13 Jan 2020

SUMMARY OF THE OPINION   There are two types of Regional Officer appointments: ex offico and discretionary. Ex officio Regional Officers are mentioned in Article 2 of the Regional Officers Act, including only one Local Councillor (however chosen). If there are not enough positions for all Article 2 appointments, the most junior Council on Regional Security members are passed over (with seniority determined by any reasonable method). Once Article 2 Regional Officers have their positions, any good faith resident of the South Pacific may be appointed as a discretionary Regional Officer under Article 3 of the Regional Officers Act. The law does not stipulate an order of priority within discretionary appointments, so the other two Local Councillors do not have primacy amongst Article 3 appointees.

JUSTICE NAT DELIVERED THE OPINION, SIGNED ALSO BY JUSTICE REBELTOPIA   In NationStates, a region has a Delegate and may appoint up to twelve additional Regional Officers. These Regional Officers can be granted a variety of powers, from controlling borders to running region-wide polls. The allocation of Regional Officers in the South Pacific is primarily determined by the aptly named Regional Officers Act. So far, the limit of twelve additional Regional Officers has not posed any issues. However, it is possible this limit could be exceeded in future, so Farentago prudently sought the Court’s guidance on how such an issue may be navigated. Those questions form the basis of this opinion.   I EX OFFICIO REGIONAL OFFICERS Given that the Council on Regional Security regional officer position is defined in the Charter, if insufficient slots existed would their slots potentially overrule those granted by the Regional Officers Act entirely? Article 2 of the Regional Officers Act states that: (1) The in-game Delegate will be granted all Regional Officer powers. (2) The Minister of Foreign Affairs will be granted the Embassies power. (3) The Minister of Regional Affairs will be granted the Appearance and Communications powers. (4) The Prime Minister will be granted the collective set of powers granted to the other Cabinet ministers herein. (5) Members of the Council on Regional Security will be granted the Border Control power. (6) At least one member of the Local Council will be granted the Appearance, Communications, and Polls power. (7) During elections, the Election Commissioner will be granted the Polls and Communication powers. Article 3 of the Regional Officers Act states: (1) The Cabinet and/or Delegate may grant Communications, Appearance, and Polls powers to regional members as they see fit. (2) The Council on Regional Security may grant Border Control powers to regional members as they see fit. As can be seen, each section in Article 2 is forceful in its stipulation that the relevant Regional Officer power will be granted to the official. Conversely, both sections in Article 3 are permissive by stating the relevant authority may grant certain Regional Officer powers to others. Therefore, ex officio appointments under Article 2 must occur, whereas discretionary appointments under Article 3 are optional. The logical extension of this is that Article 2 Regional Officers take precedence over Article 3 ones. This is the first key to determining when Council on Regional Security (CRS) members receive their Regional Officer appointments. The Charter (Article IX, Section 11) states that: (11) The Delegate must grant members of the Council on Regional Security appropriate Regional Officer powers to fulfil their duties. When there is a limited number of Regional Officer positions available, those positions must be given to the most senior Council members. By making a provision for the appointment of only some CRS members, the Charter makes it clear that not all CRS members need to be Regional Officers. However, it cannot be said that this passage permits the CRS to be passed over completely. The Charter stipulates that “The Delegate must grant members of the [CRS] appropriate Regional Officer powers.” Article 2 of the Regional Officers Act reinforces this by saying “Members of the [CRS] will be granted the Border Control power.” So, while the Charter has a provision which means that not all CRS members must be appointed, both the Charter and the Regional Officers Act have provisions which mean that at least some CRS members must be made Regional Officers. But when do CRS members receive their appointments? Consider the following phrase in the aforementioned Charter passage: “When there is a limited number of Regional Officer positions available.” What exactly does a limited number mean?1 First off, it must be determined whether discretionary appointments under Article 3 of the Regional Officers Act are counted in this measure. It is not at all clear: one could argue they should be counted as they take up a physical Regional Officer slot, however, another could argue they should not count as their appointment can be revoked at any time (see Part II below) meaning they do not truly limit the "number of Regional Officer positions available." Since both views appear to be valid, the matter shall be approached by a process of elimination. One interpretation is that a limited number means there are more people who have been appointed as Regional Officers than the amount of slots that are available. Hence, CRS members would be the first to lose their Regional Officer allocation (even before those appointed under Article 3 do). With enough discretionary appointments, this could mean that no CRS member is a Regional Officer. However, this is plainly unacceptable as it has been shown above that both the Charter and the Regional Officers Act require at least some CRS members to be Regional Officers. Because of this, the term limited number cannot refer to simply having too many Regional Officers. One might propose a solution in that some CRS members could receive guaranteed appointments while the others are relegated to the back of the line. This two-tiered system is quite ingenious. However, it does not accord with the text of the law. The Charter says “When there is a limited number of Regional Officer positions available, those positions must be given to the most senior [CRS] members.” The words those positions imply the remaining positions available. Hence, the Charter will not allow for CRS members to be appointed as Regional Officers if there are no remaining positions available. However, in order to make some CRS members wait until everyone else is a Regional Officer, Article 3 appointments have to count for the purposes of determining how many positions are available. But, if they do count, the more senior CRS members will also have to wait (because they can only be appointed to any remaining positions available). The only possible workaround to make this two-tiered proposal a reality would be if Article 3 Regional Officer appointments count in determining whether there are positions available for some CRS members but not for others. This is self-evidently a very convoluted reading of the term limited number; as such, it is to be avoided if possible. Because of this, the law likely does not permit CRS members to be split into two different classes of allocation. So CRS members cannot collectively or individually be put at the end of the Regional Officer queue (which, as shown before, is after Article 3 discretionary appointments). With their relation to Article 3 sorted, it is time to examine how the allocation of CRS members interacts with other Article 2 Regional Officers. Consider the possibility that CRS members receive their allocation before others who are entitled under Article 2 receive theirs. If this was to occur, a very large CRS would mean no one else was appointed a Regional Officer and so every other person with a claim under Article 2 would miss out. However, it was argued above that Article 2 requires all these ex officio Regional Officer appointments to occur. Hence, allocating CRS members before other Article 2 Regional Officers would create a conflict in the law, making this interpretation less preferable. There is one more possibility: all non-CRS Article 2 allocations are done first, then CRS members are made Regional Officers in the order of their seniority, and finally any Article 3 discretionary appointments receive their entitlement. This interpretation of the law does not result in the other Article 2 Regional Officers missing out, does not split the CRS members into two tiers of allocation, and ensures at least some CRS members will be Regional Officers (as there are twelve non-Delegate Regional Officer slots and a maximum of five other Article 2 officers under the current law, leaving seven CRS spaces). Since this is the only interpretation which does not cause any of the aforementioned issues, it is the order of Regional Officer bestowal which the Court shall prefer. In summary, the answer to the question first posed by the petitioner is no, CRS members do not take priority over others mentioned in Article 2 but they are made Regional Officers before any Article 3 appointments occur. So, it has been demonstrated that non-CRS Article 2 appointments occur first and then CRS members are made Regional Officers in the order of their seniority. However, what does the Charter mean by seniority within the CRS? The Charter does not stipulate how seniority is determined and it is not possible to glean this from any Assembly threads. Hence, seniority is not defined under the law and, until it is, any reasonable methodology for determining the most senior CRS members is sufficient. This answers another of the petitioner’s questions: How are the “most senior Council [on Regional Security] members” determined on a legal basis? II ON DISCRETIONARY APPOINTMENTS   Can discretionary regional officer slots - granted by Article 3 of the Regional Officers Act - be granted over other "flexible" slots such as those of the additional Local Council or Council on Regional Security members? As shown above, discretionary Regional Officer appointments under Article 3 of the Regional Officers Act cannot be granted over CRS members. Because Article 2 also requires at least one Local Councillor to be a Regional Officer, discretionary appointments under Article 3 cannot displace the first Local Councillor.2 However, what about the other two Local Councillors? Article 2 simply requires that “at least one member of the Local Council” is a Regional Officer. As Article 2 makes no requirement that the other Local Councillors be made Regional Officers, they therefore must be appointed under the discretionary system in Article 3. However, do those two Local Councillors have precedence within those who are appointed under Article 3? No, they do not. Recalling Article 3 of the Regional Officers Act: (1) The Cabinet and/or Delegate may grant Communications, Appearance, and Polls powers to regional members as they see fit. (2) The Council on Regional Security may grant Border Control powers to regional members as they see fit. As can be seen, there is no mechanism provided in Article 3 to determine any order of priority amongst discretionary appointments. Subject to availability, the respective authorities (Cabinet, Delegate, and CRS) may grant–and thus revoke–Regional Officer powers "as they see fit." Hence, if there are too many discretionary appointments, any compromise agreement made between the relevant appointing authorities would be sufficient. This may mean that the other two Local Councillors miss out on being Regional Officers. So, in answer to the question posed by the petitioner, it has been shown that one Local Councillor (however decided) receives their Regional Officer allocation under Article 2 before CRS members are appointed. However, the other two Local Councillors are can only be made Regional Officers under Article 3 (but these appointments are not guaranteed). Resultantly, they can only be appointed if there is space after all CRS members are made Regional Officers. This answers another of the petitioner’s questions (the final one remaining): When a limited number of regional officer slots exist, do the Local Council or Council on Regional Security slots have legal priority? While the petitioner did not ask about the term regional members in Article 3, it was raised in Beepee’s submission. Hence, the Court shall provide guidance as to the definition of this phrase. In August 2016, Delegate Tsunamy passed an amendment to Article 3 so as to legitimise their Regional Officer appointments, including Railana as a World Assembly Advisor. Railana was not a member of the Cabinet, CRS, or Local Council at this time (and therefore was not otherwise a Regional Officer). Hence, the term regional members in Article 3 cannot just refer to those who are already Regional Officers. As the Assembly threads provide no further clarification, it is reasonable for the Court to consider the term regional members to be analogous to Members of the Coalition as defined in HCLQ1708 Members of the Coalition. Therefore, any good faith resident of the region may be appointed as a discretionary Regional Officer under Article 3. Of course, Article 3 may also be used to expand the powers of an existing Regional Officer as well, since the passage lists specific powers the relevant authorities may grant. Nonetheless, the operation of Article 3 is not restricted to those who are already Regional Officers as defined under Article 2.

FOOTNOTES 1. One could argue the term limited number refers to when there is an upper limit on the number of Regional Officers that can be appointed. However, this has always been the case and (unless something unforeseeable happens) will always be the case into the future. Therefore, this interpretation is nonsensical and will not be entertained any further. 2. The law does not provide any guidance as to how the singular Local Councillor may be chosen. Hence, any situation which causes a Local Councillor to have Regional Officer powers is acceptable. Indeed, if a Local Councillor was already a Regional Officer by virtue of sitting on the CRS they would satisfy the Article 2 requirements (and the other two Local Councillors would have to be appointed under Article 3).

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

Reply