Users browsing this thread:

~~Unibot~~ · 05-13-2014, 11:26 PM

EDIT: Shouldn't comment. Ongoing case.

(This post was last modified: 05-13-2014, 11:27 PM by Sandwich Territories.)

**Belschaft** · 05-14-2014, 12:41 PM

I think we should simply fix the oversight in our laws regarding the delegacy succession, so that the same procedure that applies if there is no Delegate applies if there is no vice delegate. That way there is never a vacancy in either office. There's a number of reasons why that's a good idea, most importantly the fact that our security infrastructure doesn't function properly if either office is vacant.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Kris Kringle*** · 05-14-2014, 01:18 PM

Are you suggesting that a CSS member ascend to the Vice Delegacy?

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

**Rebeltopia** · 05-14-2014, 01:42 PM

The only problem I see with that is that a Delegate and Vice Delegate need to work as a team.

My suggestion is the Delegate be able to bring a new VD to the assembly for confirmation. This way, we know they will at least be a consensual team, and not a forced team.

"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011

One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels
The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium

POSITIONS! POSITIONS, EVERYONE!!

Quotes

***sandaoguo*** · 05-14-2014, 01:54 PM

I don't think we actually have a real line of succession in the first place. The Charter says that the line of succession goes from the CSS member with the most endorsements, to the one with the least. The Code of Laws says that the line of succession goes from the Vice Delegate to "the next in line." Those are two seemingly conflicting laws. While the Vice Delegate is the Chair of the CSS and would normally have the highest endorsement level, what happens if they're actually only the second-highest in endorsements among the CSS? According to the Charter, they would be second in line for the Delegate seat. According to the Code of Laws, they would be first. That's a minor internal inconsistency that should be fixed.

Regarding solving this problem using the line of succession, I do not think having a CSS member assume the position of Vice Delegate is a good idea. It presents the same problem as an open special election. The Vice Delegate should be the right hand of the Delegate, but that will not be the case all of the time if a CSS member is slated to become the Vice Delegate. We've seen that the Delegate and the CSS are not always on the best of terms.

Another reason why I think that is a bad idea is that we're forgetting the purpose of a line of succession. We have one because it's a security necessity. We must have a Delegate, no matter what. We place the CSS in the line of succession, because our entire security apparatus is dedicated to ensuring we have a legitimate Delegate in place. The CSS is our main security organ, and they normally have an endorsement level that would allow them to ascend to the Delegate position with very little time.

However, we can function without a Vice Delegate for a matter of time. The Vice Delegate does not serve an incredibly important security function. While they are the Chair of the CSS, the CSS can function without a Chair just fine. The two main functions of the Vice Delegate are to approve citizenship and serve a backup in case the Delegate is somehow removed from office (either by vote, by WA ejection, or resignation). That second part is the security function of the position. But as long as the Delegate is still in place, there's no immediate need of the backup. So we can afford to have a few days, even a week or two, without a Vice Delegate.

(This post was last modified: 05-14-2014, 01:56 PM by Tsunamy.)

**Belschaft** · 05-14-2014, 02:50 PM

(05-14-2014, 01:18 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Are you suggesting that a CSS member ascend to the Vice Delegacy?

That's what was originally intended when the line of succession was created - the oversight was mine as both CoA and drafter of the legislation. Should the Delegate resign, be recalled, etc, then a CSS member automatically becomes Vice-Delegate when the Vice-Delegate becomes Delegate. I overlooked the possibility of the Vice-Delegate being the one resigning when drafting it.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

**Belschaft** · 05-14-2014, 02:56 PM

(05-14-2014, 01:54 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: I don't think we actually have a real line of succession in the first place. The Charter says that the line of succession goes from the CSS member with the most endorsements, to the one with the least. The Code of Laws says that the line of succession goes from the Vice Delegate to "the next in line." Those are two seemingly conflicting laws. While the Vice Delegate is the Chair of the CSS and would normally have the highest endorsement level, what happens if they're actually only the second-highest in endorsements among the CSS? According to the Charter, they would be second in line for the Delegate seat. According to the Code of Laws, they would be first. That's a minor internal inconsistency that should be fixed.

Regarding solving this problem using the line of succession, I do not think having a CSS member assume the position of Vice Delegate is a good idea. It presents the same problem as an open special election. The Vice Delegate should be the right hand of the Delegate, but that will not be the case all of the time if a CSS member is slated to become the Vice Delegate. We've seen that the Delegate and the CSS are not always on the best of terms.

Another reason why I think that is a bad idea is that we're forgetting the purpose of a line of succession. We have one because it's a security necessity. We must have a Delegate, no matter what. We place the CSS in the line of succession, because our entire security apparatus is dedicated to ensuring we have a legitimate Delegate in place. The CSS is our main security organ, and they normally have an endorsement level that would allow them to ascend to the Delegate position with very little time.

However, we can function without a Vice Delegate for a matter of time. The Vice Delegate does not serve an incredibly important security function. While they are the Chair of the CSS, the CSS can function without a Chair just fine. The two main functions of the Vice Delegate are to approve citizenship and serve a backup in case the Delegate is somehow removed from office (either by vote, by WA ejection, or resignation). That second part is the security function of the position. But as long as the Delegate is still in place, there's no immediate need of the backup. So we can afford to have a few days, even a week or two, without a Vice Delegate.

I can see the validity of those arguments, but it wasn't what was intended. Obviously intentions can change, but I still think the benefits of seamless and immediate transition (at least in legal terms) of Delegacy/Vice-Delegacy out weigh the potential downfalls. I think part of the reason why our views differ is that we conceive of the Vice-Delegacy and CSS in different terms; I've always seen them (and in terms of powers constructed them) as a check on the delegate, rather than aides to them. The Vice-Delegate is principally a security position.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Tsunamy*** · 05-14-2014, 03:30 PM

Here's my major concern with automatically having the second most CSS member automatically become VD: What happens if that person doesn't want/doesn't have the time to perform the duties? Do you really want to be passing the position down the line?

**Belschaft** · 05-14-2014, 03:46 PM

That was conceived as a possibility, and it might very well occur. However, every member of the CSS has been vetted and approved by the Assembly, with the fact that it places them in the line of succession in mind. There shouldn't be anyone in the CSS who isn't a fit and proper person to assume the Vice-Delegacy or even the Delegacy. That's why political reliability should be as much a criteria for CSS membership as existing security experience.

You can teach someone how to fight a GCR war, how to conduct counter intelligence, how to do a security check... you can't teach someone how to be political reliable. You can't teach loyalty, you can't teach integrity, you can't teach a commitment to following the rules. The last time the CSS was asked to suggest new members, we didn't look at existing security experience as a criteria. We looked for citizens of unimpeachable character. I can't think of a single CSS member who I would be uncomfortable with as VD or Delegate.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 05-14-2014, 04:13 PM

(05-14-2014, 02:56 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I can see the validity of those arguments, but it wasn't what was intended. Obviously intentions can change, but I still think the benefits of seamless and immediate transition (at least in legal terms) of Delegacy/Vice-Delegacy out weigh the potential downfalls. I think part of the reason why our views differ is that we conceive of the Vice-Delegacy and CSS in different terms; I've always seen them (and in terms of powers constructed them) as a check on the delegate, rather than aides to them. The Vice-Delegate is principally a security position.

Our electoral system was poorly designed, if the intent was for the Vice Delegate to serve as a check on the Delegate. They run on a unified platform, so naturally they will agree with each other on what the agenda of the government will be. They also tend to be friends. Those two things really decrease the likelihood of a Vice Delegate checking the power of the Delegate.

Regardless of intent, the political reality is that the Delegate and the Vice Delegate need to be on the same page, otherwise we introduce dysfunction into the Cabinet. Running on the same ticket is the best way to ensure that. So replacing a Vice Delegate should take that into account.