Alright, Legislators. This has been a long-standing discussion in legislators-lounge and other places and I finally just sat down and word-vomited my thoughts onto paper. Here’s my extremely rough draft of a bill creating an oversight commission. It is in no way complete, especially the section on reporting. The basic idea is to create an independent auditor that can request access to government institutions in order to audit suspected non-compliance with the laws of the Coalition.

I based a lot of the “scope” section on the Legislator Committee Act - probably the institution this is most similar to.

Some things I’d like the Assembly’s input on:

- Should it be one individual or a small group?
- if it’s an individual, how do we select their replacement if they lose leg status or are recalled?
- How do we ensure investigative authority isn’t abused (i took a crack at this with some clauses in the investigation and reporting)
- Should this office have any more authority than just investigate and report?
- Exclusivity clause - yes or no?
- Other suggestions/ideas for beefing this up?

With all that in mind, I give you my rough draft of the Oversight Act.
 

Oversight Act

An Act creating an independent government oversight office

1. Scope

(1) The Oversight Office is an independent body responsible for investigating and reporting on government activity to the public.

(2) The Oversight Office shall consist of one to three Inspectors General, nominated by the Cabinet on recommendation from the existing Inspectors General, and confirmed by the Assembly with a simple majority vote.

(3) An Inspector General shall at all times be a Legislator in good standing, Loss of Legislator status, resignation, or a successful recall motion against an Inspector General shall immediately rescind all powers granted by this Act.

(4) An Inspector General shall not hold this position concurrently with a position on the Cabinet, Council on Regional Security, or High Court.

2. Investigations

(1) The Oversight Office shall ordinarily possess no special access or powers beyond that which is granted to Legislators.

(2) The Oversight Office may, upon receipt of a complaint or with evidence of probable cause that a government official or entity is not compliant with the laws of the Coalition, petition the Assembly or at least two of the following institutions to begin an investigation:
a. the Cabinet;
b. the Delegate;
c. the Council on Regional Security;
d. the High Court.

(3) A petition from the Oversight Office shall be deemed successful and an investigation opened with a majority vote of the Assembly, or with majority approval of at least two of the government entities listed in section (2).

(4) A petition shall at minimum state the detailed reason for the request, evidence of probable cause that the stated official or entity is not compliant with the laws of the Coalition, and the exact documents and/or discussion areas to which the Oversight Office is requesting access.

(5) Upon a successful petition, the Oversight Office shall immediately be granted access to the documents and/or discussion areas requested and begin its investigation. If a petition was not granted by the Assembly, the Oversight Office shall notify the Assembly that it has opened an investigation.

(6) An investigation shall conclude and access to documents and/or discussion areas rescinded when:
a. The Oversight Office publishes its final report on the investigation;
b. The Assembly votes by simple majority to end the investigation;
c. The institutions which granted the petition, if one was granted using this method, collectively decide to end the investigation.

3. Reporting

1 The Oversight Office shall provide an initial report to the Assembly or institutions it petitioned within seven days of beginning its investigation. This initial report shall describe the Office’s initial findings and establish a timeframe for future updates.

2 The Oversight Office shall provide regular progress reports to the institution/s it petitioned.

3 At the end of its investigation, the Oversight Office shall publish a final report detailing its findings and a recommended course of action.

 
Witchcraft and Sorcery

---

Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Formerly many things in other regions. Defender. Ideologue. he/they.

(This post was last modified: 08-11-2021, 01:28 PM by Witchcraft and Sorcery.)

Reply

so... it's the CRS above the CRS?

"After he realizes this newfound power of his to override the hopes and dreams of republicans, he puts all of the united provinces under his control."
one time minister of culture

Reply

so... it's the CRS above the CRS?

Having read it just now myself... no, not at all.

New Quebecshire,
Full Player Résumé
Discord: Cubic#1608

Reply

I'm curious as to the merits of a permanent office vs needs-based appointments. Perhaps this should be a discussion.

Loss of Legislator status, resignation, or a successful recall motion against an Inspector General shall immediately rescind all powers granted by this Act.

Does that mean that an Inspector General would lose powers but otherwise remain in office?

The Oversight Office may, upon receipt of a complaint or with evidence of probable cause that a government official or entity is not compliant with the laws of the Coalition, petition the Assembly or at least two of the following institutions to begin an investigation:

I'm not entirely sure I understand this. Does it mean that the Oversight Office must, upon receiving a complaint, petition the Assembly or two institutions to open an investigation?

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

(This post was last modified: 08-11-2021, 02:08 PM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

(6) An investigation shall conclude and access to documents and/or discussion areas rescinded when:
a. The Oversight Office publishes its final report on the investigation;
b. The Assembly votes by simple majority to end the investigation;
c. The institutions which granted the petition, if one was granted using this method, collectively decide to end the investigation.

Does this mean that even if the assembly does not grant the Oversight Office a successful petition but instead two institutions do the assembly can still close down the investigation? if so why wouldn't the assembly close down an investigation it didn't want to occur in the first place?

Reply

I'm curious as to the merits of a permanent office vs needs-based appointments. Perhaps this should be a discussion.

Absolutely. In fact that is another uncertainty that I didn't consider. In retrospect it seems a bit silly to have a permanent office for something that would essentially do nothing 99% of the time.

I'll get to other questions soon. But I see a lot of clarifications being asked. Thanks to all for your feedback.

 
Witchcraft and Sorcery

---

Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Formerly many things in other regions. Defender. Ideologue. he/they.

Reply

I might suggest that while an investigation is open it would take a super-majority to recall a legislator who is serving in the Oversight Office.
Otherwise the way to make an inconvenient investigation would be to recall the members of the office. Making it a dead issue.
Some investigations may kick over an ants nest of extralegal activity.

I also suggest that motions to.put an early termination of an investigation be done by supermajority. And any office/branch that is the investigative subject not be allowed the authority to terminate the investigation.

This is dangerous stuff. Like trying to make nitroglycerin without an ice bath.

Tisha
Minister of Engagement
Legislator
Coral Guard
Ambassador to South Pacific region
OWL senior staff

Tishers ?☢ [Nyxonia]

LEDA #1             June, July, August, September 2021
COB #10            April, May 2021
Wingspan #10     August, September 2021

"I am an endorsin fool"

(This post was last modified: 08-11-2021, 06:20 PM by Tishers [Nyxonia].)

Reply

I'm curious as to the merits of a permanent office vs needs-based appointments. Perhaps this should be a discussion.

I'm not really sold on the whole idea here. But if it does happen, I'd prefer a permanent office. Needs-based appointments would probably make politicization more likely, since they'd be appointed in the midst of the investigation and that opens up a bunch of conflict of interests and ulterior motive issues.

Another thing I'd like to see here is ensuring classified material isn't published in these reports. The purpose of appointing an IG is presumably that the Assembly can trust this person to investigate and then tell the Assembly what the outcome is, and we trust the IG's word. Being granted access to classified threads and documents, and the body owning those documents being unable to "interfere" with the investigation, means an IG could go ahead and use classified material however they want.

Reply

Answering clarifications in this post.

so... it's the CRS above the CRS?

Quebec got this, but no. Not at all. It's not above or below anything - it's independent. 

Loss of Legislator status, resignation, or a successful recall motion against an Inspector General shall immediately rescind all powers granted by this Act.

Does that mean that an Inspector General would lose powers but otherwise remain in office?

Yes, this is correct.
 

 

The Oversight Office may, upon receipt of a complaint or with evidence of probable cause that a government official or entity is not compliant with the laws of the Coalition, petition the Assembly or at least two of the following institutions to begin an investigation:

I'm not entirely sure I understand this. Does it mean that the Oversight Office must, upon receiving a complaint, petition the Assembly or two institutions to open an investigation?

Ideally no. I would like the office to be able to make a determination on that based on what it sees, if it believes there's probable cause, etc. Hence the use of "may" instead of "shall" or "will".
 

(6) An investigation shall conclude and access to documents and/or discussion areas rescinded when:
a. The Oversight Office publishes its final report on the investigation;
b. The Assembly votes by simple majority to end the investigation;
c. The institutions which granted the petition, if one was granted using this method, collectively decide to end the investigation.

Does this mean that even if the assembly does not grant the Oversight Office a successful petition but instead two institutions do the assembly can still close down the investigation? if so why wouldn't the assembly close down an investigation it didn't want to occur in the first place?

This is an interesting case. I'm... not entirely sure. The point of being able to petition government institutions instead of the Assembly is that if some case were classified and needed to remain out of the public eye for security reasons or whatever the case may be, the office would have an avenue to do so without directly involving the Assembly. I'm fully aware that we have Legislators who are citizens or even government officials in other regions, and what we say and do here is very much on display to the public. Some of the details of these audits or investigations absolutely must not reach the public. Roavin and I had a conversation to this effect a while back and I thought it reasonable enough. 

I guess that answer goes some way toward what Glen is saying - anyone who is or ever has been in Cabinet knows that there is some evidence and information that absolutely must not reach the public. I can add a provision to that effect somewhere in the "reporting" section probably.

I might suggest that while an investigation is open it would take a super-majority to recall a legislator who is serving in the Oversight Office.
Otherwise the way to make an inconvenient investigation would be to recall the members of the office. Making it a dead issue.
Some investigations may kick over an ants nest of extralegal activity.

I also suggest that motions to.put an early termination of an investigation be done by supermajority. And any office/branch that is the investigative subject not be allowed the authority to terminate the investigation.

This is dangerous stuff. Like trying to make nitroglycerin without an ice bath.

You're correct that this is dangerous stuff. That's why I expect this will not be a fast drafting or debate process. I'm okay with requiring a supermajority for early termination and recalls during investigations.

 
Witchcraft and Sorcery

---

Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Formerly many things in other regions. Defender. Ideologue. he/they.

Reply