Honorable Arbiters, a simple question today.
The Chief Officer of Justice Act states, in Section 1.3:
— Begin quote from ____
The Chief Officer of Justice may not serve concurrently as an Arbiter, the Delegate, Chief Minister, or the Provost.
— End quote
Given that the Act outlaws the COJ serving concurrently as Provost, would the law outlaw the COJ from serving as Deputy Provost? I am asking this as the Deputy Provost often preforms many of the Provost’s jobs, so the interpretation of this section is unclear to me.
The Standing Orders of the Magisterium establish the office of Deputy Provost as one with two principal responsibilities:
-
to carry out the duties of the Provost when the Provost is indisposed and
-
to assume fully the powers of the Provost if the office of Provost is vacant.
It seems to me that Deputy Provosts, being appointed solely by the Provost and sharing the powers of that office as a matter of regular procedure, are ineligible to concurrently serve as the Chief Officer of Justice. Of most concern would be a Deputy Provost that is next in line to become Provost pro tempore serving in the office, as at that point the Deputy Provost is truly Provost in all but title.
At the same time, Deputy Provosts do not normally enjoy all Provost powers, and the law is very specific in which offices the Chief Officer of Justice is prohibited from serving in concurrently. Worse still, the law offers no explanation or reasoning for the prohibition. It is clear that it is a matter of conflict of interest, but the law does not explain why these offices and not others are considered a compromising interest to the proper conduct of the Chief Officer of Justice.
I’d say I lean toward not permitting Deputy Provosts, but I must admit I am informed by a strong desire not to see such a conflict arise, whether or not it is permitted under the letter of the law. As a citizen I would petition the Delegate not to nominate Deputy Provosts, whether it is strictly legal or not, out of concern for such a conflict. However, the question is not about the correctness of such a nominee, but the validity of the nominee. I am very interested in what my fellow Arbiters think about this.
— Begin quote from ____
Would the [Chief Officer of Justice Act] outlaw the COJ from serving as Deputy Provost?
— End quote
No. The act enumerates only four offices whose holders are prevented from serving as the Chief Officer of Justice: Arbiter, the Delegate, Chief Minister, and the Provost. (Emphasis mine.) The Deputy Provost is not listed.
Section 3.5 of the Standing Orders of the Magisterium states:
— Begin quote from ____
The Provost shall appoint up to four (4) Magisters as Deputy Provost, who can conduct the Provosts’ duties upon the request of the Provost.
— End quote
“Conduct[ing] the Provosts’ duties” is not the same as serving in the office of the Provost. Similarly, the Chief Officer of Justice Act does not forbid individuals who are conducting duties of the Provost from serving as the Chief Officer of Justice, it forbids individuals who are the Provost from doing so. Deputy Provosts who are conducting the duties of the Provost are not the Provost, they are Deputy Provosts performing their assigned job functions.
I agree with the Viceroy’s desire not to see this situation arise and I encourage the Magisterium to address the matter. However, there exists no law preventing Deputy Provosts from serving concurrently as Chief Officer of Justice. Therefore, it is legal under the law of The East Pacific.
What even is a Chief Minister? Our current Executive Act makes no mention of it. Is it the ones tasked with Affairs such as Foreign Affairs and Regional Affairs?
— Begin quote from ____
What even is a Chief Minister? Our current Executive Act makes no mention of it. Is it the ones tasked with Affairs such as Foreign Affairs and Regional Affairs?
— End quote
Yes, that’s typically what’s assumed as a “Chief Minister”. You’re right in that it isn’t actually defined in law, though.
— Begin quote from ____
What even is a Chief Minister? Our current Executive Act makes no mention of it. Is it the ones tasked with Affairs such as Foreign Affairs and Regional Affairs?
— End quote
A Chief Minister is a Minister with authority over other Ministers. This is being defined by Zuk’s rewrite after my temper tantrum in our DMs concerns with the original draft, but even now when it isn’t in law, that’s what it means. In CMoWAA, CMoFA, and CMoMA (Unofficial CM for EPSA), this mostly means “independent from the authority of other Chief Ministers”. For CMoFA specifically, it also means “very important cornerstone Ministry status”.