[ADVISORY QUESTION] Regional Officers in Relation to the Delegate

I’m procrastinating before finals week, so I’m bringing this question before ye honored Arbiters.

The Concordat never explicitly mentions the duties and jobs of Regional Officers, The Regional Officers Act - The East Pacific - Tapatalk. This leads me to wonder on a few points regarding Regional Officers and their stance within TEP law.

No legal analysis from me here- I really need to stop procrastinating- but thought I’d just ask these questions:

  1. Could Regional Officers, due to their appointment by the Delegate, be considered Ministers? In this case, are all Regional Officers considered as Ministers?

  2. Can statutory law, outside of the Concordat, dictate whether ROs are considered as Ministers or not- assuming the Concordat is the same version as it is today?

  3. If general, are all Regional Officers assumed to be overseen by the Delegate, and mandated to follow the Delegate’s orders? Or are Regional Officers, once appointed, independent from the Delegate and not required to follow the Delegate’s orders? I’m assuming that all actions being discussed here do not contravene any law or the Concordat- whatever the Delegate orders is perfectly legal and does not contradict or intend to contradict standing law.

  4. To add onto the last question- in a case where the Delegate orders a Regional Officer to preform a legal action, yet the Regional Officer refuses, is the Regional Officer committing a crime?

  5. In the case of Vizier-Regional Officers as established by the RO Act, are they mandated to follow the Delegate’s orders in matters unrelated to the Praesidium? For example, could the Delegate order a Vizier to moderate the RMB, even though that is not the specific job of a Vizier-RO? If the Delegate can order a Vizier-RO to do something, when does a Vizier-RO act under the Praesidium’s jurisdiction and when does a Vizier-RO act under the Delegate’s jurisdiction?

  6. Can the Delegate order (without consent from the Grand Vizier or Commissioner) a Vizier-RO to preform an action that whilst perfectly legal, is not under the Delegate’s jurisdiction? For example, can the Delegate order a Vizier-RO to ban a nation who has violated an endorsement cap for three days under notice, despite the fact that the Endorsement Caps Act gives jurisdiction over endorsement cap enforcement to the Praesidium?

  7. Can the Grand-Vizier or Commissioner order a Vizier-RO to preform an action that is under Delegate jurisdiction, without the Delegate’s consent?

May ask more questions later if I can think of any.

Bump on this

Boy, this is a toughie. I had forgotten why I didn’t want to handle this one in a hurry. So, here’s how I see Regional Officers in relation to the Delegate and their Ministers:

— Begin quote from ____

The Delegate may appoint Ministers to advise on or perform any of the duties of the Delegate. As a limit, the Delegate may only order a Vizier to assume the full Delegacy. The Delegate may then retake the Delegacy at any time. Further, statutory apportionment of Regional Officer positions or powers shall take primacy over discretionary Minister appointments.

— End quote

This establishes the authority for the Delegate to appoint other individuals to positions which hold some powers of the Delegate, or to advisory positions. While not legally binding, Advisory Question: Are Cabinet Advisors and the Vice Delegate Considered Ministers? - The East Pacific - Tapatalk of an advisory question worked through the problem of whether cabinet advisors are ministers, and it seemed we arrived at a conclusion that all executive staff are Section 6 Ministers. We reached this conclusion because the entirety of the executive is, ultimately, structured, staffed, and managed at the discretion of the Delegate. The Delegate is empowered to unilaterally appoint Ministers, and the staff we commonly call “Ministers” are themselves given this power by the Delegate so they can staff the various ministries.

Regional Officers, on the other hand, are handled differently under the law. They do not serve as advisors to the Delegate nor do they perform the duties of the Delegate. Their in-game powers are not derived from the Delegate but from their own positions. The Regional Officers Act grants them powers that exist separately from the Delegate. It also does not give the Delegate unilateral power over the composition of the Regional Officers. Consider these sections, which grant the Magisterium, Praesidium, and Conclave power over who is or is not a Regional Officer, or automatically modify Regional Officer status independent of the will of any given body:

— Begin quote from ____

A Delegate-Elect shall be given a Position with all Powers as defined by this Act until they assume the Position of “WA Delegate”.

— End quote

— Begin quote from ____

The Magisterium may, through ⅔ affirmative majority vote, order the Delegate to dismiss a Regional Officer for reasons of inactivity or abuse of power OR order the Delegate to change the titles and/or Powers granted to a Regional Officer. Such removals and changes may be appealed to the Conclave.

— End quote

— Begin quote from ____

The Conclave may dismiss a Regional Officer by 2/3 majority vote or through trial verdict.

— End quote

— Begin quote from ____

The Praesidium shall publicly designate four Viziers to serve as Regional Officers, whom shall be known as ‘Designated Viziers’. Designated Viziers shall have the Powers of ‘Border Control’ and ‘Communications’ as well as the title of ‘Vizier’ granted to their Positions. Designated Viziers shall be excluded from the provisions of Section V of this Act and shall instead be subject to the procedures in Section VI.

— End quote

— Begin quote from ____

The Delegate shall be required to appoint as Regional Officer any Vizier designated by the Praesidium. In instances where four or less Viziers exist, all Viziers shall automatically become Designated Viziers.

— End quote

— Begin quote from ____

The Delegate may assign to a Designated Vizier any additional Power or title whose implementation is not regulated by law or the Standing Orders of the Viziers. The Magisterium may order, via a 2/3 majority vote, the Delegate to change or remove any such unregulated titles or Powers of/from a Designated Vizier. Changes and removals may be appealed to the Conclave.

— End quote

— Begin quote from ____

The Conclave may dismiss a Designated Vizier by 2/3 majority vote or through trial verdict.

— End quote

As we can see, it is not some anomaly or narrow avenue by which other bodies have power to appoint or dismiss Regional Officers. By the degree to which Regional Officers do not have the powers Section 6 Ministers do, and by the degree to which they are not subject to unilateral hiring and firing power by the Delegate, we cannot consider them Ministers.

  1. Could Regional Officers, due to their appointment by the Delegate, be considered Ministers? In this case, are all Regional Officers considered as Ministers?
    No, Regional Officers are not Ministers. In the same way that skiers are not burglars despite both groups often wearing ski masks, Regional Officers are not Ministers despite both often being appointed by the Delegate.

  2. Can statutory law, outside of the Concordat, dictate whether ROs are considered as Ministers or not- assuming the Concordat is the same version as it is today?
    If the Regional Officers Act were rewritten such that Regional Officers are definitionally Ministers, or such that only those who are authorized to wield Delegate power can be Regional Officers, yes.

  3. If general, are all Regional Officers assumed to be overseen by the Delegate, and mandated to follow the Delegate’s orders? Or are Regional Officers, once appointed, independent from the Delegate and not required to follow the Delegate’s orders? I’m assuming that all actions being discussed here do not contravene any law or the Concordat- whatever the Delegate orders is perfectly legal and does not contradict or intend to contradict standing law.
    Regional Officers are not formally under the orders of the Delegate. The Delegate does, however, have control over the behavior of the Regional Officers in that they may remove Regional Officers at will:

— Begin quote from ____

The Delegate may appoint any Citizen as a Regional Officer, and grant them any of the Powers defined within this Act. The Delegate may also dismiss a Regional Officer at any time for any reason as well as change an RO’s Powers or titles at any time.

— End quote

Note that this does not always apply. Most notably, the Delegate cannot remove “Designated Viziers” from their position except for “as dictated in law and/or the Standing Orders of the Viziers”.

  1. To add onto the last question- in a case where the Delegate orders a Regional Officer to preform a legal action, yet the Regional Officer refuses, is the Regional Officer committing a crime?
    No, Regional Officers are not subordinate to the Delegate, even if they are vulnerable to dismissal. The act of refusal itself is not a crime. In fact, the Regional Officers Act only deals with the powers of Regional Officers, and assigns no responsibilities.

  2. In the case of Vizier-Regional Officers as established by the RO Act, are they mandated to follow the Delegate’s orders in matters unrelated to the Praesidium? For example, could the Delegate order a Vizier to moderate the RMB, even though that is not the specific job of a Vizier-RO? If the Delegate can order a Vizier-RO to do something, when does a Vizier-RO act under the Praesidium’s jurisdiction and when does a Vizier-RO act under the Delegate’s jurisdiction?
    The Delegate cannot give orders to Designated Viziers or Viziers otherwise serving as Regional Officers. Again, the soft mandate by the Delegate or the Praesidium of “do this or I/we will dismiss you” may apply, but that’s not quite the same as being legally subordinate to those bodies.

  3. Can the Delegate order (without consent from the Grand Vizier or Commissioner) a Vizier-RO to preform an action that whilst perfectly legal, is not under the Delegate’s jurisdiction? For example, can the Delegate order a Vizier-RO to ban a nation who has violated an endorsement cap for three days under notice, despite the fact that the Endorsement Caps Act gives jurisdiction over endorsement cap enforcement to the Praesidium?
    The Delegate cannot order officials to perform duties unrelated to the powers of the Delegate.

  4. Can the Grand-Vizier or Commissioner order a Vizier-RO to preform an action that is under Delegate jurisdiction, without the Delegate’s consent?
    Similarly, the Praesidium and its Viziers cannot order officials to perform duties unrelated to the powers of the Praesidium. This holds true for the Commissioner, who being drawn from the Viziers to command the EPPS, does not have authority to command actions outside their jurisdiction.

As a final point of clarity, I take “order” to mean a legally binding and obligatory command. Viziers or the Delegate can ask the Regional Officers to do something and expect it to be done. If a Regional Officer ignores or rejects the request, they may be removed from their position however the law allows. In most cases, that’s how it would work, too. However, a Regional Officer that does everything right may still be removed in the same manner.

  1. Could Regional Officers, due to their appointment by the Delegate, be considered Ministers? In this case, are all Regional Officers considered as Ministers?
    ROs appointed at the discretion of the delegate may, technically speaking, be regarded as Ministers if we interpret “minister” to mean anyone legally appointed by the delegate, that is, by the delegate’s discretion. However, it should be noted that nowhere in the Concordat or in relevant law (the The Regional Officers Act - The East Pacific - Tapatalk or Executive Act - The East Pacific - Tapatalk) is the term “minister” defined, making the term legally meaningless except as it applies to the RA Minister and the FA Minister (both titles appearing in the EA). However, Designated Viziers (that is, those specifically chosen to fill out the four slots given by Section 6.1 of the ROA) do not count, as they are chosen by the Viziers and cannot be said to be executive appointees by the delegate.

  2. Can statutory law, outside of the Concordat, dictate whether ROs are considered as Ministers or not- assuming the Concordat is the same version as it is today?
    It already does, in fact. As previously noted, the main piece of relative statutory law is the Regional Officers Act. If we assume “minister” to mean anyone legally appointed by the delegate, then yes, the ROA is an example of how statutory law may dictate the status of ROs. The exception, of course, is the Designated Viziers, since they are not appointed at the delegate’s discretion.

  3. If general, are all Regional Officers assumed to be overseen by the Delegate, and mandated to follow the Delegate’s orders? Or are Regional Officers, once appointed, independent from the Delegate and not required to follow the Delegate’s orders? I’m assuming that all actions being discussed here do not contravene any law or the Concordat- whatever the Delegate orders is perfectly legal and does not contradict or intend to contradict standing law.
    This is more philosophical, I feel. The ROA includes the following text regarding the appointment of ROs:

— Begin quote from ____

…5.1- The Delegate may appoint any Citizen as a Regional Officer, and grant them any of the Powers defined within this Act. The Delegate may also dismiss a Regional Officer at any time for any reason as well as change an RO’s Powers or titles at any time.

— End quote

That is it, other than the Designated Viziers (who are obviously not under Delegate oversight anyway). From it, we may conclude the following: A) Regional Officers derive their authority from the Delegate, as they are the one appointing them, legally speaking; B) As a consequence, all they do is done with the authority of the delegate and within the constraints imposed on that office; and C) As such, they are to be considered part of the executive branch and therefore beholden to the delegate, except as the law dictates.

  1. To add onto the last question- in a case where the Delegate orders a Regional Officer to preform a legal action, yet the Regional Officer refuses, is the Regional Officer committing a crime?
    Except where the law explicitly states refusal of such action is a crime, the refusal to perform a legal action is not a crime. The ROs are considered part of the executive structure and subject to such disciplinary measures as are laid out for members of the executive, but in the absence of anything saying RO refusal to follow orders is a crime, it is not.

  2. In the case of Vizier-Regional Officers as established by the RO Act, are they mandated to follow the Delegate’s orders in matters unrelated to the Praesidium? For example, could the Delegate order a Vizier to moderate the RMB, even though that is not the specific job of a Vizier-RO? If the Delegate can order a Vizier-RO to do something, when does a Vizier-RO act under the Praesidium’s jurisdiction and when does a Vizier-RO act under the Delegate’s jurisdiction?
    Absolutely not. Again, Designated Viziers are not appointed at the delegate’s discretion and therefore do not derive their authority, or bounds thereof, from them. Designated Viziers are free to follow Delegate orders unrelated to the Praesidium’s purview (to the extent that they are not outright forbidden to do so), but they are not mandated to. One could read the following text as undermining this:

— Begin quote from ____

…6.4- The Delegate may assign to a Designated Vizier any additional Power or title whose implementation is not regulated by law or the Standing Orders of the Viziers. The Magisterium may order, via a 2/3 majority vote, the Delegate to change or remove any such unregulated titles or Powers of/from a Designated Vizier. Changes and removals may be appealed to the Conclave.

— End quote

However, the addition of Powers or titles does not change the fundamental nature of the Designated Vizier’s status. It merely enhances it.

  1. Can the Delegate order (without consent from the Grand Vizier or Commissioner) a Vizier-RO to preform an action that whilst perfectly legal, is not under the Delegate’s jurisdiction? For example, can the Delegate order a Vizier-RO to ban a nation who has violated an endorsement cap for three days under notice, despite the fact that the Endorsement Caps Act gives jurisdiction over endorsement cap enforcement to the Praesidium?
    See above. Designated Viziers are not under Delegate oversight and therefore are not mandated to obey orders from the Delegate. It follows from the separation of powers that the Delegate is also unable to order such a thing, unless the Acting Delegate is a Vizier, from Article D, Section 5 of the Concordat:

— Begin quote from ____

Section 5) Upon the suspension of a Delegate, the Vizier which replaces the Delegate shall become Acting Delegate for the remainder of the suspension, unless another Vizier is chosen as Acting Delegate by the Magisterium. A Vizier shall not be considered as serving concurrently as Delegate if serving as an Acting Delegate.

— End quote

  1. Can the Grand-Vizier or Commissioner order a Vizier-RO to preform an action that is under Delegate jurisdiction, without the Delegate’s consent?
    If the action is under strictly Delegate jurisdiction, then no. This is true even in the event of an Acting Delegate as described above.