So I’m bored and decided to try rewriting the Executive Act again.
The main reason this Act was created was to develop a basic structure for the region, and along the way it absorbed UTEP’s thingies. I also tried to simplify it, although it is of similar length to the current Executive Act since I added all those Delegate duties.
Reason I added Delegate duties was that it may be helpful for us to legally define duties that generally aren’t within our law but probably should be seen as core duties of the office.
It looks good to me, though I did detect a minor spelling mistake here:
Ministries are understood to be Executive departments led by Ministers, toughthough the Delegate may appoint Ministers who do not lead a Ministry. Some Ministers may be subordinate to other Ministers.
I also have the same question as God-Emperor. Why the switch?
Idk how to multi-reply so to ping @Cloud (also cloud, will fix)
In my eyes the Chancellor has always been a self-chosen title for the Minister of Education title that we ended up legalizing. TBF so is for the OO of EPSA, so if people want to keep the chancellor title i dont really mind/care either way, honestly. ill change it bacc
I kinda don’t like much of this, but at this moment I struggle to find the patience to write a thorough critique of yet another Executive Act rewrite. I’ll try to get around to it, but I think a lot of it is annoyance with the style change, like “X is understood to be Y” instead of “X shall be Y” or “X is Y” or, in certain cases, removing the understood sentence overall, because it IS understood, and mandated, elsewhere, and doesn’t need to be talked about.
Otherwise, I reeaaally don’t like the wording and limitations of the Delegate duties. I recommend:
Cast their World Assembly vote according to regional interests; Represent regional interests on the interregional stage; Maintain diplomatic relations; Preserve regional culture; Oversee the University; Lead the military; Ensure good relations and active communication with the region’s roleplay communities; Guide new Citizens in becoming involved within the region; Manage regional Ministers
This is based on Serge’s rewrite, my issues there, and your ideas.
Formatting fixed for now, if the three dot problem is fixed. I refues to remove the neacting line.
Removed the understood bits 'cuz you’re right on that
For the duty things, I’m not too sure about your wordings.
For the World Assembly bit, it’s still pretty much Delegate perogative on how they wanna cast their vote, so I’m not really too comfortable restricting their duty in such a way. I’m not really sure the Delegate holding WA votes is as much an expectation as it is just a way to do things, but in any case I’d feel more comfortable if we explicitly legislated such a process somewhere rather than legislating it in one broad line.
The phrase “preserve regional culture” doesn’t make too much sense to me either - culture’s mostly running events, so I think it makes sense to expect the Delegate to run events
i merged the oversee/manage/lead things into one clause
I mean I don’t think mandating that the WAD vote is cast according to “regional interests” is actually restrictive in any way, and personally I think it’s a reasonable expectation.
Also, I figured out the issue with the six dots.
3+ dots turns into …, which you must note is not three separate dots, but rather ONE character consisting of three dots. Six dots turns into one …
HOWEVER, if you paste in two …, that makes six dots, see: ……
That’s how I get six dots in, because I draft on google docs where three periods are autocorrected into … but in Discourse, any number equal to or greater than three are autocorrected into …
So just do …… through copypaste
I think it’s an anti-spam measure on discourse that just personally affects us.
This is what Vussul was trying to say on discord, but yeah.
I am against the entirety of this section. Let me give a blow-by-blow of my disagreement:
3.1 (and its subsections). This section, in my opinion, is unnecessary. For better or worse, the Delegate is already considered to be both the Head of State and the Head of Government, meaning that their actions in the executive are already implicitly required to do all of this. By investing executive power into the Delegate, the Concordat compels the Delegate to run the executive government for the sake of the people, which already covers this.
3.2 - The Delegate has been always been able to do this, as seen in Article A, Section 6:
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.
The line “The Delegate may then retake the Delegacy at any time.” implies that not only can the Delegate reclaim the role of the Delegacy, it can also reclaim duties invested on the Ministers as well. As such, I also find this unnecessary.
3.4 (what happened to 3.3?) - As the Head of State, they are implicitly allowed to do this:
The Delegate shall represent The East Pacific to foreign entities as Head of State.
3.5 - Further defining Ministers is unnecessary as well, as Ministers have been defined in Article A, Section 6, as persons who advise on or perform on any of the Delegate’s duties. As such, the Chancellor and Overseeing Officer are already considered Ministers under the Concordat. I think the Executive Act is not the appropriate place to define a Ministry either, I feel that it should be established in the Concordat in order to define a Ministry as an innate structure of the Executive.
3.6 - Now here, my biggest problem occurs. Why, exactly, are we allowing the Magisterium to affect the non-Delegate parts of the Executive? The Delegate, as the head of government, should be free to appoint and remove Ministers to their liking, without legislative interference. If we don’t like it, we remove the Delegate themself. Why do we need to perform target removals? In my opinion, it is the prerogative of the Delegate to lead and manage the Executive branch, without having to worry with their Ministers being removed from office by the Magisterium.
In my opinion, this section is unnecessary. Most of its clauses have already been adequately explained in the Concordat. In addition, the existence of both 3.2 (in particular, limiting the Executive’s actions in statutory law) and 3.6 limits the Delegate to execute its duties effectively. In addition, do we need to do this, in the sense that things will explode if we can’t cite what duty the Delegate needs to do? I do not see that happening any time soon. If we are to discuss how we should define the Duties of the Delegate, the Executive Act is not the right place to do it in. It should be in the Concordat, such that we can have the Citizen’s perspective doing so.