Magisters, I bring to your attention the following amendment proposal to our Standing Orders:
…1.5. The Provost may deny any applicants convicted of any crime and applicants who have committed subversive acts in TEP or abroad.who:
…1.5.1. has resigned or been removed from the Magisterium within the same legislative session.
…1.5.2. has been convicted of any crime by the Conclave.
…1.5.3. has been determined by the Praesidium to be a security threat due to involvement in de-stabilizing or overthrowing the legitimate governments of foreign regions.
…1.6. Should the Provost or a Deputy Provost hold concerns over the trustworthiness of an applicant, they may open a vote to the entire Magisterium on the subject of admittance.
Now, certain parties might feel targeted by this proposal, however let me explain myself.
1.5.1 - A person who has resigned from the Magisterium, in my eyes, should not be so easily re-admitted. It just gives us, your Deputy Provosts and your Provost, extra work. If they’re gonna come back so soon, they probably should’ve just called a LOA.
1.5.2 and 1.5.3 - Of course, I kinda had to keep these in, however I decided to split them into their own lines to fit with the rest of the amendment.
I don’t disagree with 5.1, 5.3, and 5.4, but “…1.5.2. …following a majority vote amongst the Deputy Provosts and the Provost.” could be very dangerous in a scenario where a foreign agent or autocratic renegade becomes Provost.
A similar mechanic I’d be less worried about would be allowing the Provost to initiate a vote of the entire Magisterium for a specific candidate, but this also has risks. If someone is a genuine, long-term WA citizen of TEP, I still think they should be a shoo-in; however, there remains the question of whether someone has parked their WA here transiently just so they can freely walk into the Magisterium, only to move their WA later…
Agree with 1.5.1, the only reason I can see for resigning and reapplying in a short period instead of taking a LOA is as a protest and since 1.5 is “may” not “must” I would assume that the Provost can choose not to exercise the right of denial if there was a good faith reason to resign.
1.5.2. I would prefer as being a majority of the full Magisterium, similar to a non-WA nation seeking admittance. I think any exclusionary right needs to be exercised by the entire body not just the leadership.
I’m not a magister, but as someone who did once serve as Provost and Deputy Provost for multiple Provosts, 1.5.2 is dangerous.
Scenario:
Evil Shadow gets elected Provost. I name evil AMOM, evil Aivintis, and evil Acronis as my Deputies. Since the 4 of us are close evil buddies in crime, we deny all applications of Magisters and start attrioning out the remaining members. Soon enough, our evil cabal has control of the Magisterium, which means control of who gets to be Vizier or Arbiter and even being able to remove the Delegate
I understand and agree with the idea, but I would much prefer if doubt about trustworthiness is folded into “subversive acts” and placed under the jurisdiction of the Praesidium. I also wouldn’t mind AMOM’s suggestion of kicking off a vote instead of immediately denying, but that’s just my two cents.
One more thing. As I read this, it’s not clear whether section 1.6 (“concerns over the trustworthiness of an applicant”) is a separate thing from 1.5, or whether it points to the situations set out under 1.5.1 - 1.5.3?
It was originally 1.5.2, but following discussion here and on Discord (a comment made by Dremaur in the Office of the Provost channel), I figured I should put it in. However, I felt there was enough of a difference between it and 1.5 to warrant it being its own clause (1.5 covers aspects where the Provost or a Deputy may outright deny an applicant, while 1.6 puts it in the hands of the greater Magisterium.)
I couldn’t find a way to edit 1.3 since it’s basically the same thing but under different circumstances, otherwise I would have done so.
