[CONCORDAT AMENDMENT] Removal of High Offices by the Magisterium + Citizenship Conceptual Fixes

[spoiler]
— Begin quote from ____

The Magisterium may suspend the Delegate, a Vizier, or an Arbiter by a 2/3 vote for suspicion of indictable crimes. This suspension shall be considered an Indictment for the named offence or offences as prosecuted by the Provost. Suspension shall be lifted by any non-guilty decision of the Conclave or by majority vote of the Magisterium.

— End quote

Right now, our removal processes are borked. We don’t really have anything that lets us remove officials whilst giving us lots of legal room (minus the Conclave being able to remove Viziers for “absense” or “high crimes”). The issues presented by this limitation are as follows:

A) If 1) the entire Conclave or 2) the Delegate themselves acts up in a way that cannot be dealt with via law, then we’ll be forced to just sit there for the next few months until the Arbiters’/Delegate’s term is up as we can’t remove them through Magisterial suspension. Not really ideal.

B) Our law will never cover everything. Ever. I bet no one a decade ago could’ve imagined marisupial-scale purges, but they happened regardless. For all our planning and legislating, there will always be that one thing that makes us go “this person shouldn’t be in office if they’re doing this”, yet we have no way to remove them. And oftentimes by elections (at least for Delegate), those issues can be swept under the rug.

Our law is super specific in its crimes- which is good for most cases, but not really ideal when you’re dealing with a rogue official. IMO, we need to broaden the reasons for why the Magisterium can suspend an official. And we need a way to deal with a Conclave that has entirely gone rogue.

So, I’m here seeking your opinion. Is this really an issue of the Magisterium being unable to remove officials properly, or a discussion seeking a problem? Is there any way to fix this, balancing our need to hold people accountable versus leaving ourselves vulnerable to bad actors? Thoughts appreciated. I know we were talking about this earlier in the #magisterium channel :stuck_out_tongue:
[/spoiler]

— Begin quote from ____

Article B: Legislative

Section 1) This Concordat does hereby invest legislative authority in a Magisterium, which shall enact legislation and maintain Standing Orders.

Section 2) The induction or removal of a Citizen as Magister shall follow the methods prescribed in the Standing Orders. A Magister must be a Citizen.

Section 3) Magisters shall elect among themselves a Provost, as outlined in the Standing Orders. The Provost shall preside over the Magisterium, represent it to the Executive, the Viziers and the Judiciary, and keep a record of the laws of the East Pacific.

Section 4) Enactment, amendment, or repeal of legislation, and ratification of a treaty or declaration of war submitted by the Delegate shall be decided by majority vote.

Section 5) The Delegate may elect to, within ten days of passage in the Magisterium, veto an enactment, amendment, or repeal of legislation. A law can also be signed into immediate effect by the Delegate before expiry of the aforementioned ten-day period. The Magisterium may elect to override such a veto by a 3/4 vote.

Section 6) The Magisterium may confirm Arbiters nominated by the Delegate by a 2/3 vote.

Section 7) The Magisterium may confirm Viziers nominated by the Delegate by a 2/3 vote.

Section 8) Should the Delegate or an Arbiter become inactive in their duties, abuse their authority, or violate statutory law, the Magisterium may vote with a 2/3 affirmative majority to remove said official from office. In the case of the Delegate, a 1/2 affirmative majority vote in a Citizen referendum shall be required to confirm the decision. During these votes, the Delegate or Arbiter shall be suspended from duty. The Magisterium may suspend the Delegate, a Vizier, or an Arbiter by a 2/3 vote for suspicion of indictable crimes. This suspension shall be considered an Indictment for the named offence or offences as prosecuted by the Provost. Suspension shall be lifted by any non-guilty decision of the Conclave or by majority vote of the Magisterium.

Section 9) If the Delegate is removed, resigns, or leaves office by other means, the Magisterium shall then select a Vizier as Acting Delegate until a new election for Delegate has been held.

Article C: Judicial

Section 1) This Concordat does hereby invest judicial power in the Conclave, which shall be the interpreter of this Concordat and the judge and jury of Citizens and appealing Residents.

Section 2) The Conclave shall be composed of four Arbiters, which shall not serve concurrently as the Delegate or as a Magister. In the final decisions of the Conclave, the total number of votes cast may not exceed 3, as determined by the Standing Orders of the Conclave.

Section 3) The Arbiters shall elect from amongst themselves a Viceroy who shall oversee the proceedings of the Conclave, administrate elections in the Region, and represent the Conclave to the Magisterium, the Viziers, and the Delegate. The Viceroy shall submit election regulation changes to the Magisterium for majority approval.

Section 4) Arbiters are appointed for six month tenure, after which they shall retain their seat until a MemberCitizen is nominated to replace them. An Arbiter may be reappointed when their term ends.

Section 5) The Conclave may rule on the actions of the Delegate or the Viziers and nullify any which are contrary to this Concordat or statutory law. Furthermore, the Conclave may nullify any law passed by the Magisterium that is contrary to this Concordat. The Conclave is empowered to compel a legally required action by Order with any indictable penalty.

Section 6) The Conclave may rule on the actions of any Citizen to be in violation of this Concordat or of the indicted offences as prescribed by the laws of the Region and sentence those found guilty pursuant to statutory limits. Trials in the Conclave shall be in open session. Should the Delegate, a Minister, a Vizier, an Arbiter, and/or a Magister be put on trial, the Conclave may, via a 2/3 majority vote, suspend said official from all or certain governmental duties for the duration of the trial. Said suspension may be lifted early by a 2/3 majority vote by the Conclave.

Section 7) The Conclave may remove a Vizier and/or Magister by a 2/3 decision or a Magister by majority decision, for absence or high crimes.

Article E: Citizenship and Residency

Section 1) A Citizen is a Nation residing within The East Pacific Region. A Citizen is an individual who has one or more nations residing within The East Pacific Region. Such nations may be referred to as citizenship nations.

Section 2) The Praesidium, as led by the Grand Vizier, shall be charged with overseeing the voter registration process.

Article F: Rights and Duties of Citizens

Section 1) Each Citizen shall be given a swift and impartial trial by the Conclave if an indictment is made against them. Additionally, any Citizen may appeal to the Conclave via trial on any government action taken against them. Citizens may not Any Citizen, and/or their citizenship nation(s), may not be banned or ejected for any reason not stated in law or this Concordat.

Section 2) Each Citizen shall not be tried twice for the same offence nor forced to self-incriminate. Citizens shall have the right of representation by adequate counsel to enforce these rights.

Section 3) Each Citizen shall be free to serve in any office in The East Pacific, as limited by World Assembly Membership and Concordat ratification requirements.

Section 4) Each Citizen may submit to the Magisterium a legislative proposal for public debate and Magisterium vote, excluding those which may only be proposed by a specific governmental entity as according to this Concordat or statutory law.

Section 5) All Citizens that have registered their vote may vote in Delegate elections and Concordat referenda.

Section 6) No title shall be granted which does not confer upon the holder practical responsibility in government, other than that of Citizen.

Section 7) Each Citizen may have their citizenship nation(s) leave the Region freely. Citizens who have no valid citizenship nation within the Region leave the Region will have their citizenship removed and shall surrender all governmental roles.

— End quote

An idea I just came up with. Thoughts?

I know Bach has something regarding this in his proposal, and I appreciate that something, but I believe this still merits further discussion.

This will only be motioned to vote after Em’s proposal is, if it is motioned at all. I’ll update the amendment if Bach’s thingy passes.

Also, to recap all the changes now in this proposal:

  • B.8 -> Magisterium can remove a Delegate or Arbiter for inactivity, authority abuse, or breaking law. Delegate removal needs a Citizen Referendum to take effect. Delegate and Arbiter(s) shall be suspended during votes.

  • C.4 -> Changed “Member” to “Citizen” to be more explicit.

  • C.6 -> During a trial, the Conclave can suspend government officials. This is to ensure government officials don’t abuse their powers during a trial.

  • C.7 -> Changed language to be simpler, plus acknowledge the fact that only 3 Arbiters can cast votes in “official matters”, so a majority decision is the same as a 2/3 one anyways.

  • E.1 -> Ties Citizenship to the individual rather than each nation. This resolves the idea that each nation needs to get a trial, and thus avoiding people gaming the system with puppets.

  • F.1 -> Reflects and prevents the fact that while a Citizen themself may not be unlawfully banned, any puppets they have can be under the current wording.

  • F.7 -> Reflects the idea that Citizens can only really “leave” TEP if they move all their nations outside of TEP.

Who holds Magisters accountable then?

— Begin quote from ____

Who holds Magisters accountable then?

— End quote

Any suspension would probably still go through the Conclave for trial. And if the Magisterium spams suspensions, ten something is obviously wrong and we can’t really legislate against that here- its a community problem at that point, not a legislative one.

Yeah we should definitely take care of this

Bump, seeing that the Magisterium’s legislation chokehold has seemingly ended

Don’t we like not keep track of indictable offenses anymore? Can the Magisterium even suspend if the offenses aren’t defined?

— Begin quote from ____

Don’t we like not keep track of indictable offenses anymore? Can the Magisterium even suspend if the offenses aren’t defined?

— End quote

We keep track of them! What’d defined as an “indictable offense” is basically anything you can go directly to trial for, based upon our law. So the Magisterium can suspend for a broad indictable offense (like let’s say someone ignored a Conclave order- indictable offense as they’re acting against the Concordat).

My argument here is that we should have a way for the people to remove a Delegate for reasons that may not be illegal, but regardless would make the Delegate no longer supported by the populace (question is how we do that without diminishing our security). We also need a way to deal with an entire Conclave going rogue or inactive, as our current Concordat doesn’t allow for the unlikely yet possible scenario.

I would say we should probably make the vote a significant supermajority and make the motion either (1) supported by X people before taken to vote, (2) not affecting the Delegate’s powers or responsibility until after the vote, or (3) both.

There may be other ways to do it that I just can’t think of atm. I encourage more discussion on the matter.

— Begin quote from ____

I would say we should probably make the vote a significant supermajority and make the motion either (1) supported by X people before taken to vote, (2) not affecting the Delegate’s powers or responsibility until after the vote, or (3) both.

There may be other ways to do it that I just can’t think of atm. I encourage more discussion on the matter.

— End quote

I agree w/Mangegneithe here. Supermajorities are often the favorable approach to removals as there’s a certain level of surety in the decision, therefore removing some bias as well.

Removing people from office should be an acceptable thing w/out the specification of doing something illegal or a prolonged absence. If tied in with the supermajority, you can cover a broader base of causes.

Okay there seems to be no concrete proposals and no further abstract deliberations, so here’s my attempt at a concrete proposal. Comments, questions, clarifications, counterproposals, etc. are welcome. Most of this is based on my post above.

(1) Any citizen may motion for impeachment of the Delegate within the Magisterium. If this is seconded, they open up a discussion on why.

(2) The original sponsor may motion it to vote after at least three days of deliberation, and this must be seconded by another citizen.

(3) The vote requires a 4/5 or 2/3 majority to pass. It is run in the same way as a Referendum, open to all citizenry and the like.

(4) Should it pass, the Delegate shall be impeached, a Vizier shall be selected within the Praesidium to take up the seat temporarily, and Conclave must open emergency elections to fill the office for the remainder of the term. This transition period should take place immediately.

(5) For the duration of all of these proceedings, up until the conclusion of the vote, the responsibilities and duties of the Delegate are not suspended.

4/5 sounds good to me

lets ping AMOM for the security concerns, if any

Against. This would be wide open for abuse.

— Begin quote from ____

Against. This would be wide open for abuse.

— End quote

Do you have any proposal that would allow us to hold the Delegate accountable, then? And by accountable, I mean outside of elections and criss-crossing our fingers that the Delegate whose doing horrible in their term will somehow break a law- as all our current removal processes mandate.

A Delegate can be determetial to our region without breaking the law. Fedele (kinda) proved that. And the region tends to forget when a Delegate does something really bad and then just elects them again. Fedele proved that as well with his inactive arsed second term and basically ousted an Executive official rather than bringing them to trial- yet got a third term anyways.

Also also the argument that we should just illegalize everything that the Delegate does wrong doesn’t work. What if they close down relations with one of our closest allies? Are we gonna make it illegal to back out of diplomacy? What if they appoint inactive Ministers, or simply use bad managerial strategies? We can’t make that illegal. I’m addressing this because I think someone said it earlier but I’m too lazy to check who.

Anyway, impeachment processes are not uncommon in NS, afaik, and they seem to work fine.

I would think more along the lines of expanding the scope of sections B.8 and D.4 of the Concordat. Meaning revising when a Delegate can be suspended by the Magisterium or the Viziers, which is currently possible in case of “suspicion of indictable crimes” and “High Treason” respectively. For example, replacing those with “abuse of power”. Abuse of power is more than just illegal actions, but narrower than just any policy disagreement.

I think the point is to include policy disagreement. To hold the Delegate responsible for upholding the people’s will, and to remove them if the people believe they have done a bad job.

That said, I am in favor of expanding “high crimes” / “suspicion of” to “abuse of power”.

— Begin quote from ____

I think the point is to include policy disagreement. To hold the Delegate responsible for upholding the people’s will, and to remove them if the people believe they have done a bad job.

— End quote

That’s what elections are for.

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

I think the point is to include policy disagreement. To hold the Delegate responsible for upholding the people’s will, and to remove them if the people believe they have done a bad job.

— End quote

That’s what elections are for.

— End quote

“If the Delegate is not upholding the will of the people, and the vast majority of citizens disagree with their Delegacy, then just wait until the four month term is over and let them do our region a great disservice for the entirety of their elected term” is exactly what we’re trying to avoid.

I mean, to me, common policy (dis)agreements are just the field of politics and elections. These procedures for removal should be, in my view, reserved for more special circumstances.