PROPOSAL: Executive Sovereignty Act

Libertanny · July 16, 2019, 5:40pm

Esteemed Colleagues,

I’m bringing to the Magisterial Forum a proposal to boost loyalty of Executive Staffers and security within this part of the Government.

I’ll appreciate any criticism related to both privisions of this act and wording of the act. I, as well, wouldn’t mind changing name of the act - can’t think of any better name.

— Begin quote from ____

SECTION I. SHORT TITLE

…1.1- This act shall be known and cited as the “The Executive Sovereignty Act”

SECTION II. FINDINGS

…2.1- The Magisterium finds that –
…2.1.1- There are Executive Staffers placing their loyalty to foreign regions over The East Pacific; and that
…2.1.2- Such attitude causes decrease in regional security; along with
…2.1.3- Further inactivity in The East Pacifican Executive Government.

SECTION III. DEFINITIONS

…3.1- For the purposes of this act:
…3.1.1- Executive Government is the Executive branch of Government of The East Pacific;
…3.1.2- Executive Staffer is a Citizen or Resident working in the Executive Government of the East Pacific;
…3.1.3- Deputy Minister is a Citizen or Resident working in the Executive Government of the East Pacific as second-in-command of a given Ministry;
…3.1.4- Minister is a Citizen or Resident working in the Executive Government of the East Pacific as a nation of charge of a given Ministry;
…3.1.5- Overseeing Officer is a Citizen or Resident working in the Executive Government of the East Pacific as a nation of charge of a given Body;
…3.1.6- Violator is a Citizen or Resident working in the Executive Government of the East Pacific, that has violated this Act;
…3.1.7- Appointed Position is a position appointed directly by the Delegate;
…3.1.8- Elected Position is a position elected in elections process;
…3.1.9- Nominated-Verified Position is a position nominated by the Delegate and verified by the Magisterium.

SECTION IV. PROHIBITIONS & REQUIREMENTS

…4.1- Any Executive Staffer:
…4.1.1- May not be currently serving in:
…4.1.1.1- Foreign Intelligence Agencies;
…4.1.1.2- Foreign Military Organizations.

…4.2- Any Deputy Minister:
…4.2.1- May not be currently serving in:
…4.2.1.1- Foreign Intelligence Agencies;
…4.2.1.2- Foreign Military Organizations.
…4.2.2- Is required to be a member of the World Assembly within The East Pacific for the duration of service on Deputy Minister position, except:
…4.2.2.1- Eastern Pacific Sovereign Army members currently involved in military actions;
…4.2.2.2- Nations banned from the World Assembly:
…4.2.2.2.1- Proofs of ban must be showed to the World Assembly Delegate of The East Pacific and the Viceroy.

…4.3- Any Minister or Overseeing Officer:
…4.3.1- May not be currently serving in:
…4.3.1.1- Foreign Intelligence Agencies;
…4.3.1.2- Foreign Military Organizations.
…4.3.2- May not be currently serving as:
…4.3.2.1- Deputy Minister (or equivalent) in any foreign Government;
…4.3.2.2- Minister (or equivalent) in any foreign Government;
…4.3.2.3- Vice-Delegate / Second-In-Command (or equivalent) of any other region than The East Pacific;
…4.3.3- Is required to be a member of the World Assembly within The East Pacific for the duration of service on position, except:
…4.3.3.1- Eastern Pacific Sovereign Army members currently involved in military actions;
…4.3.3.2- Nations banned from the World Assembly:
…4.3.3.2.1- Proofs of ban must be showed to the World Assembly Delegate of The East Pacific and the Viceroy.

SECTION V. APPOINTMENT PROCESS & VIOLATION OF THE ACT

…5.1- SECTION IV. PROHIBITIONS & REQUIREMENTS of this Act applies to:
…5.1.1- Delegate appointed positions;
…5.1.2- Delegate nominated and Magisterium verified positions;
…5.1.3- Elected positions.

…5.2- Upon appointment, appointee is given 48 hours to comply with Provisions of this Act.
…5.2.1- 48 hours compilation duration applies to:
…5.2.1- Delegate appointed positions;
…5.2.2- Delegate nominated and Magisterium verified positions;
…5.2.3- Elected positions.

…5.3- Upon violation of this Act;
…5.3.1- Violator shall be warned by the Delegate, Viceroy or any Arbiter;
…5.3.2- Violator is given 24 hours to comply with Provisions of this Act;
…5.3.3- Continuous violation gives Conclave the right to remove any appointed, nominated-verified or elected Citizen/Resident from the current office;
…5.3.4- Upon removal of Violator, Conclave shall inform Violator and the World Assembly Delegate about the decision.

SECTION VI. ENACTMENT

…6.1- This bill shall be enacted upon its signature by the Delegate, except if the Magisterium votes to override a veto of this bill by the Delegate.

— End quote

Fedele · July 16, 2019, 5:53pm

Measures such as this to strengthen the sovereignty of the East are always a welcome discussion. I hope the Magisterium continues to show progress in protecting the region from foreign influence and subversion.

Sent from my BlackBerry Pearl using Tapatalk

Libertanny · July 16, 2019, 5:56pm

Oops. I forgot to add more definitions. Let me fix that - gonna be ready in max 30 minutes.

Funkadelia · July 16, 2019, 6:05pm

Broadly speaking, I think that the security and sovereignty of the region is supremely important. A law like this would strongly discourage infiltration from foreign entities and ensure strict punishments for abuses of our system.

Libertanny · July 16, 2019, 6:30pm

Definitions have been updated
Things to decide:
— Should Executive Staffers be accepted only upon accepting their application in an official Forum thread maintaned by WAD / WAD’s delegated person / some Department?
— Should applicants be required to submit some kind of Public Disclosure Forum in their applications?
— Should nations be life-time banned from Executive Govt if found lying in application?
— What do we do with current workers of Exe Govt if this act passes?
— Should we prohibit Violators from re-running for a given position for the time-being?

Fedele · July 16, 2019, 7:03pm

If I had to guess without going back and looking closely, I can’t imagine many people if any currently serving in the executive would be affected by this.

I would not be in favor of a permanent ban.

The public disclosure form should be required to run for office, in my opinion.

Sent from my BlackBerry Pearl using Tapatalk

Marrabuk · July 16, 2019, 8:41pm

I have brought something like this up in the past. So I’m definitely in favor of this.

Emjay · July 16, 2019, 11:59pm

I still question allowing a Resident to serve in the executive when they haven’t made a citizenship commitment to help strengthen the sovereignty of the region.

Libertanny · July 17, 2019, 12:32am

— Begin quote from ____

I still question allowing a Resident to serve in the executive when they haven’t made a citizenship commitment to help strengthen the sovereignty of the region.

— End quote

This Act doesn’t define who is allowed in or not. This Act is supposed to be universal, therefore, it’s written Citizen/Resident. I’m against letting Residents in, however, who knows what’s gonna happen in future. Therefore, we won’t need an amendment to this Act, if Residents are ever let in.

Funkadelia · July 17, 2019, 12:36am

— Begin quote from ____

I still question allowing a Resident to serve in the executive when they haven’t made a citizenship commitment to help strengthen the sovereignty of the region.

— End quote

This Act doesn’t define who is allowed in or not. This Act is supposed to be universal, therefore, it’s written Citizen/Resident. I’m against letting Residents in, however, who knows what’s gonna happen in future. Therefore, we won’t need an amendment to this Act, if Residents are ever let in.

— End quote

It would make much more sense to specify “citizens.” With all the recent confusion surrounding this wording, I think the last thing we need is more ambiguity.

Libertanny · July 17, 2019, 1:26am

— Begin quote from ____

I still question allowing a Resident to serve in the executive when they haven’t made a citizenship commitment to help strengthen the sovereignty of the region.

— End quote

This Act doesn’t define who is allowed in or not. This Act is supposed to be universal, therefore, it’s written Citizen/Resident. I’m against letting Residents in, however, who knows what’s gonna happen in future. Therefore, we won’t need an amendment to this Act, if Residents are ever let in.

It would make much more sense to specify “citizens.” With all the recent confusion surrounding this wording, I think the last thing we need is more ambiguity.

— End quote

How would you specify Citizens? Just don’t want to add yet another version of it to the poll.

Funkadelia · July 17, 2019, 1:51am

— Begin quote from ____

This Act doesn’t define who is allowed in or not. This Act is supposed to be universal, therefore, it’s written Citizen/Resident. I’m against letting Residents in, however, who knows what’s gonna happen in future. Therefore, we won’t need an amendment to this Act, if Residents are ever let in.

— End quote

It would make much more sense to specify “citizens.” With all the recent confusion surrounding this wording, I think the last thing we need is more ambiguity.

How would you specify Citizens? Just don’t want to add yet another version of it to the poll.

— End quote

I mean specifically use the term “citizen” and not “citizen or resident.” I’m not sure if you think I meant something else by that.

Libertanny · July 17, 2019, 2:07am

— Begin quote from ____

This Act doesn’t define who is allowed in or not. This Act is supposed to be universal, therefore, it’s written Citizen/Resident. I’m against letting Residents in, however, who knows what’s gonna happen in future. Therefore, we won’t need an amendment to this Act, if Residents are ever let in.

— End quote

It would make much more sense to specify “citizens.” With all the recent confusion surrounding this wording, I think the last thing we need is more ambiguity.

How would you specify Citizens? Just don’t want to add yet another version of it to the poll.

I mean specifically use the term “citizen” and not “citizen or resident.” I’m not sure if you think I meant something else by that.

— End quote

Oh yeah. I thought that you wanted me to add “Citizen” in Definitions. Thanks for clarifying!

Fedele · July 17, 2019, 7:00pm

I’ve been giving this a lot of thought and, as it currently stands, I don’t believe this makes a lot of practical sense. I might be in favor of something like this in the future but it just seems like it restricts our talent pool a little too much and limits my ability as delegate to select the best person for the job in various ministries. If ministers are elected that changes the math a little bit but, even then, I might just be in favor of requiring a personal disclosure form and letting the voters decide.

Sent from my BlackBerry Pearl using Tapatalk

Libertanny · July 17, 2019, 7:10pm

[mention]Bachtendekuppen[/mention] [mention]Todd McCloud[/mention] [mention]Tim[/mention] [mention]Escade[/mention] [mention]Llo[/mention] [mention]Zukchiva[/mention] [mention]Brotherlandprez1[/mention] [mention]Davelands[/mention]
I would appreciate, if you’d join this discussion.

Zukchiva · July 17, 2019, 8:05pm

R e e e e e e

As I’ve said in a previous thread, I have no set stance on such a law.

On one hand, I can see it is beneficial in that we would have (theoretically), less worked people who can operate in our Executive.

On the other hand, as Fedele stated. It limits our talent pool. For example, when I was MoE, I had Jutomi as my deputy minister. Most of the time, despite being way too busy for TEP, he’d give his opinion to any proposal I had and even wrote the first official course for mah rendition of the University. During me time, he was extremely helpful and was really the only person who stayed in the Ministry for my entire service. However, I’m pretty sure he serves in some high ranking roles in other regions.

However, I know he’s a bit of a rarity so again, my stance is uncertain.

Another thing I want to point out is the Founder position. This act does not void being a founder of a UCR. And while it often depends, the Founder role can sometimes be a big part of a region with many duties. Or a small part with small or no duties to speak of. But either way, it denotes some level of loyalty to another region, which this act is heavily against by my understanding.

Llo · July 17, 2019, 10:15pm

I disagree with this bill. I feel as if placing arbitrary restrictions that don’t necessarily signify ‘enemy allegiance’ nor inactivity should be placed. Any person who actually has malicious intentions and wishes to undermine TEP would not have a hard time of getting around this - joining the WA and lying about non-membership of a foreign intelligence organisation is not a hard ask.

The only effect I see this having is, as Fedele said, restricting the talent pool available at his fingers to allow in the Executive branch.

As it stands, I will vote against this.

Escade · July 17, 2019, 11:13pm

“…4.2.2.2- Nations banned from the World Assembly:”

Why would we allow nations who are banned from the WA to hold significant positions in the region? If a nation is WA banned from NS then I think they don’t need to be part of the government either at least in a capacity that holds a title or position.

As for the rest, I can see both pros and cons. There will be those who argue that this further reduces the players who engage in TEP. I’ve also seen it suck when players don’t spend enough time developing the region they are in because they are vested in titles. Belief that voters or democracy is somehow “better” at such decisions is to avert one’s gaze from both NS and the very real failures of democracy or the real world and the very real failures of democracy.

Personally, again, I’d be open to it being tried for one cycle and then reviewed again. There should be a way to “test” proposals encoded in law that allow them to be tests for the cycle and then revert to the regular law unless a majority chooses to ratify the new way.

My other question would be this would place more emphasis on the Security team to make follow through or at least be nominally aware of who is working where in different regions.

Brotherlandprez1 · July 18, 2019, 12:56am

I think that keeping Regional security in mind is a good thing, however I overall agree with Fedele’s conclusions. If someone wishes to run for office, they should have to put out a public disclosure form. Also, if ministers are going to be elected, then the most democratic thing would be to let the voters decide. After all, what’s the point in having a democracy if you don’t have faith in your people to make the proper judgment? Overall, I feel like this law would discourage people from getting more involved in the region and would severely limit the number of nations that would be qualified to hold such a position in our government.

Tim · July 18, 2019, 4:00am

— Begin quote from ____

I’ve been giving this a lot of thought and, as it currently stands, I don’t believe this makes a lot of practical sense. I might be in favor of something like this in the future but it just seems like it restricts our talent pool a little too much and limits my ability as delegate to select the best person for the job in various ministries. If ministers are elected that changes the math a little bit but, even then, I might just be in favor of requiring a personal disclosure form and letting the voters decide.

Sent from my BlackBerry Pearl using Tapatalk

— End quote

This more or less sums up my stance. I won’t be supporting this legislation.