Proposal Concurrent Prohibition Waiver Amendment

[Chanku]

Concurrent Prohibition Waiver Amendment

Proposed by: Chanku L. Kaizer​

Section 1. Amendment to the Twelfth Mandate of Lazarus

(1) Article VII is amended to add an additional section, Section 6, which reads as follows:

(6) Notwithstanding any other section within this Mandate, the Assembly may provide temporary Waivers to exempt individuals from the prohibitions on consecutively holding certain offices within the region by a simple majority vote. The Assembly may impose additional requirements or restrictions upon the waivers outside of this Section through law, resolutions, or within any such Waivers . All waivers are limited to two times within a nine month period for the same individual and expire four months after granting from the Assembly or upon resignation or removal from office. The limit for waivers also applies towards Waivers that were not granted by the assembly due to a failed vote or a withdrawn vote.

(2) Article VII is amended to add an additional heading under Section 5 and above Section 6 which reads as follows:

Waivers

I put this forward to the Assembly for consideration. This proposal is to create a mechanism to allow for people who would otherwise be unable to serve in other positions due to holding other positions to temporarily serve in that position under certain circumstances.

 

[New Rogernomics]

Would disagree with this on the basis that it doesn't specify which offices this applies to, and thus no one could be clear upon what is being asked to be allowed.

If this is for all offices, then I think there needs to be some justification as to why we should be reducing barriers on all offices, through a simple Assembly vote, which might very well undermine having any such barriers at all.

Some barriers exist for a reason, for instance should the Delegate be allowed to run for and hold multiple positions, including PM, should the Prime Minister be on the Court and be the Assembly Speaker all at once?

We haven't extensively thought about divisions of powers, though there is an argument for keeping the executive, legislature, and court separate to avoid conflicts of interest. The less barriers between them means a higher risk of someone compromising themselves through what they do in each role.

 

[Chanku]

Would disagree with this on the basis that it doesn't specify which offices this applies to, and thus no one could be clear upon what is being asked to be allowed.

If this is for all offices, then I think there needs to be some justification as to why we should be reducing barriers on all offices, through a simple Assembly vote, which might very well undermine having any such barriers at all.

Some barriers exist for a reason, for instance should the Delegate be allowed to run for and hold multiple positions, including PM, should the Prime Minister be on the Court and be the Assembly Speaker all at once?

We haven't extensively thought about divisions of powers, though there is an argument for keeping the executive, legislature, and court separate to avoid conflicts of interest. The less barriers between them means a higher risk of someone compromising themselves through what they do in each role.

It is meant to apply to all positions.

The reasoning is simple, if there is a vacancy that might need to be filled, but the person who can do the job is currently in another position that is much harder to fill, it allows them to temporarily serve in that position to fill it without requiring them to leave a vacancy. Furthermore, the simple assembly vote is deliberate, as the vote doesn't count as confirmation or approval in any case, meaning that the waiver just says you CAN be considered as a valid option and validly serve in that position, but that the Assembly does not necessarily approve of your appointment. The simple vote is deliberate -- however if enough people are wanting it to be increased I will do so. If a waiver requires a higher threshold, then I would be of the mind to have the waiver be tied with Confirmation/Election, as if you can get a supermajority vote for a waiver, then there is no question that there is support for you holding the position.

Additionally, your question of the delegate running and holding multiple positions, the most the Delegate could hold is two consecutively for four months (or two subsquently for eight months) after that it will be a nine month period before they can do that again.

We don't necessarily have strong separation of powers anyway, as our government is more oriented towards Fusion of Powers. The legislature is an Assembly open to all citizens -- including the Executive and the Court. The legislature elects the Executive from amongst its members. The only strong separation is between the various offices of the Executive, Delegacy, Security, and Judiciary. This waiver allows for a temporary and short term violation of those separations in times where it is necessary, provided the Assembly agrees.

I do not introduce this legislation lightly, however it has been carefully considered for a while before now.

 

[Frankender]

What makes this necessary today? Shareholder director vacancy?

 

[Chanku]

What makes this necessary today? Shareholder director vacancy?

That was part of the reason I had proposed it, just in case it would assist the Director in finding a candidate, however I have been considering this for a while now. I'm not sure it's necessary right this moment, but I feel it may very well be useful now or in the future. I also think it is better to have a mechanism for this before we truly run into an issue where this would be very much needed.

 

[Wang Yao]

I do think it could help the job of a Managing Director in forming a Cabinet but it'd probably require a bit more specifics on particular situations to prevent abuses.

Apart from that, I do think of the general idea of it as positive since it would allow some individuals locked in particular positions to get more involved again in the region.

 

[Chanku]

I do think it could help the job of a Managing Director in forming a Cabinet but it'd probably require a bit more specifics on particular situations to prevent abuses.

As to the specifics, that is also why I allow the Assembly to add additional restrictions to Waivers within laws and within the waivers themselves. This means that Waivers can be more narrowly tailored for specific circumstances, in addition to allowing more control by the Assembly over how Waivers generally work.

 

[Deleted1]

I'd like some examples of what this law plans to correct.

 

[Chanku]

I'd like some examples of what this law plans to correct.

This aims to allow individuals to seek a position in another part of the Government without giving up a specific position. The idea is mostly to allow those in positions that are much, much harder to fill (like the CLS or the Court) to potentially serve in other positions without having to resign and potentially hamstring the Institution and then hopefully be reappointed and reconfirmed to the position. As such it empowers the Assembly to grant a temporary waiver to the Concurrent Term Prohibitions within the Mandate by a simple vote -- and attach any additional requirements needed for that case. Afterwards the individiual would still have to be appointed and confirmed/elected to the position, however afterwards they would be permitted to serve in that position until that term is up -- or until 4 months have passed -- whichever is first.

 

[Leonism]

I have reread the mandate to see what kind of limits on concurrent offices we currently have. It only spells out the Delegate, the Speaker and the Judges as not being able to hold another office, unless I overread something.

Also, it would be legally cleaner to abolish the provisions on concurrent terms in the respective articles of the mandate, or add a clause along the lines

... may not hold another office, unless per special exemption by a resolution of the assembly, approved with 50%+1 of the votes.

Ultimately I don't think this is what we should strive for, however. Instead the goal must be to have enough activity to avoid having to give several offices to the same person, and having a vacant position also creates a kind of "incentive" for hitherto less active citizens to volunteer.

 

[New Rogernomics]

Looking at the mandate, this would be quite a major change to how things are currently organized.

I could see some objections for instance in allowing the Delegate or the PM to be a Justice or the Assembly Speaker at the same time.

The Delegate would be able to serve in another office:

(2) The Delegate may not serve in any other office while serving as Delegate, except that the Delegate will be suspended from the Council of Lazarene Security if they are already a Councillor, but will automatically resume membership on the Council after their term as Delegate.

Justices would be allowed to be PM or a Minister at the same time, and vice versa:

(2) Justices will serve until resignation, removal from office by the Assembly, or automatic removal from office. While serving, Justices may not serve in any other office but Councillor of Council on Lazarene Security, Vice Delegate, or Deputy Minister.

The Assembly Speaker could be the PM, or a Minister, Court Justice, at the same time, and vice versa:

(13) The Assembly Speaker will serve until resignation, removal from office by the Assembly or Delegate, or automatic removal from office. The Assembly Speaker may not serve or stand for an election for any other office but Councillor on the Council on Lazarene Security, or Deputy Minister.

The Assembly would be voting to allow this, but the margin would be quite small to overturn such a major prohibition such as 50%+1.

So even if we were to consider this, it should really be a three-quarters or two-thirds vote, as it is with other major decisions of the Assembly in the mandate.

 

[Leonism]

The concentration of power one individual could wield is ultimately too great. The Mandate should be structured such as to make abuse of power difficult, not easy, which is another argument against this change. One could imagine Weimar Republic style "emergency powers" de facto being granted to one individual which gets an exemption by the assembly.

 

[Clorinda]

The concentration of power one individual could wield is ultimately too great. The Mandate should be structured such as to make abuse of power difficult, not easy, which is another argument against this change. One could imagine Weimar Republic style "emergency powers" de facto being granted to one individual which gets an exemption by the assembly.

Exactly, not only does this bill allow the cabinet to be more closed off (allows for the construction of an oligarchic state) but it also could be used as the catalyst for a coup. If we enable the government to afford these powers to one person then we’re setting the region up for failure.

What we should focus on is actually operating as a region by recruiting fresh blood while developing the skills of inexperienced citizens by allowing them to serve in minor offices such as deputies.

I appreciate the sentiment behind this proposal but overall it creates more problems, I think if we actually cultivated activity instead of promising change with nothing at every corner then we’d be more successful.

 

[Chanku]

So even if we were to consider this, it should really be a three-quarters or two-thirds vote, as it is with other major decisions of the Assembly in the mandate.

This would ultimately be too unbalanced. The reason for a simple majority is, well simple. It is chosen because a Waiver does NOT mean you get to sit in the position, merely that you CAN sit in such a position for the next four months. If a super-majority is required, then it will incentivize people to actually only get a Waiver if they know they will win, and will heavily disincentivize anyone from trying to throw their hat in the ring if someone gets a waiver as it shows they are extraordinarily likely to win.

Also, if someone disagrees with a Waiver they can not vote for that person, and can also vote against the waiver.

 

[New Rogernomics]

If it is to be a simple majority, then as Leonism said, it would make more sense removing the prohibition altogether, as it is too small a percentage to effectively protect the prohibition waiver from abuse or overuse.

 

[Chanku]

If it is to be a simple majority, then as Leonism said, it would make more sense removing the prohibition altogether, as it is too small a percentage to effectively protect the prohibition waiver from abuse or overuse.

I disagree. The entire existence of the Waiver is to erect a barrier to at least ensure this does not occur often, and limits are added to show that it isn't meant to be intentional. Additionally, the Assembly can enact additional restrictions and prohibitions through law or waivers with respect to Waivers.

 

[New Rogernomics]

I disagree. The entire existence of the Waiver is to erect a barrier to at least ensure this does not occur often, and limits are added to show that it isn't meant to be intentional. Additionally, the Assembly can enact additional restrictions and prohibitions through law or waivers with respect to Waivers.

It is unlikely to be a barrier at all, as 50%+1 is a confirmation vote. It is more likely to lend support to the idea that prohibitions do not exist, as it has potential to be used so frequently as to make such prohibitions feel redundant.

This would also be practically the same as if the prohibition did not exist at all, as the confirmation would just take longer, and be a hassle for those having to do two votes with the same or lesser confirmation requirement.

It would also not be incorrect to view an additional vote as over-bureaucratic and unnecessary, as the percentage is the same or less. Unlike if it was a super-majority or beyond, as then at least you could argue this would provide more of a barrier than just the basic one assigned for appointment of Ministers selected by the PM or appointment of Court Justices selected by the Delegate.

It would make more sense to just make approving waivers the responsibility of the Delegate or the Prime Minister, as a formality, if we are going ahead with waivers.

Then, only if a citizen made an objection to the waiver, would it require a vote to approve, and no one would have to wait for two votes to fill a position unless there is a really strong objection.

That would be something like this with a limitation for the Delegate:

(6) Notwithstanding any other section within this Mandate, the Delegate or Prime Minister may provide temporary Waivers to exempt individuals from the prohibitions on consecutively holding certain offices., excluding for the Delegate. If there is an objection to a Waiver within three days of the waiver being granted, the Assembly will hold a two-thirds majority vote over whether the Waiver should be permitted. The Assembly may impose additional requirements or restrictions upon the waivers outside of this Section through law, resolutions, or within any such Waivers. All waivers are limited to two times within a nine-month period for the same individual and expire four months after granting from the Assembly or upon resignation or removal from office. The limit for waivers also applies towards Waivers that were not granted by the assembly due to a failed vote or a withdrawn vote.

Or would be something like this with no such limitation:

(6) Notwithstanding any other section within this Mandate, the Delegate or Prime Minister may provide temporary Waivers to exempt individuals from the prohibitions on consecutively holding certain offices. If there is an objection to a Waiver within three days of the waiver being granted, the Assembly will hold a two-thirds majority vote over whether the Waiver should be permitted. The Assembly may impose additional requirements or restrictions upon the waivers outside of this Section through law, resolutions, or within any such Waivers. All waivers are limited to two times within a nine-month period for the same individual and expire four months after granting from the Assembly or upon resignation or removal from office. The limit for waivers also applies towards Waivers that were not granted by the assembly due to a failed vote or a withdrawn vote.

Edit: Also restricting waivers to a nine-month period seems overly confusing, so a yearly limit amount of three waivers a year would make more sense:

(6) Notwithstanding any other section within this Mandate, the Delegate or Prime Minister may provide temporary Waivers to exempt individuals from the prohibitions on consecutively holding certain offices., excluding for the Delegate. If there is an objection to a Waiver within three days of the waiver being granted, the Assembly will hold a two-thirds majority vote over whether the Waiver should be permitted. The Assembly may impose additional requirements or restrictions upon the waivers outside of this Section through law, resolutions, or within any such Waivers. All citizens are limited to three Waivers a year. The limit for waivers also applies towards Waivers that were not granted by the assembly due to a failed vote or a withdrawn vote.