SO 2016-12 The Region’s Administrative Branch 2016 [Constitutional Amendment]

An Amendment to the Constitution to further regulate the position of the Founder, the Regional Officers appointed for administrative functions, and other members carrying out administrative tasks concerning the Region, as well as their relation with the Executive Branch of Government.

ACKNOWLEDGING that the Founder of Our Region, is no more than an ordinary member with administrative privileges and duties;

NOTING that the Constitution leaves some area for the Founder to interfere with the Regions politics directly;

BELIEVING that the Founder should always be an strictly regulated office, especially because of its privileges and important duties;

BE IT ENACTED by Nassau-Windsor, Founder of Our Region, by and with the consent and advise of Parliament and the Cabinet, in this present assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

Article 1
In an effort to regulate the position of the Founder of Our Region properly, We do hereby enact the provisions of this document as a Constitutional Amendment.

Article 2
We move to create and to add a new Article to the Constitution, to be named "Article V: The Administrative Branch".

Article 3
We move to add to the following to the Constitution as "Article V, Section 1":
"There shall be an Administrative Branch of government, in which are seated the Founder, the Regional Administrative Officers and other Administrative Members."

Article 4
We move to amend Article III, Section A of the Constitution to contain the new text:
"The Executive Brach of the Parliamentary Union of Sovereign States shall consist of the President, Prime Minister and Cabinet."

Article 5
We move to add the following to the Constitution as "Article V, Section 2":
"Subsection 1 The Founder must be elected by the Members, when his predecessor ceases to exist.
Subsection 2 The Founder must have an active account in the Region.
Subsection 3 There shall be no limitations to the duration of the Founder’s term, other than ceasing to exist."

Article 6
We move to add the following to the Constitution as "Article V, Section 3":
"Subsection 1 The Founder shall be the ultimate authority regarding administrative and civilian matters concerning the Region. The Founder's authority would not effect specific matters regulated by Act of Parliament (or an Amendment passed by Parliament), approved by the Founder as such, as those are to be considered in-character.
Subsection 2 As affirmed to Article 1, Section D of Our Constitution, the Founder may not take part in government affairs, unless he holds another office that entitles him to do so or as that would be unreasonable in the way that the Founder would then have fewer options to take part in these matters than any other member who does not hold any office.
Subsection 3 The Founder may appoint and dismiss Regional Administrative Officers.
Subsection 4 The Founder may appoint and dismiss Administrative Members.
Subsection 5 The Founder is entitled to use all administrative powers, privileges and functions, able to be used from NationStates in the Region, as well as all those on the Forum.
Subsection 6 In relation to the Subsections 3 and 4 of this Section, Parliament shall determine by a simple majority vote the specific number of Regional Administrative Officers and Administrative Members which can be appointed by the Founder."

Article 7
We move to add the following to the Constitution as "Article V, Section 4":
"It is the Founder’s duty to ensure that the World Factbook Entry, Regional Message Board and the Forum runs properly.  Accordingly, he is entitled to update and regulate them. He must do everything in his capabilities to do so correctly and promptly."

Article 8
We move to add the following to the Constitution as " Article V, Section 5":
"Subsection 1 The Founder may eject and ban nations that come into Our Region, whether on NationStates or the Forum, when they are repeatedly spamming, trolling or violating the rules of NationStates or the Forum, but not unless he has given the specific nation a public warning. No nation may be ejected or banned because of in-character matters.
Subsection 2 If Regional Administrative Officers or Administrative Members would use these powers against a member, they have the privilege to demand an appeal to the Founder. The Founder will then decide on the case and his decision will be final."

Article 9
We move to add the following to the Constitution as " Article V, Section 6":
"The Founder must accept and abide by all in-character decisions of Parliament and the Executive Branch as long as they do not effect out-of-characters matters or are to be considered reasonable."

Article 10
We move to add the following to the Constitution as " Article V, Section 7":
"Subsection 1 The Founder will regulate votes via regional polls. The subject of these votes may not be either a Bill or an Amendment that has been laid before Parliament.
Subsection 2 The Founder will make sure that votes, as well as their outcomes, are publicised and abided by.
Subsection 3 The Founder may never vote in any of the polls concerning his own position as Founder."

Article 11
We move to add the following to the Constitution as " Article V, Section 8":
"Subsection 1 The Founder is tasked with the security of the Region. He may therefore lock the Region by setting a password for a temporary amount of time. The Founder may not devolve the power to lock the Region to any of his Regional Administrative Officers or Administrative Members.
Subsection 2 Contrary to subsection 1 of this Section, the power to lock the Region by setting a password will be devolved to the [most senior] Regional Administrative Officer, that is active himself, by virtue if the Founder is inactive for at least 10 days."

Article 12
We move to add the following to the Constitution as " Article V, Section 9":
"The Administrative branch of government will execute punishments rightfully issued by the Administrative Branch or the Judicial Branch of government for both in-character and out-of-character violations to the Rules, Regulations and Law of the Region and the hosts, respectively NationStates and Forumotion."

Article 13
We move to add the following to the Constitution as " Article V, Section 10":
"In order to keep discussions and debates civilised, the Administrative Branch may suppress messages on the Regional Message  Board and the Forum. The suppression must be accompanied by a warning."

Article 14
We move to add the following to the Constitution as " Article V, Section 11":
"Subsection 1The Founder may not use his role as such to abuse powers or privileges by making decisions. If any member argues that the Founder does, he is permitted to ask for a Commission to review his case. The Commission consists of the President, unless that is the Founder, in which case it shall be the Prime Minister, as speaker, and two Senators, not being the Founder. Further regulations regarding such a review are to be created and published by the Founder.
Subsection 2 The Commission may only determine whether or not a Founder’s decision is being an abuse of power or privilege as stated in Article V, Section 11. If they find that the decision is not based upon abuse of power, the decision will stand. If they do find it based upon abuse of power, the Judicial System will decide whether or not the decision will stand or will be changed."

Article 15
We move to add the following to the Constitution as " Article V, Section 12":
"The powers, privileges and duties as mentioned of the Founder may be devolved to Regional Administrative Officers unless otherwise stated. The Founder is free to choose how he devolves his powers, privileges and duties. Article V, Section 11 and Article V, Section 11 shall be of similar effect to Regional Administrative Officers. The Founder is entitled to overrule the decisions taken by a Regional Administrative Officer at all times."

Article 16
We move to add the following to the Constitution as " Article V, Section 13":
"The powers, privileges and duties as mentioned of the Founder may be devolved to Administrative Members unless otherwise stated. The Founder is free to choose how he devolves his powers, privileges and duties. Article V, Section 11 and Article V, Section 11 shall be of similar effect to Administrative Members. The Founder and Regional Administrative Officers are entitled to overrule decisions taken by an Administrative Member at all times, unless such would contradict to an earlier decision of the Founder which has not been repealed by the Founder."

Article 17
We move to add the following to the Constitution as " Article V, Section 14":
"The Founder and the Administrative Branch may use all future and unmentioned privileges and powers to perform their duties for the better of the out-of-character side of the Region, as long as this does not lead to abuse of these privileges or powers."

Article 18
We move to add the following to the Constitution as " Article V, Section 15":
"When the Founder ceases-to-exist, his duties, privileges and rights are to be trusted to the Prime Minister, until another Founder has been elected by regional vote regulated by that Prime Minister or his successor."

Article 19
We move to add the following to the Constitution as " Article V, Section 16":
"If at any time the Founder loses his nation in Our Region, other than because of technical issues caused by NationStates, he shall be considered to be ceased-to-exist by default."

Article 20
We move to add the following to the Constitution as " Article V, Section 17":
"Because of his administrative role, the Judicial System may not punish the Founder in such a way that he is required to remove his nation from the Region. They may however determine that the Founder shall lose all in-character privileges and offices for an further to be determined amount of time."

Article 21
We move to add the following to the Constitution as " Article V, Section 18":
"If at any time a ceased-to-existed Founder returns to the Region, he shall not have a claim on the office of Founder by default."

Article 22
We move to add the following to the Constitution as "Article V, Section 19":
"The Founder, from now until he ceases-to-exist, shall be the ultimate authority of the Region."

Article 23
We move to add the following to the Constitution as "Article V, Section 20":
"The Founder will regulate and control all elections via Regional polls."

Article 24
We move to revoke Article III, Section B, along with its Subsections, from the Constitution.

6 July 2016

Nassau-Windsor
Senator,
King of Arms

I cannot support the bill as it stands. Articles 4-21 need to be written into the Constitution.

Also, this bill needs to be labelled as an Amendment.

And here's a topic of debate: Should the Founder be permitted to hold elected office?

Article 5 Subsections 3 and 4 need to more clear. I do not think that the Founder should be able to appoint Regional Officers of his own initiative, neither on the Forum.

Article 13: the Founder, by the current interpretation of the constitution, cannot hold any other position in the government, but can be a Senator.

Article 6: Art. III Sect. D Subsection 8 of the Constitution: "The Prime Minister may alter the WFE."

I don't understand the second sentence of Article 9.1. It seemingly contradicts SO 2015-1, the referendum bill...

I agree with LibDem on his first two points.

I think, in response to his query, that the Founder should be able to be a Senator, (and also to vote in normal elections) but not a member of the Executive Branch, so Prime Minister, President, or Minister.

This is just my first read through, I may have other comments later.

I do not endorse this bill as it stands.

The President wrote:I cannot support the Bill as it stands. The Articles 4 - 21 need to be written into the Constitution.

Also, this Bill needs to be labelled as an Amendment.

Like I already stated on the RMB, it will be changed accordinly.

The President wrote:And here's a topic of debate: Should the Founder be permitted to hold elected office?

I think he should. Because what would be left? If we agree that the Founder cannot be elected to office, he cannot become President, Prime Minister or even Senator. I think that would be unfair when comparing the Founder to normal members.

The Prime Minister wrote:Article 5 Subsections 3 and 4 need to be more clear. I do not think that the Founder should be able to appoint Regional Officers of his own initiative, neither on the Forum.

Well, I suppose that the text is quite clear and understandable. Under this Amendment, it will be possible for the Founder to create the offices of Regional Administrative Officers and Administrative Members. He also gets to decide who may held it.

I think it is essential that there should be an independent administrative branch. At least it should be independent from the executive branch. Also the Regional Administrative Officers would not held any IC powers or offices. It will be OOC only and I, as the ultimate administrative authority, will enforce that. They will be here to support me with the administrative jobs, or taking them over when I cannot be active on the RMB/Forum (which would be at least an hour or 7 a day...).

Last but most definetely not least, you can appeal their decisions as well as mine under the articles 13 and 14. Also their respective articles sets clear limits to what they can or cannot do.

The Prime Minister wrote:Article 6: Art. III Sect. D Subsection 8 of the Constitution: "The Prime Minister may alter the WFE."

Yes, well this Article does not change anything to that. Article 3 of this Amendment clearly states that Article III Section B of the Constitution will be repealed. The Prime Ministers right to alter the WFE is regulated by Section D Subsection 8 of that same Article, thus it will not be repealed and it will still be inforce after this Amendment becomes law. This article just merely states that the Founder has that same ability for the reason stated there.

The Prime Minister wrote:I don't understand the second sentence of Article 9.1. It seemingly contradicts SO 2015-1, the referendum bill...

Let me make it clear then. This Amendment does not affect the Referendum Bill because of two things:

1. The Referendum Bill grants the power to the President to hold referendums. This Amendment only grants the power to the Founder to hold regional votes (i.e. regional polls). Thus, the power of the President is not affected.

2. Referendums and regional votes are not the same thing. While a referendum asks the members of the Region to give their opinion about a certain Bill or regulation, the regional votes are meant to enable the members of the region to show their views on various matters, one of them could be whether or not the Regional Flag should be displayed near the WFE, but it could concern OOC matters as well. The one rule is that a regional vote may not be a subject that is already laid before Parliament, as Parliament is entitled to decide over that matter. I would like to mention (again) that this has no effects on the referendums called by the President, as this Amendment only regulates the regional votes called by the Founder or his administrative Members...

The Prime Minister wrote:Article 13: the Founder, by the current interpretation of the Constitution, cannot hold any other position in the government, but can be a Senator.

This Amendment repeals that regulation in the Constitution. Also, Article 5.2 regulates that the Founder should have the privileges of all other "normal" members. That includes to run for offices. I think that the Founder could and in fact should be one of the more roleplaying members, as that will set an example. In which role, that may change however. But I shall not include a regulation that restricts a member, especially the Founder, from the basic privilege to roleplay in certain roles. In my opinion the Founder should stand above the IC vs OOC questions. It is also provided that the Founder may never abuse his powers, and remember that the Founder can be held to account by the Commission under this Amendment.

I hope to have informed you well, and see forward to your reactions.

~ Nassau-Windsor

This is what I mean:
Current:
"Article 6
It is the Founder’s duty to ensure that the World Factbook Entry, Regional Message Board and the Forum runs properly. Accordingly, he is entitled to update and regulate them. He must do everything in his capabilities to do so correctly and promptly."
What it should be:
"Article 6
We hereby move to add Article X, Section 1, Subsection A, which shall contain the following mandate:
'It is the Founder’s duty to ensure that the World Factbook Entry, Regional Message Board and the Forum runs properly. Accordingly, he is entitled to update and regulate them. He must do everything in his capabilities to do so correctly and promptly.'"

Sorry, I interpreted you wrong.

The Prime Minister wrote:I thank you for your explanations!

I believe that the admin officers be limited at, say, two, to start with, that number being adjustable by the Parliament (sort of like the ministers).

I think that the Founder should be able to vote in polls not concerning himself (see Section 8.2). Prohibiting him from doing this is excessive, I think.

Instead of repealing all of Article II Section A, I think we should just remove the Founder from the list, leaving the rest.

Also, I believe that we should limit the number of positions a nation may hold to one per branch. That leaves room for the Founder to participate in the other branches.

Well, I thank you for your questions. Now, lets just react to your last post.

1. I too think that there should be a limit to the number of Regional Administrative Officers and I even can agree with you that the Founder and Parliament should decide that number together. But I would like to point out that I am not in favour of Parliament choosing who will become those RAOs. The Founder is the ultimate (and therefore sovereign) administrative authority. This also means that he is responsible for the actions of his Officers. Thus, I think it would only be fair to say that the Founder may appoint his Officers. But perhaps, we can also let a certain number of them being appointed by the Founder and the other one(s) by Parliament...

2. Well, the reason that I choose not to allow the Founder to vote in such matters, is that I think the organizing branch and the acting branch in these polls, should be seperated. But if you think that is unnessesary, I am willing to change that.

3. I shall edit this Bill so that Article III Section A of the Constitution will not be repealed alltogehter, but that the Founder will be left out only.

4. As for limitations on the number of offices held by a single nation, I said before that I am opposed to restricting certain members from their ability to roleplay. IC and OOC matters should be seperated at all times and thus the Founder should be able to be elected/appointed/etc. to office like all other nations. But limiting them to a specific number of branche(s) at a single time is another subject, because that would not revoke their abilities to roleplay; they would just have to choose in which form they would like to do so.

That sounds pretty good, I agree with all of it surprisingly

1) I think that the Parliament set the number (perhaps deciding on that with input from the Founder), and the founder appoint the officers. I think we are in agreement...

2) I think it unnecessary because, as you have said, the position should not affect more than in necessary the RP options of the nation holding that post.

3) Great!

4) I just think that a nation should only be able to hold one post in each branch at a time.. Again, I think we are in agreement!

Thanks so much for taking the time to answer all my question!

I will react to your next questions/opinions later this week, as I am a bit busy at the moment.

The Prime Minister wrote:1) I think that the Parliament set the number (perhaps deciding on that with input from the Founder), and the founder appoint the officers. I think we are in agreement...

We are indeed.

The Prime Minister wrote:2) I think it unnecessary because, as you have said, the position should not affect more than in necessary the RP options of the nation holding that post.

Then I will change the Amendment accordingly, as I promised to do so.

The Prime Minister wrote:4) I just think that a nation should only be able to hold one post in each branch at a time.. Again, I think we are in agreement!

Not necessarily, but for now, lets say that I agree with you generally.

The Prime Minister wrote:Thanks so much for taking the time to answer all my question!

Well, questions are to be answered!

The format...I can't breathe...fix it fast!

The Constitutional Amendment has been updated.

Great!!!

Just two small further questions:
1) Could you please clarify Article 6 "Subsection 2", I don't quite understand the details...?

2) Article 10 "Subsection 1" seems to contradict SO 2016-1, the Referendum Bill, which puts a bill to a vote by the membership of the Region. Is this intentional, thereby putting the status of the aforesaid bill in question?

For Article 6, Section 1, the out-of-character could be interpreted in different ways due to our RP forum.

Article 6, Section 2 can also be simplified to "The Founder shall not act without authorization given directly or indirectly by this document or other laws or resolutions."

@Abdoa Article 10 specifies "before Parliament", which only bans the use of regional polls by the legislature.

For Article 6, Section 2, it's the "in-character" specification that confuses me...

For Article 10, I would tend to disagree with you. The way I see it, this bill forbids a poll from having as subject matter a bill that is "laid before Parliament," which would have thought meant any bill that has been proposed/debated/voted on by the Parliament. Is there something I'm missing?

Prime Minister Abdoa wrote:Great!!!

Just two small further questions:
1) Could you please clarify Article 6 "Subsection 2", I don't quite understand the details...?

2) For Article 10, I would tend to disagree with you. The way I see it, this bill forbids a poll from having as subject matter a bill that is "laid before Parliament," which would have thought meant any bill that has been proposed/debated/voted on by the Parliament. Is there something I'm missing?

1) Article V, Section 3, as regulated by Article 6 of this Act (as I suppose you are referring to), basically regulates that the Founder has all rights and privileges that normal members have. This includes the right to be elected/appointed, so that the Founder is able to roleplay on the same level as other members. If the Founder has no such an office in which he is allowed to roleplay in specific circumstances, the Founder shall not have the privilege to roleplay about that matter, unless all other members do have that privilege.

An example could be that the Founder wishes to become Senator. In that case this Section would regulate as follows:
1. The Founder can take part in the election, because all other members have the right to be elected as Senator.
2. Would the Founder be elected, he then gets the same privileges of a Senator, for example the privilege to take part in parliamentary debates.
3. Would the Founder not be elected, he would not get these rights. But if Parliament grants the privilege to other members (not being Senators) to take part in parliamentary debates, the Founder would then also get this privilege. That is, if the privilege is granted to the general lot of members and not several specific members (perhaps because of their relation to any of the topics being discussed in Parliament).

2) You are right in assuming that this specific Section would regulate that a vote held by the Founder may not have as subject a topic on which a Bill is proposed or being debated. However, when a Bill passes Parliament, the subject is no longer laid before Parliament, and may thus be the subject of a vote called by the Founder. But, as I have said before, these "regional votes" do not have anything to do with votes by the Referendum Act.

President Libertarian Democracy wrote:3) For Article 6, Section 1, the out-of-character could be interpreted in different ways due to our RP forum.

4) Article 6, Section 2 can also be simplified to "The Founder shall not act without authorization given directly or indirectly by this document or other laws or resolutions."

3) Could you give an example of a situation, as I cannot think of one currently...

4) In my opinion it cannot. Because this Section would regulate that the Founder has all privileges that normal members have, including the one to be elected/appointed and a few others. These may not yet be written down in an Act or other document. Thus, it members and officials could challenge the privileges of the Founder as a normal member would they choose to do so.

3) OOC means non-RP, but many would consider our regional government to itself be an RP. So government affairs could be interpreted as IC.
4) The Constitution would afford the Founder said privileges.

Nassau-Windsor wrote:2) You are right in assuming that this specific Section would regulate that a vote held by the Founder may not have as subject a topic on which a Bill is proposed or being debated. However, when a Bill passes Parliament, the subject is no longer laid before Parliament, and may thus be the subject of a vote called by the Founder. But, as I have said before, these "regional votes" do not have anything to do with votes by the Referendum Act.

Right, understood.

Unfortunately, the language is ambiguous: "laid" could mean both "that is laid" and "that has been laid", depending on which form is meant (the English language sadly does not distinguish them). I would suggest saying "that is at that moment laid before Parliament" or "that is being debate in Parliament".

President Libertarian Democracy wrote:3) OOC means non-RP, but many would consider our regional government to itself be an RP.  So government affairs could be interpreted as IC.
4) The Constitution would afford the Founder said privileges.

3) Well partially, they would be right. You see, it has already been agreed upon that Parliament may determine the number of administrative officials I may appoint. On the other hand, I think people are smart enough to understand when a matter is OOC-ly or IC-ly related. Look at it like NationStates, the administrative part is the work the Moderators do, while the Region may create IC positions for their own needs.

4) Then lets just keep the provision in the Act, as it confirms earlier legislation.

Prime Minister Abdoa wrote:Right, understood.

Unfortunately, the language is ambiguous: "laid" could mean both "that is laid" and "that has been laid", depending on which form is meant (the English language sadly does not distinguish them). I would suggest saying "that is at that moment laid before Parliament" or "that is being debate in Parliament".

The English language does distinguish them if you would ask me.

The form of "is laid before Parliament", is written in the present simple, "just" states that the Bill/Amendment is laid before Parliament at the moment of happening (in this particular case the exact moment of writing), while the form "has been laid before Parliament" is written in the present perfect, meaning that the Bill/Amendment was laid before Parliament at an earlier time, and continues to be laid before Parliament.

But, to avoid any further confusion, I will just edit the proposal and write it in the present perfect, as that seems the most logical to me.

Nassau-Windsor wrote:

President Libertarian Democracy wrote:3) OOC means non-RP, but many would consider our regional government to itself be an RP.  So government affairs could be interpreted as IC.
4) The Constitution would afford the Founder said privileges.

3) Well partially, they would be right. You see, it has already been agreed upon that Parliament may determine the number of administrative officials I may appoint. On the other hand, I think people are smart enough to understand when a matter is OOC-ly or IC-ly related. Look at it like NationStates, the administrative part is the work the Moderators do, while the Region may create IC positions for their own needs.

4) Then lets just keep the provision in the Act, as it confirms earlier legislation.

3) "common sense" does not apply to law. Please clarify to prevent loooopholes.
4) Then lets add "as affirmed in Article X, Section Y, Subsection Z of this document"

President Libertarian Democracy wrote:3) "common sense" does not apply to law.  Please clarify to prevent loooopholes.
4) Then lets add "as affirmed in Article X, Section Y, Subsection Z of this document"

3) I have just made my first attempt, but I find it hard to cover the specific matters that potentially could be brought up as such. So therefore, I wrote a provision in which the Founder and Parliament can agree on a matter that they see as "out-of-character but still somewhat administrative" by making an Act for such a matter.

4) I have just done so.

Or:
replace IC with "government affairs", and replace OOC with "civilian life"

Libertarian Democracy wrote:Or:
replace IC with "government affairs", and replace OOC with "civilian life"

Done so.