(Passed) WA Accountability Act

Great Eurussia Wed Sep 10, 2014 12:46 am

WA ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
Authored by the Empire of Great Eurussia

With the aim of ensuring that the most responsible nation states and the most active ones are deserving to serve at the World Alliance Government, to ensure the efficiency of the institution, Eurussia proposes the passage of this proposal into law, the World Alliance Accountability Act.

Under this law, all nation states of the World Alliance that are serving and holding any position at the World Alliance Government are obliged to maintain their activeness in the delivery of service and discharge of their duties as part of the World Alliance Government.

Thus, any member state of the WA Government, which will be proven inactive for seven (7) days can be dismissed from their position. To ensure due process, in the case of the Security Council, if a member state is found to be inactive, any member state of the World Alliance petitioned to any member state of the Security Council who shall then serve a notice (via TG and via Forum Post) giving the concerned member state two (2) days to reply to the said notice to prove its activeness and to avoid dismissal. Failure to do so, the member state complaining against the inactive member state may formally request the immediate head of the body, which in this case the President of the Security Council, to issue the dismissal.

On the other hand, to ensure fairness, any member state of the WA Government, knowing that there is a strong probability of inactivity due to acceptable grounds, may file a leave of absence to the immediate head of the body, which in the case of the Security Council is its President and if the latter is the concerned member state to its immediate subordinates, stating the reasons for the leave of absence and the duration (via TG and Forum Post) which thereafter shall determine and approve the said request for a leave of absence. And if approved, the concerned member state may terminate the leave of absence (via Forum Post only) and cannot exercise its powers and privileges during the leave of absence.

NOTE: This proposal is open for revisions and amendment for the next two (days) which thereafter a vote will be automatically called. Thank you.

Snarfian Federation Wed Sep 10, 2014 10:51 pm

Favor

South Macwick Thu Sep 11, 2014 5:52 am

I think this is not clearly written and is confusing. Also I believe the title is misleading.

How about the Absence Act?

All members of the Security Council must post on the forum if they are going to be unable to be active for more than two days, stating how long then are going to be absent from the forum for.

Any member nation may file a complaint on the forum regarding inactivity of a member of the Security Council, for the Security Council to investigate, if they believe that the member has been inactive for more than 4 days.

Once such a complaint has been received the President (or if absent, the Vice President) shall send a telegram and forum private message to the relevant member of the Security Council to request that they become active again within the next 3 days and the President (or if absent, the Vice President) shall post on the forum that such TG and message has been sent.

The relevant member of the Security Council should post in the relevant Security Council thread that they are active within the 3 days.

If the Security Council after considering the evidence decides that a member nation has been inactive for more than 7 days they may decide after considering all relevant factors to dismiss the relevant member from their position on the Security Council.

Great Eurussia Thu Sep 11, 2014 1:25 pm

South Macwick wrote:I think this is not clearly written and is confusing. Also I believe the title is misleading.

How about the Absence Act?

All members of the Security Council must post on the forum if they are going to be unable to be active for more than two days, stating how long then are going to be absent from the forum for.

Any member nation may file a complaint on the forum regarding inactivity of a member of the Security Council, for the Security Council to investigate, if they believe that the member has been inactive for more than 4 days.

Once such a complaint has been received the President (or if absent, the Vice President) shall send a telegram and forum private message to the relevant member of the Security Council to request that they become active again within the next 3 days and the President (or if absent, the Vice President) shall post on the forum that such TG and message has been sent.

The relevant member of the Security Council should post in the relevant Security Council thread that they are active within the 3 days.

If the Security Council after considering the evidence decides that a member nation has been inactive for more than 7 days they may decide after considering all relevant factors to dismiss the relevant member from their position on the Security Council.

I believe your concerns have been perfectly addressed by the proposal above. However, your proposal that "any member state of the region" can petition for the dismissal is much democratic and fair rather than limit those who can petition to those members of the Council themselves. Therefore, I am pleased to let you know that I have incorporated it into the proposal.

South Macwick Sat Sep 13, 2014 8:42 am

Great Eurussia wrote:
I believe your concerns have been perfectly addressed by the proposal above. However, your proposal that "any member state of the region" can petition for the dismissal is much democratic and fair rather than limit those who can petition to those members of the Council themselves. Therefore, I am pleased to let you know that I have incorporated it into the proposal.

I don’t understand how you can say my concerns are addressed by the original proposal. Perhaps it would be helpful if I listed my concerns.

1 The title is misleading this has nothing to do with accountability it is to do with absences and what action should be taken if one is going to be absent and how someone can be removed if they are inactive.

2 It is not written in a plain English manner. The order is wrong. It shouldn’t be how to remove someone and then what to do when absent. My order is an improvement.

3 Why are TGs necessary if a forum post has happened? I would expect there to be a thread for people to post their planned absences in.

4 I have stated how long unplanned absence are OK – two days. Have you?

5 Does your proposal mean than unplanned absences are OK for 7 days and only on the 8th day can action be started?

6 My suggestion allows 3 days for an absent person to post they are active, thus getting to the 7 days. Yours allows 2. Are we therefore at day 9 or 10 by now?

7 My suggestion makes clear what happens if the President is absent yours does not.

8 My suggestion does not impose an automatic sentence, but the Security Council have to consider the evidence and when determining the sentence they need to consider all relevant factors. Your does not. In fact members of the Security Council in your proposal have no meaningful role.

I cannot see how your proposal has been amended since it was first posted.

Muchos Estados Unidos Sat Sep 13, 2014 3:30 pm

Favor

Great Eurussia Sat Sep 13, 2014 7:33 pm

1 The title is misleading this has nothing to do with accountability it is to do with absences and what action should be taken if one is going to be absent and how someone can be removed if they are inactive.

Isn't it accountability? What title do you propose then?

2 It is not written in a plain English manner. The order is wrong. It shouldn’t be how to remove someone and then what to do when absent. My order is an improvement.

It focuses on removal of inactive officials.

3 Why are TGs necessary if a forum post has happened? I would expect there to be a thread for people to post their planned absences in.

To ensure complete communication.

4 I have stated how long unplanned absence are OK – two days. Have you?

In the future, once a detailed law for an elected council is in place this can be discussed. Anyways, assuming we have a fixed term, that is only the term of office and it is up to an elected member if he will be lackluster during his term and risk not being re elected again. (I assume this js for planned absences)

5 Does your proposal mean than unplanned absences are OK for 7 days and only on the 8th day can action be started?

Yes.

6 My suggestion allows 3 days for an absent person to post they are active, thus getting to the 7 days. Yours allows 2. Are we therefore at day 9 or 10 by now?

After 7 days, a 2 day notice is necessary for due process.

7 My suggestion makes clear what happens if the President is absent yours does not.

Again, this will be discussed in the future law for elected Council.

8 My suggestion does not impose an automatic sentence, but the Security Council have to consider the evidence and when determining the sentence they need to consider all relevant factors. Your does not. In fact members of the Security Council in your proposal have no meaningful role.

Again, it is the duty of those in power to inform the counci if there is a need for consideration.

Great Eurussia Sat Sep 13, 2014 10:37 pm

The two (2) days debate period has already lapsed. The proposal is now open for votes.

So far there are three (3) votes in favor and we need four (3) more votes to bring the proposal to law.

Serenarea Sun Sep 14, 2014 2:00 pm

In favor

South Macwick Sun Sep 14, 2014 11:06 pm

Firstly I find it strange that voting has started while we are still discussing it.

Great Eurussia wrote:
1 The title is misleading this has nothing to do with accountability it is to do with absences and what action should be taken if one is going to be absent and how someone can be removed if they are inactive.
Isn't it accountability? What title do you propose then?
2 It is not written in a plain English manner. The order is wrong. It shouldn’t be how to remove someone and then what to do when absent. My order is an improvement.
It focuses on removal of inactive officials.

I have already suggested the Absence Act as this act deals with notifying everyone when one is going to be absent and removing people who fail to notify that they will be absent. It is not about removing officials because they haven’t represented those who voted for them.

Great Eurussia wrote:
4 I have stated how long unplanned absence are OK – two days. Have you?
In the future, once a detailed law for an elected council is in place this can be discussed. Anyways, assuming we have a fixed term, that is only the term of office and it is up to an elected member if he will be lackluster during his term and risk not being re elected again. (I assume this js for planned absences)
…
7 My suggestion makes clear what happens if the President is absent yours does not.
Again, this will be discussed in the future law for elected Council.

These are the problems with this proposal. My suggestions would make the law clear and there would be no need for further laws to cover the gaps in this one.

Great Eurussia wrote:
5 Does your proposal mean than unplanned absences are OK for 7 days and only on the 8th day can action be started?
Yes.

6 My suggestion allows 3 days for an absent person to post they are active, thus getting to the 7 days. Yours allows 2. Are we therefore at day 9 or 10 by now?
After 7 days, a 2 day notice is necessary for due process.

Now people can be clear that your proposal allows someone to be inactive for more than 9 days before any action can be started.

Great Eurussia wrote:
8 My suggestion does not impose an automatic sentence, but the Security Council have to consider the evidence and when determining the sentence they need to consider all relevant factors. Your does not. In fact members of the Security Council in your proposal have no meaningful role.
Again, it is the duty of those in power to inform the counci if there is a need for consideration.

If it is your intention that the Security Council could consider not removing a nation from it for inactivity, it does not make it clear.

I urge all members of the Security Council to vote against this proposal so a better worded word can be proposed that addresses the issues I have raised.

Great Eurussia Mon Sep 15, 2014 12:35 pm

Spoiler:

We appreciate your concern for the proposal, however, we believe that the entirety of the law is very basic on its intentions and that is the same reason why most members of the Security Council are voting in favor of it because they 'understand' it.

Furthermore, if you are questioning why the vote has started, let me remind you that it was cleary stated that since the post was made, it was written that debate period will last for two days. And since no 'member of the SC' requested for an extension of debates, the vote was of course had to be called.

Again, we find it unusual that is only YOU who can't get and understand the spirit and words of the proposal. Now, as Acting President, you are hereby 'ordered' to refrain from posting further on this thread since the Council is on the voting period. Thank you.

Great Eurussia Mon Sep 15, 2014 12:41 pm

So far there are three (4) votes in favor and we need four (2) more votes to bring the proposal to law.

South Macwick Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:50 am

Great Eurussia wrote:… Now, as Acting President, you are hereby 'ordered' to refrain from posting further on this thread since the Council is on the voting period. Thank you.

Please can you post where it states that the Acting President, has the power to order any nation to do anything?

Please can you post where it states that the discussion period will be two days?

Please can you post where it states that the voting period will be two days and that the debate must not continue during this period?

I have looked for a law in the archives about the legislative procedure but can’t find one.

Great Eurussia Tue Sep 16, 2014 12:12 pm

South Macwick wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:… Now, as Acting President, you are hereby 'ordered' to refrain from posting further on this thread since the Council is on the voting period. Thank you.
Please can you post where it states that the Acting President, has the power to order any nation to do anything?

Please can you post where it states that the discussion period will be two days?

Please can you post where it states that the voting period will be two days and that the debate must not continue during this period?

I have looked for a law in the archives about the legislative procedure but can’t find one.

Again, for your own sake,

https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t41-world-alliance-constitution#22176

Now, stop interfering on the voting session of the SC.

South Macwick Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:44 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:
Again, for your own sake,

https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t41-world-alliance-constitution#22176

Now, stop interfering on the voting session of the SC.

The link you provide is to the repeal of the last constitution and the relevant parts to apply here are:

the Tenth WA Security Council, aware that we now possess the de facto executive, legislative, and judicial powers of the WA Government, do hereby vow and commit ourselves that such powers will be exercised by the Council, as a whole and collectively,

This means that the whole Security Council has to agree to the rules regarding the debating and voting on proposed new laws.

My question was if there is an old law please quote the relevant sections and provide a link. Would I be correct that there is no such law as you didn’t do so?

Great Eurussia Wed Sep 17, 2014 1:11 pm

South Macwick wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Again, for your own sake,

https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t41-world-alliance-constitution#22176

Now, stop interfering on the voting session of the SC.
The link you provide is to the repeal of the last constitution and the relevant parts to apply here are:
the Tenth WA Security Council, aware that we now possess the de facto executive, legislative, and judicial powers of the WA Government, do hereby vow and commit ourselves that such powers will be exercised by the Council, as a whole and collectively,
This means that the whole Security Council has to agree to the rules regarding the debating and voting on proposed new laws.

My question was if there is an old law please quote the relevant sections and provide a link. Would I be correct that there is no such law as you didn’t do so?

For the last time, as the same provision you have stated, the Security Council has the de facto authority over the WA Government. And as the Acting President, I posses the de facto powers to ensure the efficient running and management of the Security Council without compromising the privileges of its 'member states' only.

And if you keep on interfering with our voting session in the SC, I will just have to suspend your account on the WA Forums. You must know your limitations as non-SC member.

Thank you.

Great Eurussia Wed Sep 17, 2014 1:30 pm

So far there are three (4) votes in favor and we need two (2) more votes to bring the proposal to law.

Great Eurussia Wed Sep 17, 2014 1:31 pm

Eurussia is in favor.

Xolox Wed Sep 17, 2014 1:34 pm

Xolox is in favor. Also, your post above says you need "four (2) more votes". Which is the correct number?

Great Eurussia Wed Sep 17, 2014 1:35 pm

Xolox wrote:Xolox is in favor. Also, you post about says you need "four (2) more votes". Which is the correct number?

Corrected. Sorry about that!

Great Eurussia Fri Sep 19, 2014 4:04 am

With 6 votes over 8 nations, all in favor, the proposed WA Accountability Act is now a law.

- Acting President of the Tenth Security Council

Sponsored content

(Passed) WA Accountability Act

(Passed) WA Accountability Act

Re: (Passed) WA Accountability Act

Re: (Passed) WA Accountability Act

Re: (Passed) WA Accountability Act

Re: (Passed) WA Accountability Act

Re: (Passed) WA Accountability Act

Re: (Passed) WA Accountability Act

NOTICE

Re: (Passed) WA Accountability Act

Re: (Passed) WA Accountability Act

Re: (Passed) WA Accountability Act

NOTICE

Re: (Passed) WA Accountability Act

Re: (Passed) WA Accountability Act

Re: (Passed) WA Accountability Act

Re: (Passed) WA Accountability Act

VOTES UPDATE

Eurussian Vote

Re: (Passed) WA Accountability Act

Re: (Passed) WA Accountability Act

NOTICE

Re: (Passed) WA Accountability Act