Vice-Delegate Constitutional Amendment

[frattastan]

While "Vice-Delegates" have existed since Sedge's election in 2011, their role was fairly low-key, to the point that the position was and still is entirely unregulated. However this year we've had various discussions about VDs and how their roles should be understood (here and in part in the discussion about appointed officers here), and the continued lack of regulation for the position caused plenty of debate when wabbitslayah chose to give it a more prominent (government-related) status, and the status of the Vice-Delegate was a talking point in the campaign that just ended.

Like others, I am of the opinion that security-related and government-related functions should be split, as the requirements for the two roles are different, as should be their term length (activity isn't nearly as much of a concern when your only task is endoswapping), mode of selection (competitive elections are best suited to a political/government position) and oversight.
If you want a government-related figure in addition to the Delegate and the elected Officers, I'd rather revive the appointed Officers discussion.

So, this is a proposal to regulate the Vice-Delegacy and frame it exclusively as an 'endorsee'/'security officer' role.
I put together a rough draft inspired by the clauses related to CitCo appointments. It's far from final so don't hesitate to propose edits.
In particular:

• The name 'Vice-Delegate' might be changed if you feel it suggests a more powerful position than it actually is, or a single person holding it (while we currently have and have had in the past multiple 'Vice--Delegates).
• Should the Delegate appoint the VD, when the VD may have to deal with a rogue delegate? That still seems the easiest solution to me, as the others I thought about (Officers' vote, Speaker) aren't much safer, and the Assembly supermajority should be a decent guarantee. There is also no provision allowing the Delegate to easily remove a previously appointed Vice-Delegate, which means that most of the time the VDs may have no ties to the current incumbent.
• There isn't a specified term, so with the current text a VD would be serving 'for life', or until removal or resignation. If you prefer new nominations to happen after a set time, or to have 'reconfirmation votes' after a set time, say so. I prefer a very long term (a year).

It would be placed right after article 5 (Officers), with the current articles 6 and 7 being renumbered.

Article 6 - The Vice-Delegate

A: The Delegate may appoint one or more Vice-Delegates, who will be tasked with maintaining a high endorsement level for regional security purposes.
B: Each appointment shall be subject to a confirmation in the Assembly, which requires a two-thirds majority vote.
C: Any citizen may initiate a petition calling for the removal of a Vice-Delegate. Once such a petition is signed by five citizens, a vote shall be held in the Assembly to remove the Vice-Delegate. Removal requires a two-thirds majority vote.

[John Laurens]

What about a Vice Delegate (for security which requires confirmation) and a Deputy Delegate (which wouldn't carry endorsements)

[frattastan]

Might be best to have separate discussion topics, to avoid confusion: I'd rather treat it as its own thing, or a spinoff of the appointed Officers debate (since Mek's intention was to add MM as an appointed Officer, I think?).

I'm not convinced about the cabinet dynamics that will be created by a Deputy Delegate, who is 'above' the Officers but 'below' the Delegate, since, depending on the exact wording of the amendment:
- it may be used to estabilish quasi-monarchist mechanisms of succession (with the sitting Delegate 'training' a protege and trying and pushing them to win in the following election, or at least create the expectation of that);
- it may create tensions between Del/DD v. elected Officers;
- or, if the Deputy is separately-elected and is part of a line of succession of sorts (where it can replace or potentially replace the Delegate in some situation) it may create tensions between them and the Delegate.

I'm open to having that debate too, regardless.

[John Laurens]

That could be true, but I don't think there's anything wrong with a Delegate trying to train someone to be a better leader in the future

[frattastan]

Would you want the Delegate/me to handpick who is the 'favourite' successor, who will get the highest public profile, etc.?
Right now the closest we have to a 'stepping stone' towards the Delegate (even if you're by no means required to be one) may be the Officership, for example. No-one picks the Officers - they are elected. And there is no favourite or most prominent Officer - they are four and all equal.

[John Laurens]

"I love all my Officers equally"

But really, it could be good to have people get some training for the delegacy

[frattastan]

A varied and successful experience is good enough training, imho. That could include elected office like Speaker or Officer, contributing ideas for Culture, writing for Media, (or dare I say it, serve in the RRA ), and so on... all that can prove that you're competent, that you're active, that you are committed to the region, and it seems at as useful as 'grooming' one person to be the next Delegate.

Either way, unless anyone still wants to argue for a combined security/government position, I would rather move the 'Deputy Delegate' debate elsewhere.

[thechurchofsatan]

I feel the removal of vice delegates should be left to the Citizenship Council. Since it's a security position it makes sense that our region's most trusted security personnel should have the responsibility of removing a vice delegate that has been compromised, turned traitor or become inactive, right?

[Guy]

I agree very much with the substance of what fratt has laid out, including the rationale for separating security and governmental positions. The recent VD-appointment debacle highlights the importance of maintaining the separation - it is not merely a matter of convenience, but of real importance to the safety of the region.

One change I would make is to require only a majority vote to remove a VD. Under the text, VDs hold a "lifetime appointment", which in my view is entirely appropriate given the long-term nature of the role. However, I'm not so comfortable with a person holding an important security position if a majority of the region believes they are unfit to do so. I do recognise that perhaps it makes a "political hit" on an apolitical job more likely, but I think the opposite concern (someone who shouldn't serve as VD staying on due to politics) is a greater one, and I don't think people are likely to politically target a security role.

I think the idea of Citizenship Council removal is interesting, although I would possibly have it as an alternative to citizen-removal rather than instead of it.

I also introduced a new clause to give the provisions some teeth.

Article 6 - The Vice-Delegate

A: The Delegate may appoint one or more Vice-Delegates, who are tasked with maintaining a high endorsement level for regional security purposes.
B: Each appointment is subject to a confirmation by the Assembly, which requires a two-thirds majority vote.
C: Any citizen may initiate a petition calling for the removal of a Vice-Delegate. Once the petition is signed by five citizens, a vote must be held in the Assembly to remove the Vice-Delegate. Removal requires a simple majority vote.
D: The Delegate must not encourage the endorsement of any nation other than themselves and the Vice-Delegates.

[frattastan]

I feel the removal of vice delegates should be left to the Citizenship Council. Since it's a security position it makes sense that our region's most trusted security personnel should have the responsibility of removing a vice delegate that has been compromised, turned traitor or become inactive, right?

It's only implicit, but I feel it's a given that a person should lose any constitutional office they hold when they lose citizenship?
If they have been compromised or turned traitor then the Citizenship Council should already be able to remove them (by removing their citizenship). When I wrote the removal clause I was more thinking of removals justified by inactivity (or being controversial actions that cause a loss of confidence but aren't quite a security risk).

I'm okay with having the CitCo remove the VD in all cases (turned traitor, inactive...), and have no strong preference between that and the Assembly option. One potential issue is that, since confirmation and removal are done by two separate bodies, you might see the Assembly confirm and the CitCo dismiss the VD immediately after... but hopefully it's a weird enough scenario that it wouldn't happen.

I think the idea of Citizenship Council removal is interesting, although I would possibly have it as an alternative to citizen-removal rather than instead of it.

Or you could have the CitCo initiate removal (instead of the citizen petition), but still require the Assembly vote to go through with it.

[Manson]

I second Guy's proposal.

A bit off-topic: We need to list the Vice-Delegates.

[thechurchofsatan]

I think having it as an alternative is reasonable. It makes for a good redundant backup should it ever become necessary. The point in my suggesting CitCo removal was specifically so the Assembly wouldn't have to. Assembly votes are influenced by people with no stake in the region all the time. People that vote certain ways then turn their attention elsewhere and don't have to live with or be affected by the results of their choices here because they do literally nothing else in TRR. So I feel it's best for TRR that the removal of vice delegates, a high security position, be an exclusively reject responsibility. Exclusively by people that either are currently active in the region or people that have contributed much to the region.

[Guy]

I second Guy's proposal.

A bit off-topic: We need to list the Vice-Delegates.

List where?

[Manson]

I second Guy's proposal.

A bit off-topic: We need to list the Vice-Delegates.

List where?

Like we did with the Delegates, Administration.

We could combine it with the Officers and Speakers list.

[Libetarian Republics]

May or may not be necessary but should we explicate that the VDs hold citizenship prior to being appointed? I don't think we want a Camila outcome.

Granted, a 2/3 majority ought to prevent that sort of outcome.

[frattastan]

About that, it may be best to sneak a clause somewhere (Article 2?) requiring all holders of constitutional offices - or other wording you prefer - to be 'citizens of the Rejected Realms'. Right now it's only explicit for CitCo, even if conventionally it's been taken for granted that to be Delegate or Officer (that is, to run in an election) you also need to be eligible to vote: a citizen.

The "Camila outcome" refers to the short-lived appointment of --Camila--, an ancient nation that had been in TRR for years but did nothing beyond answering issues and swapping endorsements (so, no replying to telegrams and much less signing up on the forum, with maybe one RMB post in their entire history), as Vice-Delegate in 2014 or so.
Not that they were untrustworthy or a foreign invader, but nobody knew them other than by name.

[thechurchofsatan]

Yes, it should be made clear that our vice delegates, officers, deputies and speakers are required to be citizens.

[Manson]

I thought that was obvious.

[Nequedum]

Article 6 - The Vice-Delegate

A: The Delegate may appoint one or more Vice-Delegates, who are tasked with maintaining a high endorsement level for regional security purposes.
B: Each appointment is subject to a confirmation by the Assembly, which requires a two-thirds majority vote.
C: Any citizen may initiate a petition calling for the removal of a Vice-Delegate. Once the petition is signed by five citizens, a vote must be held in the Assembly to remove the Vice-Delegate. Removal requires a simple majority vote.
D: The Delegate must not encourage the endorsement of any nation other than themselves and the Vice-Delegates.

I'm against Clause D. It's unofficially already the case that any government position promoting endorsements on behalf of anyone else other than the Delegate and VD(s) is frowned upon. It's why I left the RRA. I find it absurd when gameside endorsements (2 I believe) are needed to submit a WA proposal. To frown upon someone for trying to get others to engage with the WA, under the pretense of security, is ridiculous.

In my case, getting someone to 5 endorsements so they are stable enough to submit a proposal does not seem unreasonable to me.

If we want to pursue Clause D, let's do it through a endo-cap, with long-time tarters being given public, written exemptions from the Delegate, that can only be removed by CitCo. My point is: it's a separate issue and should be treated as such.

I second Fratt's initial proposal, which is the same as above other than excluding Clause D.

[frattastan]

I don't care much for clause D, although I understand it's a way to prevent the Delegate from circumventing the VD appointment process (no need to get Assembly confirmation when you can just edit the WFE to advertise your favourite endorsee).

I'm against Clause D. It's unofficially already the case that any government position promoting endorsements on behalf of anyone else other than the Delegate and VD(s) is frowned upon. It's why I left the RRA. I find it absurd when gameside endorsements (2 I believe) are needed to submit a WA proposal. To frown upon someone for trying to get others to engage with the WA, under the pretense of security, is ridiculous.

In my case, getting someone to 5 endorsements so they are stable enough to submit a proposal does not seem unreasonable to me.

You only need two endorsements to submit a proposal, though (and if the Delegate is tarting regularly, you should already have one). Just asking for oneself on the RMB, or messaging a couple of people about it is enough to get that result.
How does that in any way justify mass-endoswapping, or even Delegate support on the WFE or in another official venue to endorse someone other than themselves and the VDs?

The only gameplay reasons to have WA endorsements, beyond the mentioned minimal amount to submit a proposal, are: 1) to become Delegate; 2) to gather enough Influence to be safe from Delegate abuse of power (which doesn't apply here).
Some people like to keep high endorsement counts, so tarting on a regular basis is not in itself a big deal, but I wouldn't say that the WAD - the official voice of the region - should advertise for them.

[Guy]

Fratt is right. We may tolerate tarting, but it's hardly something that the Delegate should be encouraging, unless the person is a VD. Otherwise, what's the point of the amendment?

Clause D can be rewritten to allow "please give [nation] one more endo so they can submit a proposal", it might make it a bit longer, and I'd have to think about wording, but it's doable. On the other hand, it's rather unlikely that the Delegate will have to personally ask for one more endo anyway. So I'm perfectly comfortable with the way it is right now.

[Nequedum]

"'Delegate abuse' still applies though"

I guess I prefer the idea of stopping a Delegate from advertising their favourite endorsee, hence making an unofficial VD-equivalent, over allowing a Delegate to get their friend a few endorsements.

I'm happy with Guy's proposal, and second it, upon reconsideration. I just hope the precedent doesn't carry over to officers and others. Unofficially, whatever, but officially I'd rather we try to respect people's apparent gameside right to help out their friends with endorsements if that's what they want.

[frattastan]

"'Delegate abuse' still applies though"

"If I had a working eject button I wouldn't waste my time with all this talk."

[The Grim Reaper]

Replacing the corporation tax with a more progressive income tax, a Tobin tax, and dividend tax avoids double-dipping while being more consistent with the principles of socialism.

Also the Vice-Delegate shouldn't be required to be a standing citizen as long as they can be reliably contacted.

Clause D. should be edited to bar the WAD from promoting alternative endorsees using powers unique to their service as the Delegate i.e. no mass-TGs, no WFE edits, etc. If the WAD wants to do an API/stamp/manual campaign I don't see any reason not to allow them to. However you could also consider adding the caveat that the WAD should explicitly delimit the role of the Vice-Delegate from their preferred endorsees, elevate that role as a constitutional and long-term one (per the amendment) above the purely nominal and personal role of the endorsees they suggest, and should mention the Vice-Delegate first (apart from the delegate themselves) in any such campaign.

Allowing multiple VDs is still inconceivably ridiculous and does incalculable harm to the point of the position as a designated successor in the case of a crisis. There is no influence mechanic to be considered on the fly from a strategic perspective, and in TRR no active measures are required by an emergency interim delegate, so a set of peers is meaningless. There is no situation where our allies would need to exercise their judgement to swap points to and fro in the absence of explicit leadership from TRR itself besides the actual CTE of the VD nation. There should be a single VD who can clearly be assumed to be the point in the case of a rogue delegate, with, if absolutely necessary, a line of succession - an actual line, not just a vague platitude towards an implied hierarchy of seniority based on the alphabet or date of induction or some other arcane nonsense. Anything else is a totally unnecessary capitulation to the single-term dual VD-ship norm that isn't based on an actual principle of regional security or of any discernable logic.

To connect the two points, in no case should our allies be faced with the situation that the most practicable point (the one with the most endorsements) is a short-term appointment/functionary plumped up by a rogue delegate themselves, over the legitimate VD of the Rejected Realms - whether that is because of active campaigning by the WAD to place such a functionary in that position, or by confusion through uncertainty in the distinction between said VD and other endorsees, constitutional or not.

There is no reason in TRR for there to be more than one point. A WAD who uses 'regional security' as an excuse for pushing their own endorsees towards or above the level of the long-term VD is going to be unable to express a material reason for doing so, and is either doing it as a soft-power grab for themselves or on behalf of their endorsees, or more sinisterly, to attempt to extend a potential actuated powergrab by confusing allied defense efforts regarding the selection of a point.

[frattastan]

The main requirement for citizenship is "having a nation in TRR", so why would a VD not respect it?
And the others are, pretty much, "having been verified by the Citizenship Council", which should be a given.

Anything else is a totally unnecessary capitulation to the single-term dual VD-ship norm that isn't based on an actual principle of regional security or of any discernable logic

We did have multiple VDs in the past, actually.
From memory, there's the examples of Sedge appointing three VDs (CG, Zyonn, Spartan Termopylae) when he estabilished that position, and me having two (Zyonn and Sedge) in the last month of my term, something which continued for a while during Unibot's (who at some point appointed --Camila-- too).

I don't think it's "unconceivably ridiculous", but I'm just as good with the single VD option. The wording "one or more Vice-Delegates" was only meant to give flexibility.

If the WAD wants to do an API/stamp/manual campaign I don't see any reason not to allow them to.

I disagree. The Delegate is seen as the main face of the regional government, so what they say may be considered authoritative ('endorse this nation') when it's not. I'm more wondering if, constitutionally, the Assembly is allowed to regulate the Delegate's powers beyond the use of regional controls.