Government Accountability Act and interregional organisations

[frattastan]

An amendment:

1. This Act is known as the Government Accountability Act.

2. The Delegate must report to the Assembly on the government's achievements and plans within each portfolio on the first day of odd-numbered months (1 January, 1 March, 1 May, 1 July, 1 September, 1 November).

3. The Delegate must report to the Assembly on any proposal to convene a Council of the Parties to the Aegis Accords, or any proposal to admit new members to the Partnership of Sovereignty or amend its Charter.

4. The Delegate may authorise an Officer to deliver the report in their absence.

5. If a report required by this Act is not delivered within 48 hours, the Speaker must report the failure to the Assembly.

(I guess that Aegis isn't strictly an organisation but whatever, this was just the first topic title that came to mind)

[frattastan]

"How does the Speaker report the failure if they may not be aware of the proposal?". Good question, but I don't think it matters much: they could also report retroactively, after the proposal becomes known.

A minor effect of the new clause is that with periodic reports "within 48 hours" means 48 hours after the deadline, but in the case of Aegis/PfS matters an alternative interpretation would be "within 48 hours [of the proposal being received]". I don't mind it because it's still a reasonable timing. If you disagree it can be amended to "is not delivered within 48 hours of its deadline ...".

[Manson]

Seconded, I’d prefer the 48 hours release clause though.

[Catalyse]

Sounds a bit odd to mention a treaty specifically in the law, no? What if the treaty is repealed.

[frattastan]

That's true, but I couldn't think of a more elegant wording. It also seemed the easiest way to focus on votes (membership/amendment) that are important enough tl require immediate notification instead of waiting for periodic reports or similar. If we leave any treaty I imagine that we would do a joint repeal of this clause as well but, yeah, if you have a better proposal feel free to suggest it.

[Minskiev]

"It's actually Council of the Parties"

It's a little clunky but it shouldn't be too big of a problem if the Aegis Accords are repealed.

[frattastan]

"It's actually Council of the Parties"

Fixed.

[BowShot118]

Full support from me.

[Catalyse]

That's true, but I couldn't think of a more elegant wording. It also seemed the easiest way to focus on votes (membership/amendment) that are important enough tl require immediate notification instead of waiting for periodic reports or similar. If we leave any treaty I imagine that we would do a joint repeal of this clause as well but, yeah, if you have a better proposal feel free to suggest it.

Wouldn't it be better if we added the sorely lacking provision to allow the assembly to pass resolutions into the constitution. Would fix the issue I raised, could prevent other weird law attempts like the one in the NPO kerfuffle.

[Guy]

Support.

I think the correct interpretation, for consistency, would be to read section 5 as ‘within 48 hours of the report being due’. Might be better to make it explicit.

I don’t see any problems with referring to treaties in statute.

[frattastan]

Wouldn't it be better if we added the sorely lacking provision to allow the assembly to pass resolutions into the constitution. Would fix the issue I raised, could prevent other weird law attempts like the one in the NPO kerfuffle.

I can see why you say that (ie, in this case we could pass a resolution saying "The Assembly invites the Government to report ...") but I would rather see the use of resolutions as an addition than an alternative to this. It's a reporting requirement that fits within the existing Act.

Resolutions can still have their place to direct the Delegate/government to act in a certain way on specific issues. For the record, I think that we can already pass resolutions, but a constitutional amendment may help clarifying some questions about them. I would be happy to have a separate discussion about them.

[frattastan]

I think the correct interpretation, for consistency, would be to read section 5 as ‘within 48 hours of the report being due’. Might be better to make it explicit.

I made a slight edit that hopefully works.

I'd like to see this at vote in a day or so.

[BowShot118]

^ Seconded

[NPS]

1. This Act is known as the Government Accountability Act.

2. The Delegate must report to the Assembly on the government's achievements and plans within each portfolio on the first day of odd-numbered months (1 January, 1 March, 1 May, 1 July, 1 September, 1 November).

3. The Delegate must report to the Assembly on any proposal to convene a Council of the Parties to the Aegis Accords, or any proposal to admit new members to the Partnership of Sovereignty or amend its Charter, within 24 hours of the proposal being received.

4. The Delegate may authorise an Officer to deliver the report in their absence.

5. If a report required by this Act is not delivered within 48 24 hours of being due, the Speaker must report the failure to the Assembly.

I'd prefer the original legislation to be 24 hours rather than 48. As if we're wanting it within a day, if they take more than two days they should have their failure reported to the assembly.

[Vis]

Swap Ageis to "any Alliance that TRR is a member of".

[frattastan]

Swap Ageis to "any Alliance that TRR is a member of".

I think it's harder to phrase generically because we don't know how these alliances will work and what kind of internal mechanisms they will have that deserve reporting on. Our other alliances don't have anything equivalent to a "Council of the Parties".

We can amend the law if we enter new agreements of this sort.

[frattastan]

I'd prefer the original legislation to be 24 hours rather than 48. As if we're wanting it within a day, if they take more than two days they should have their failure reported to the assembly.

Very reasonable, but I preferred to keep it simple by using the same deadline that already existed for periodic reports. 24+24 would be nicer, but I think 24+48 is still acceptable.

[NPS]

I'd prefer the original legislation to be 24 hours rather than 48. As if we're wanting it within a day, if they take more than two days they should have their failure reported to the assembly.

Very reasonable, but I preferred to keep it simple by using the same deadline that already existed for periodic reports. 24+24 would be nicer, but I think 24+48 is still acceptable.

Could we not have periodic reports within 24+24 as well?

[frattastan]

We could, but do they deserve such a stringent requirement since in their case delays make little difference?

I think it's a minor quibble. The current thing isn't optimised for all scenarios, but it should be good enough to cover our needs.

[frattastan]

I edited the proposal to accept a suggestion made by Guy on Discord.

Now clause 3 simply says that there must be a report (implying, immediately or as soon as practicable). This practically reduces the timing before failure is reported from 24+48 hours to 0+48 hours.

[BowShot118]

Per Discord Convo, still seconded the current version ^^

[Goobergunchia]

I'll third this. It remains important for the Assembly to be informed on who we're getting in bed with.

[Manson]

I'll third this. It remains important for the Assembly to be informed on who we're getting in bed with.

TRR is a dirty girl.