[Draft] Atef Composition and Powers Amendment Act

Cormac · Post by **Cormac** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 9:15 pm

The recent Atef nominations have demonstrated that the constitutionality of appointing the Pharaoh or the Vizier to the Atef is ambiguous. I don't personally have a strong opinion on whether the Vizier should be able to also be appointed to the Atef, so I am proposing two amendments here. I also noticed that we have no provision to deal with the simultaneous recall of a Pharaoh and Vizier, or recall of a Pharaoh when the office of Vizier is vacant, or simultaneous unscheduled absence of the Pharaoh and Vizier.

Both options would exclude the Pharaoh from serving on the Atef for the duration of their service as Pharaoh, and would deal with the above scenario in which the Vizier is simultaneously absent or removed from office.

The first option would also exclude the Vizier from serving on the Atef for the duration of their service as Vizier.

The second option would permit the Vizier to serve on the Atef while clarifying that during their service as Vizier they will be permitted to exceed the Atef endorsement limit. The second option also clarifies that the Vizier cannot vote to certify an emergency that would allow the Vizier to take the in-game WA Delegacy in the Pharaoh's absence.

Spoiler

Atef Composition and Powers Amendment Act

Section 1: Clarification of Atef Composition

1. Section 2.10 of the State Code of Osiris will be amended to read as follows:

10. The Atef will serve as the security council of Osiris. The Pharaoh will appoint, with the approval of the Deshret, citizens to serve as Guardians of the Atef. Guardians of the Atef will be required to maintain WA nations in Osiris with high endorsement counts at all times. Neither the Pharaoh nor the Vizier will serve as Guardian of the Atef for the duration of their service as Pharaoh or Vizier.
Section 2: Expansion of Atef Powers

1. The following will be amended into the State Code of Osiris as Section 2.10(c):

(c) The Atef will have the power to determine proper procedure for the simultaneous, unscheduled absence of both the Pharaoh and the Vizier for a period exceeding seven days, and for enforcement of the Pharaoh's removal from office if the Vizier is simultaneously removed from office or if the office of Vizier is vacant.
Section 3: Election Clarification

1. Section 3.1 of the State Code of Osiris will be amended to read as follows:

1. The Pharaoh may be subject to a challenge election when there has been a period exceeding three months since the last challenge election, or upon the resignation or removal from office of the Pharaoh.

Spoiler

Atef Composition and Powers Amendment Act

Section 1: Clarification of Atef Composition

1. Section 2.10 of the State Code of Osiris will be amended to read as follows:

10. The Atef will serve as the security council of Osiris. The Pharaoh will appoint, with the approval of the Deshret, citizens to serve as Guardians of the Atef. Guardians of the Atef will be required to maintain WA nations in Osiris with high endorsement counts at all times. The Pharaoh will not serve as Guardian of the Atef for the duration of their service as Pharaoh.
2. Section 2.10(a) of the State Code of Osiris will be amended to read as follows:

(a) Guardians of the Atef may only exceed the general endorsement limit up to 66% of the Pharaoh's endorsement count or ten endorsements less than the Vizier's endorsement count, whichever is lower. Should the Vizier also serve as Guardian of the Atef, the Vizier will be permitted to exceed the Atef endorsement limit for the duration of their service as Vizier.
3. Section 2.11(a) of the State Code of Osiris will be amended to read as follows:

(a) The Vizier will serve as acting Pharaoh in the event of the Pharaoh's scheduled absence or an unscheduled absence exceeding seven days. The Vizier will be vested with all powers of the Pharaoh for the duration of the Pharaoh's absence, but will not assume the in-game WA Delegacy except in the event of an emergency as certified by the Atef of Osiris. Should the Vizier also serve as Guardian of the Atef, the Vizier will not vote on certification of such an emergency.
Section 2: Expansion of Atef Powers

1. The following will be amended into the State Code of Osiris as Section 2.10(c):

(c) The Atef will have the power to determine proper procedure for the simultaneous, unscheduled absence of both the Pharaoh and the Vizier for a period exceeding seven days, and for enforcement of the Pharaoh's removal from office if the Vizier is simultaneously removed from office or if the office of Vizier is vacant.
Section 3: Election Clarification

1. Section 3.1 of the State Code of Osiris will be amended to read as follows:

1. The Pharaoh may be subject to a challenge election when there has been a period exceeding three months since the last challenge election, or upon the resignation or removal from office of the Pharaoh.

Dennrick · Post by **Dennrick** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 9:20 pm

I think I like the second option better but don't really have a solid opinion.

Post by **shetef** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 10:22 pm

I have no preference regarding this as of right now. Somebody convince me!

Cormac · Post by **Cormac** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 10:39 pm

I lean slightly in favor of the first option because it's the simplest and doesn't require the exceptions and clarifications that needed to be included in the second option to preserve separation of powers, but I don't really have a strong preference either. I could comfortably vote for either option based on others' preferences, which is why I included both options.

Klaus Mikaelson · Post by **Klaus Mikaelson** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 11:42 pm

I prefer the 1st option. If for no other reason then it forces someone else to be involved. We have plenty of people.

Charles Cerebella · Post by **Charles Cerebella** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 8:14 am

First seems a simpler system though I have no strong opinions.

Treize Dreizehn · Post by **Treize Dreizehn** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 8:09 pm

I am definitely more of a fan of option one. It's a much more elegant solution.

Theoden Sebastian · Post by **Theoden Sebastian** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:42 pm

Either really works for you, but I'm more inclined to vote for the first option.

Juris Lancaster · Post by **Juris Lancaster** » Sun Feb 23, 2014 12:10 am

Personally, I see this as a difference of how much we would like separation and balance between the branches of government.

I like option one, it is more simple, and has less to worry about. However, wouldn't the Atef vote against the Vizier if there wasn't truly an emergency (if we went with option 2)?

Cormac · Post by **Cormac** » Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:17 am

Jurisdictions wrote:Sun Feb 23, 2014 5:10 amI like option one, it is more simple, and has less to worry about. However, wouldn't the Atef vote against the Vizier if there wasn't truly an emergency (if we went with option 2)?

Probably. My concern, though, is that we don't regulate how many people are on the Atef. I actually think that's as it should be, at the moment, as our community is still reorganizing and bringing in new members and we don't want to set a hard number for how many people can and cannot be on our security council.

But with that lack of a defined number comes the possibility that if the Vizier is on the Atef and the Atef is small, his vote in an unclear emergency situation could be the deciding factor in putting him into the in-game Delegacy. I don't think the person who would be put into the in-game Delegacy should, except under the most extreme circumstances when there is no choice, have any say on whether they are going to be put in the Delegacy. It's way too big a conflict of interest and way too much power at that person's finger tips.

My views on security councils and limitation and separation of powers stem primarily from the December 2012 coup d'etat perpetrated against the Kemetic Republic of Osiris by The Empire. Dalimbar and Neo Kervoskia abused their positions on the Council of Ma'at, the security council at the time, in league with Biyah as a Sepatarch (elected legislator) and Vizier of Security, to persuade Quadrimmina and other cabinet officials to put Neo Kervoskia into the Delegacy under the guise of an emergency. The Council of Ma'at was also vested with quasi-judicial appellate power at that time, and so after the coup d'etat it looked as though Dali and NK would be able to essentially acquit themselves and Biyah which is part of the reason they weren't prosecuted.

Since that time, I've been very cautious about both limiting the powers of security councils and separating them as firmly as practical from other branches of government. So my preference that the Vizier not have a vote in whether or not he is placed in the in-game WA Delegacy in event of an emergency basically stems from that incident. It's certainly not a reflection of any concerns about ygfbv, I should add, but concerns about these institutions in general regardless of who is occupying them.