Amendment to section 2;3;a; posthumus Discussion

[Datford-Zyvetskistaahn]

I would agree with Councillor Jakker that, considering the import if this matter and the disagreement that it has attracted, it would be premature to push for a vote now.

If Councillors would permit me the liberty, in order to assist Councillors in their considerations, I have prepared a few first drafts of bills providing for some of the possibilities outlined by the Chief Elder (though I do not presuppose that my drafting is necessarily up to the Chief Elder's standard). Personally I would not support a move to remove the Seshat as a mandatory ministry, unless there was a replacement along one of the lines proposed by the Chief Elder, and I would favour the first option I have drafted for (Seshat being under the Court), then it being an elected office, rotation being my least preferred. (I note I am also intrigued by some ideas along the lines suggested by Curator Wombat and, if Councillors are similarly intrigued, may also draft a bill or two.)

In short the first bill would: make the Scribe a position nominated by a majority of the Pschent, subject to approval by a majority vote of the Deshret; make the Scribe subject to removal only on conviction or by the Deshret; place duties on the Scribe to fulfil their key functions (as I understand them), but with scope to fulfil a wider role if necessary or desirable; prevent Elders serving as the Scribe (as the Scribe would not remain a full member of the Hedjet, in my understanding, but I would presume Councillors would wish for the prohibition to remain).

The second would: make the Scribe an elected position with a three month term and an election administered by the Keeper; make the Scribe subject to removal only on conviction or by the Deshret; place duties on the Scribe to fulfil their key functions (again, as I understand them), but with scope to fulfil a wider role if necessary or desirable; prevent Elders serving as Scribe (for the same reason as before).

The third would: abolish the office of the Scribe; increase the Pschent to number five; have one Elder serve as prosecutor and one, if needed, as defence for each criminal trial; limit the number of consecutive trials each Elder would serve as prosecutor or defence in.

All would leave it open for the Pharoah to receive legal advice from outside of the Scribe (the third would require that be the case). The first two would both permit the existence of a large department for the Scribe and for the rendering of non-binding legal opinions to the public (the third would not).

I believe that is the main substance of all three.

Spoiler

1. Section 2.3(a) of the State Code of Osiris is omitted from said Code.

2. After Section 4.5 of the State Code of Osiris new subsections are inserted which read:

6. The Pschent will nominate a Scribe of Justice. An Elder shall announce that nomination to the Deshret upon approval of which the nominee will be the Scribe of Justice (alternatively styled as the Scribe of Seshat).

7. The Scribe of Seshat will maintain a Priesthood capable of fulfilling the duties placed upon them and it by this Code and other laws.

(a) The Scribe and Priesthood of Seshat will prosecute alleged criminal offences, provided they are of the belief that prosecution can be successful and is in the interests of the citizens of Osiris.

(b) The Scribe and Priesthood of Seshat will provide defence counsel to those who are subject to prosecution of alleged criminal offences, if such a person cannot secure counsel themselves.

(c) The Scribe and Priesthood of Seshat will provide to the Pschent its opinion on legal questions and disputes brought before the Pschent.

(d) The Scribe of Seshat will, if invited to do so, attend the Pharaoh's Cabinet and provide advice on legal matters to the Pharaoh and the Scribes of the Hedjet.

(e) The Scribe and Priesthood of Seshat is not prevented by the prescription of its duties in by this Code from performing similar actions.

3. Section 4.1 of the State Code of Osiris is amended to read:

1. The Pschent will be the judicial council of Osiris, comprised of three Elders of the Pschent appointed by the Pharaoh with the approval of the Deshret. Elders of the Pschent will not serve as Pharaoh, Vizier, Scribe of the Hedjet, Scribe or Priest of Seshat, Guardian of the Atef, or Keeper of the Deshret and will not serve as junior officials for any of these offices for the duration of their service on the Pschent.

4. Section 4.6 of the State Code of Osiris is numbered, instead, as Section 4.8, but will be otherwise unchanged.

Spoiler

1. Section 2.3(a) of the State Code of Osiris is omitted from said Code.

2. After Section 2.11(b) of the State Code of Osiris a new subsection is inserted which reads:

12. The Scribe of Seshat will serve as Scribe of Justice and will maintain a Priesthood capable of fulfilling the duties placed upon them and it by this Code and other laws.

(a) The Scribe and Priesthood of Seshat will prosecute alleged criminal offences, provided they are of the belief that prosecution can be successful and is in the interests of the citizens of Osiris.

(b) The Scribe and Priesthood of Seshat will provide defence counsel to those who are subject to prosecution of alleged criminal offences, if such a person cannot secure counsel themselves.

(c) The Scribe and Priesthood of Seshat will provide to the Pschent its opinion on legal questions and disputes brought before the Pschent.

(d) The Scribe of Seshat will, if invited to do so, attend the Pharaoh's Cabinet and provide advice on legal matters to the Pharaoh and the Scribes of the Hedjet.

(e) The Scribe and Priesthood of Seshat is not prevented by the prescription of its duties in by this Code from performing similar actions.

3. Section 4.1 of the State Code of Osiris is amended to read:

1. The Pschent will be the judicial council of Osiris, comprised of three Elders of the Pschent appointed by the Pharaoh with the approval of the Deshret. Elders of the Pschent will not serve as Pharaoh, Vizier, Scribe of the Hedjet, Scribe or Priest of Seshat, Guardian of the Atef, or Keeper of the Deshret and will not serve as junior officials for any of these offices for the duration of their service on the Pschent.

4. After Section 6.1(b) of the State Code of Osiris a new clause is inserted that reads:

(c) The Scribe of Seshat will have a term of three months.

5. Section 1.1 of the Election Administration Act is amended to read:

1. Elections for Keeper of the Deshret will be administered by the Pharaoh of the Osiris Fraternal Order. Elections for Pharaoh and Scribe of Seshat will be administered by the Keeper.

6. No provision of this Act will take effect unless all provisions of this Act take effect.

Spoiler

1. Section 2.3(a) of the State Code of Osiris is omitted from said Code.

2. Section 4.1 of the State Code of Osiris is amended to read:

1. The Pschent will be the judicial council of Osiris, comprised of five Elders of the Pschent appointed by the Pharaoh with the approval of the Deshret. Elders of the Pschent will not serve as Pharaoh, Vizier, Scribe of the Hedjet, Guardian of the Atef, or Keeper of the Deshret and will not serve as junior officials for any of these offices for the duration of their service on the Pschent.

3. After Section 4.6 of the State Code of Osiris a new subsection is inserted that reads:

7. The Pschent will, for each criminal proceeding before it, select one of its membership to serve as prosecutor and another to serve as defence counsel, if the person subject to such a proceeding cannot secure counsel themselves.

(a) No Elder will be selected to serve as prosecutor twice consecutively.

(b) No Elder will be selected to serve as defence counsel twice consecutively.

(c) No Elder will be selected to serve in either capacity in three consecutive proceedings.

4. Section 6.1 of the Criminal Codex of the Osiris Fraternal Order Act is omitted from said Act and Section 6.2 of said Act is numbered, instead, as Section 6.1, but will be otherwise unchanged.

5. Section 8 of the Criminal Codex of the Osiris Fraternal Order Act is amended to read:

Section 8: Statute of Limitations

1. In order to be valid, a charge of a high crime must be brought before the Pschent within twelve months of the date the alleged offense occurred.

2. In order to be valid, a charge of a felony crime must be brought before the Pschent within six months of the date the alleged offense occurred.

3. In order to be valid, a charge of a misdemeanor crime must be brought before the Pschent within three months of the date the alleged offense occurred.

6. No provision of this Act will take effect unless all provisions of this Act take effect.

Is anyone interested in any of the proposals as drafted, might I ask?

EDIT: Might I ask also, is the amendment proposed by the Vizier proposed solely in his capacity as a part of this Deshret, or is it a proposal of the Pharaoh and His Government (or supported by the Pharaoh and His Government more widely than just the Vizier)?

[Jakker]

Just because we are moving toward a vote doesn't mean discussion cannot continue on the merits of the proposed amendment.

I am aware that discussion can still continue, but why should we begin voting while discussion is still in its early stages? Currently, there is disagreement about the amendment beyond simply "I agree with that" or "I disagree with that." I understand the desire for moving things along, but I think it's a little unfair to expect Councillors to vote when a lot is still up in the air.

[Jakker]

Thank you for all those suggestions, Councillor Datford-Zyvetskistaahn. I think all of your proposals have merit.

I think we all need to look at the why behind this amendment. It appears that the driving force behind trying to remove the clause is that there has been trouble in the past finding qualified citizens to fill the role. Honestly, if that is the case, should we look more our State Code being flawed or our region not having citizens to fill the role? If we couldn't find a suitable citizen for pharaoh, would we make that position not mandatory? Of course not. While that is an extreme example, I just think we need to do more self reflection as to why this clause should be removed.

May I suggest an easier solution? Rather than removing the clause, why not just add to it saying that if the pharaoh is unable to find a citizen to nominate, then it is his/her responsibility to delegate the tasks of the scribe accordingly to the rest of the government? I do believe that the responsibilities of the Justice Scribe are important and we need that represented in some way.

[Ainocra]

The Vizier is considered a member of the Deshret. While this might be supported by other members of the government It is something I have been looking at for a long time.
The problems with placing the scribe of justice under the auspices of the court is again the separation of powers. Having the court directly oversee an executive department would inevitably lead to a conflict of interest eventually.

[Ainocra]

Thank you for all those suggestions, Councillor Datford-Zyvetskistaahn. I think all of your proposals have merit.

I think we all need to look at the why behind this amendment. It appears that the driving force behind trying to remove the clause is that there has been trouble in the past finding qualified citizens to fill the role. Honestly, if that is the case, should we look more our State Code being flawed or our region not having citizens to fill the role? If we couldn't find a suitable citizen for pharaoh, would we make that position not mandatory? Of course not. While that is an extreme example, I just think we need to do more self reflection as to why this clause should be removed.

May I suggest an easier solution? Rather than removing the clause, why not just add to it saying that if the pharaoh is unable to find a citizen to nominate, then it is his/her responsibility to delegate the tasks of the scribe accordingly to the rest of the government? I do believe that the responsibilities of the Justice Scribe are important and we need that represented in some way.

That is exactly why I want to remove the clause, so that the Executive can effectively manage the issue should they have difficulty finding an appropriate candidate.

[Datford-Zyvetskistaahn]

I do not know that I see the issue that the Vizier believes to exist, if the Pharaoh is having difficulty finding someone outside of His Government to appoint, but has someone within it already, the Vizier in this instance, who would be, and in this instance has been, delegated the Scribe's brief and powers, why can the Pharaoh not appoint as Scribe the person to whom they intend to delegate, unless the Pharaoh is of the view the Deshret would reject that appointment, in which case the delegation seems simply to be an attempt to evade oversight.

The Vizier's main concern appears to be to afford the executive, though more specifically the Pharaoh, as much power and discretion as possible, while allowing lax oversight of the use of either; this is the stance with which he pushes this repeal and it is the stance which has informed his answers to questions put to the Seshat by myself on this and related issues. It is a stance that I would not wish to see in a Scribe of Seshat, who I should hope would maintain some independence from the executive, which he may have to challenge and members of which he may have to prosecute, however, it is a stance that, I should think, would be more common if the method delegation the Vizier supports and proposes is permitted.


Also, if I may, neither the first nor second of the bills I have drafted place an executive department under control of the Pschent, they remove a department from under control of the Pharaoh to place it, effectively, as an independent arm of its own, responsible to the Deshret. The third bill, I will accept, could create an appearance on impropriety more easily than the others, as regard the separation of powers (I do not presuppose actual impropriety on the part of the Pschent, though I also do not suggest it impossible in future).

[Andrew]

I don't quite get why this is being moved to a vote when it has called much discussion, a Judicial Review, and finally led Tim to nominate an appointment. There's no need for the rush and I question the legality of trying to remove a clause that is currently being reviewed by the Pschent.

I move to table the vote.

The motion is tabled.

[Ainocra]

I do not know that I see the issue that the Vizier believes to exist, if the Pharaoh is having difficulty finding someone outside of His Government to appoint, but has someone within it already, the Vizier in this instance, who would be, and in this instance has been, delegated the Scribe's brief and powers, why can the Pharaoh not appoint as Scribe the person to whom they intend to delegate, unless the Pharaoh is of the view the Deshret would reject that appointment, in which case the delegation seems simply to be an attempt to evade oversight.

The Vizier's main concern appears to be to afford the executive, though more specifically the Pharaoh, as much power and discretion as possible, while allowing lax oversight of the use of either; this is the stance with which he pushes this repeal and it is the stance which has informed his answers to questions put to the Seshat by myself on this and related issues. It is a stance that I would not wish to see in a Scribe of Seshat, who I should hope would maintain some independence from the executive, which he may have to challenge and members of which he may have to prosecute, however, it is a stance that, I should think, would be more common if the method delegation the Vizier supports and proposes is permitted.


Also, if I may, neither the first nor second of the bills I have drafted place an executive department under control of the Pschent, they remove a department from under control of the Pharaoh to place it, effectively, as an independent arm of its own, responsible to the Deshret. The third bill, I will accept, could create an appearance on impropriety more easily than the others, as regard the separation of powers (I do not presuppose actual impropriety on the part of the Pschent, though I also do not suggest it impossible in future).

Councilor,

Have you actually read anything I have put forth on the subject?

This would have no effect whatsoever on the Deshret's powers of oversight in this, or any other matter. This would simply allow the executive the same latitude it enjoys with every other cabinet position.

Point of order Keeper, the current procedural rules of the Deshret do not allow for a motion to be tabled in such a manner.

[Datford-Zyvetskistaahn]

I have read and I do not see the problems that are alleged to exist.

It is said that the Seshat does not do much, this surely is a positive. If it were doing a lot it would imply this place was drafting and passing laws that were unclear and required frequent clarification, it would imply the executive's actions were regularly of questionable lawfulness and required justification and defending, it would imply that crimes against the Order were being regularly committed; these are not things I would desire to see, but they are the few things that would entertain the Seshat's time.

It is said that there is no one to be found who can take up the office of Scribe, yet Curator Amerion has been nominated to do so and the Vizier has been acting as Scribe for some time, so one would assume is able to. If there were no one willing to oversee the Seshat, making it more open to delegation would not solve that problem because there would be no one who would accept it being delegated to them.

It is said that the removal of the requirement to appoint a Scribe would not affect the exercise of effective oversight, but it would. If, for instance, the Pharaoh delegated responsibility for culture, foreign affairs and justice to His Vizier, then a Councillor or several Councillors grew dissatisfied with the performance of the Vizier in regards to justice, for instance, they could not then recall the Vizier from that role and keep him in place in other departments or his place as Vizier, where they may be well satisfied with his performance; it limits the ability of the Deshret to provide specific oversight on matters and discourages action to rectify what the Deshret may perceive as failings.

I do not suggest that reduced oversight is the intention of the Vizier's proposal, I do, however, suggest that, in order to provide greater flexibility to the Pharaoh, that reduced oversight will result from the proposal and its attempts to fix problems that do not seem to exist.

[Ainocra]

Mandatory ministries inevitably run into the kind of problem we have experienced of late. At one time in the past there were several mandatory ministries and they encountered the same issues we are currently seeing which is why the Deshret of the time opted to phase them out. In the situation you describe the Deshret could seek a legal remedy through legislation or the courts. Perhaps enacting a law prohibiting the Vizier from serving in such a capacity or suing the Pharaoh in the court. I would posit that if the Vizier in question were doing so poorly that the Deshret wished them to stop doing a job that removal from office would actually be the best course of action.