[passed] Abolishing The Delegacy etc.

[Luca]

Abolishing The Delegacy and Establishing a New Office of a Suspiciously Similar Name

PREAMBLE. Whereas the Refugia Revised Statutes be concerningly thicc and,

Whereas the current legislation regarding a World Assembly Delegate was created in 2020, well beyond living memory for most of human civilization,

Unclear why such legislation was created, as the delegate remains accountable to only the unstoppable forces of death and taxation,

Disappointed that the average rate of taxation in Refugia is a paltry 55%,

Compromises with the Statute's existence and simplifies RRS 8 by revising it in its entirety to the following:

RRS 8. The World Assembly Delegate is the Region's envoy to the World Assembly. The Region shall support the Delegate's endorsement, and the Delegate shall apply that support towards World Assembly approval and voting stances that it believes represent the Region's values.

• The Delegate shall make a public statement to the Region if they choose to not vote in alignment with the Regional majority regarding a World Assembly vote.
• The Delegate nation is designated and dismissed by the Arch-Administrator, and no nations other than the designated nation is considered the rightful Delegate.
• A Delegate who loses Member State status or World Assembly membership resigns their tenure, and the nation which possesses the highest level of World Assembly endorsements may serve as Delegate in the interim until a new Delegate is designated.

Authored by: Refuge Isle
Seconded by: A Million Dreams

[Aav]

I will second this proposal so that it can go to vote very speedily. We must feed the legislation beasts or they shall come for our printer paper.

[Catherine]

As the person who currently has the second most endorsements, I have a few questions when I think this scenario through.

First, if the delegate was unable to serve, what would the second at that time be required to do during this two week voter period in terms of WA - i.e. would they have to abstain from voting? Would that change in the case of a close vote that Refugi were keen to get through and our delegate vote would push it over?

Second, how would we manage the unendorsing in the case that the second didn't win the election but was still keen to keep their 1% badge or regional top 10 and soon-to-be site-wide top 1000 position?

Third, does any of this change in the event that we know an inability to serve is temporary? To give an example, if Emily gets a 3 month WA ban, would an election be held only to cover the period she can't serve?

The second and third questions I'm sure are dealt with by multiple regions with regular delegate elections, but this is an aspect of NS I'm new to so I've no clue how it works.

[Luca]

First, if the delegate was unable to serve, what would the second at that time be required to do during this two week voter period in terms of WA - i.e. would they have to abstain from voting? Would that change in the case of a close vote that Refugi were keen to get through and our delegate vote would push it over?

No, there's no law in the RRS that dictates how a delegate votes. The only requirement is that they publish a reasoning behind their vote when it contradicts with the regional majority.

9/10 the delegate votes with the recommendation of the CoWAA, which gives extra weight to the CoWAA recommendation, although the recommendation should be considered powerful on its own, since our gamesiders and foreigners who trust in our judgement look for it. A delegate cannot be expected to study every resolution on a permanent basis, but swapping the delegate means a drastically lower regional vote. So, the delegate relies on the CoWAA's recommendation most of the time, but still has some independent agency when strong moral or logical objections exist. And that's the happy compromise we're at in the RRS.

I've adjusted 8(b) to clarify that the highest endorsement Member State is the interim delegate. So their responsibilities would be to provide an explanation for their vote if it differed from the regional majority.

Second, how would we manage the unendorsing in the case that the second didn't win the election but was still keen to keep their 1% badge or regional top 10 and soon-to-be site-wide top 1000 position?

I'm not sure there would need to be one, in particular. We have always operated on a strictly pro-endorsement motive. While some regions enforce an endorsement cap, the gap between Refugia's delegate and its second is entirely natural, which has only added to my belief that a UCR with a non-executive delegate never requires an endorsement cap.

Third, does any of this change in the event that we know an inability to serve is temporary? To give an example, if Emily gets a 3 month WA ban, would an election be held only to cover the period she can't serve?

If we believed that Emily would be WA-banned for three months, that in my estimation is ample cause to locate a replacement. There's no reason to have three months of chaos or ineffective voting. I'm not personally convinced that a standard Councillor two-week voting timeline is a good idea either, since in a normal election, there is 100% Councillor coverage, and this is dramatically longer without. It may be a good idea for me to maintain the status quo one week timeline, but this could be too abrupt.

[Natalie]

Second, how would we manage the unendorsing in the case that the second didn't win the election but was still keen to keep their 1% badge or regional top 10 and soon-to-be site-wide top 1000 position?

I'm not sure there would need to be one, in particular. We have always operated on a strictly pro-endorsement motive. While some regions enforce an endorsement cap, the gap between Refugia's delegate and its second is entirely natural, which has only added to my belief that a UCR with a non-executive delegate never requires an endorsement cap.

But what happens if someone wins a delegate election and just doesn't get enough endorsements to actually be the delegate? Doesn't that create a situation where there's a dispute of legitimacy between the elected and acting delegates?

[Luca]

But what happens if someone wins a delegate election and just doesn't get enough endorsements to actually be the delegate? Doesn't that create a situation where there's a dispute of legitimacy between the elected and acting delegates?

Fixed thanks.

[Luca]

Bump.

[Natalie]

The only thing that might be missing is an explanation of what happens if the appointed delegate ceases to be the delegate - whether that's by CTEing, founding a new region, some kind of endorsement campaign, etc. I'm not sure if we need that or not.

[Luca]

I guess my thinking is that if they resign, leave, or are destroyed, it would be incumbent on the Arch-Admin to dismiss that nation from the designation and appoint someone else.

[Luca]

Notable edits put up

[Aav]

I appreciate how it is written now, it looks simple and useful, just like how things should be. No objections to any of the wording at present.