Interregional Review Committee

This topic is for the discussion of the interregional review committee (the appeals court for the interregional government).

Here's what we have established for the review committee:
--Each region would produce 2 people to serve on the committee; these two would be selected by each region's delegate.
--The review committee would see a legislative bill and decide if it was constitutional or not if one of the regions had 15% of its population sign a petition against the law.
--If the review committee found a bill unconstitutional, it would be immediately struck out and would no longer apply.
--If the review committee approved a bill, the decision would be final unless the legislature later repealed the law.

This is what we need to decide:
--What will be the duties of the committee?
--Will someone count votes for the committee, or will each member simply state their decision?
--Will the term length for the committee be different?
--How will members be replaced?
--How many members should be needed to vote out a bill?
--What should the committee be called?

This is what I propose:
--Duties of the committee: Deciding on successfully protested interregional laws and replacing recalled officials (as long as the official was not in the committee). For replacement, I suggest that the committee select someone from the same region as the previous person to finish the term.
--Committee Vote-Counter: I think that the votes should be posted publicly on a forum of a sort (a separate forum should be made for interregional activity, which everyone could join). However, to prevent a tie, there should be a head of the committee, who would present the case to the other members of the committee and could vote toward the decision. I suggest we call the head the Superintendent of the _____ (whatever we name the committee).
--Term length: I think the term length for the committee should be the same as the rest, which would be 4 months by my suggestion.
--Replacing members: If a committee member becomes inactive or is recalled by the upper house of the legislature, the delegate of that member's region will select a new member as a replacement. If the head is the one being replaced, the president will select the replacement.
--Vote count: I think a simple majority is fair, which means a 5/9 vote if we agree on the head of the committee.
--Name for the committee: I suggest the Commissioners' Board or the Board of Commissioners.

Thoughts?

I suggest we call the head the Superintendent of the

And he would be voted in by his fellow committee members, i assume?

--Name for the committee: I suggest the Commissioners' Board or the Board of Commissioners.

Board of Commissioners sounds okay, but this is kind of like a Supreme Court, don't you think? Supreme Court of the INU?

I agree with everything, except the suggestion of the name. I think we should stick with "Inter-regional Review Committee" or something along those lines.

I feel like "Board of Commissioners" is too ambiguous.

How about Board of Constitutional Reviews

@Xin Prussia: About the head, I was thinking the president could appoint them. If not, I suppose the committee could select someone. We'd have to come up with a system for it, though.

On the name, we can't include "the INU" because this is interregional, which means it isn't just the INU.

@Othelos: I proposed that name because a commissioner is a judge. That way it's more direct.

Zwotstyg wrote:@Xin Prussia: About the head, I was thinking the president could appoint them. If not, I suppose the committee could select someone. We'd have to come up with a system for it, though.

I'm again very opposed to even more appointments. I doubt getting them to select their own would be anything difficult.

On the name, we can't include "the INU" because this is interregional, which means it isn't just the INU.

You know what i mean  

Zwotstyg wrote:@Othelos: I proposed that name because a commissioner is a judge. That way it's more direct.

Okay. But I still think it should be more specific. Modifying Zera's idea, how's "Constitutional Review Committee"?

@Xin Prussia: I don't mind having them pick their own. We do, however, need to have a way for them to pick someone, so that the number is odd. Here's a system I had in mind:
--People, instead of being nominated, will simply send a personal statement and a volunteer telegram to their region's delegate. Each delegate, after maybe a day or two, will simply select the best of the volunteers.
--After each region has selected its person, the delegates will present the four candidates to the current review committee. Each region's two members will not be allowed to vote for their own region's candidate; instead, they will select the best candidate from the other regions. The winner of this will be placed as the head. The benefit of this will be that the winner would be mutually accepted by the other regions, so he/she will likely be less regionally biased and willing to work with the other regions' members.

@Othelos: I can agree with the Constitutional Review Committee.

Zwotstyg wrote:@Xin Prussia: I don't mind having them pick their own. We do, however, need to have a way for them to pick someone, so that the number is odd. Here's a system I had in mind:
--People, instead of being nominated, will simply send a personal statement and a volunteer telegram to their region's delegate. Each delegate, after maybe a day or two, will simply select the best of the volunteers.
--After each region has selected its person, the delegates will present the four candidates to the current review committee. Each region's two members will not be allowed to vote for their own region's candidate; instead, they will select the best candidate from the other regions. The winner of this will be placed as the head. The benefit of this will be that the winner would be mutually accepted by the other regions, so he/she will likely be less regionally biased and willing to work with the other regions' members.

@Othelos: I can agree with the Constitutional Review Committee.

Fair enough.

I have another proposal for the CRC.

Since we will have multiple regions working in cohesion with one another, it is likely that serious conflicts could arise. So, to deal with it, I propose we set the CRC to the job.

Essentially, the only real conflicts that could arise would be between two member regions or between two interregional officials. Other conflicts would be regional or not involve member regions. I simply suggest, then, that the CRC act as a court to conclude such conflicts if they arise. The process would be very basic; for example, say Region1 had a fight with Region2. If it got severe enough, one could appeal to the CRC to deal with the problem. Both regions would make their case in whatever way they felt necessary (appointing a lawyer-representative for the case, for example), and the CRC would be required to come to a decision in, say, 5 days. The CRC decision would be final.

One more thing for the CRC as well. We need to clarify how most officials should be replaced. We have already established that if the president is recalled or becomes inactive, the VP takes over, and since the VP is appointed, the new president would just appoint a new VP. For any other interregional officials, however, I believe the CRC should elect a replacement. For example, say that a GA representative went out of office. The CRC would take volunteers from the representative's region, and vote to select the best replacement. The only difference would be the foreign minister, because he/she would need to include a personal statement, and the GA head if he/she is elected, since they will need to include a personal statement as well. Lastly, for a specification, I say that an interregional official should be rendered inactive after 12 days of inactivity without an excuse. Rather than being voted on, they would automatically be removed from office, to avoid additional unnecessary votes.

Thoughts on this?

I'm inclined to agree with most of that. But why 12 days instead of 14?

Agreed, but I think an exception should be made if the person announces that he/she is going away for 12 or more days.

I'm all for it if the person disappears off the face of the earth, though.

@Xin: Because we don't want to let people go inactive for too long. That means interregional officials could do nothing for a half-month and be excused. In that light, 12 days is extremely generous. I only see harm in extending the period further.

@Othelos: Yes, as I mentioned, that would only apply if they were inactive for 12 days without an excuse. As long as they notify everyone, they're fine.

Zwotstyg wrote:@Xin: Because we don't want to let people go inactive for too long. That means interregional officials could do nothing for a half-month and be excused. In that light, 12 days is extremely generous. I only see harm in extending the period further.

@Othelos: Yes, as I mentioned, that would only apply if they were inactive for 12 days without an excuse. As long as they notify everyone, they're fine.

I suppose. The number 12 just seems odd.