[Draft] Establishing the Office of Human Resources

[Castle Federation]

The World Assembly:

FINDING a need of a World Assembly department for the management of employees

SERVING international interest by proactively eliminating possible agents of corruption that may plague the staff of the World Assembly

SEEING a need for uniform standards of employment wages and personnel conduct across all organs of this esteemed body

Does hereby enforce that:

1. The creation of the World Assembly Office of Human Resources which shall handle all applications of employment to the World Assembly.

2. The Office of Human Resources shall make necessary for employment an interview process, a printed resumé for review, and a letter of recommendation from every government the applicant is a legal citizen of.

3. The Office of Human Resources is to enlist the aid of the Compliance Commission in petitioning the national governments and the organizations therein for data and information necessary to perform a standard background check that includes criminal activity, validation of citizenship, and qualification for the applicant's desired occupation. All member nations must provide information requested by the Office of Human Resources.

4. All wages and qualifications of employees of World Assembly bodies are to be decided by the executive council of the Office of Human Resources.

5. The Office of Human Resources may establish subsidiary offices within individual branches of the World Assembly organization barring the Security Council which shall enforce and handle human resource affairs independently from this body and the General Assembly.

[Kenmoria]

"Category? Strength?"

(OOC: This is definitely a committee only violation, there is not action for member states.)

[Bears Armed]

04. All wages and qualifications of employees of World Assembly bodies are to be decided by the executive council of the Office of Human Resources which shall consist of nine members each from a different nation. Each member must be confirmed by a majority vote from the General Assembly.

OOC
Illegal for violation of the Committee rule: Proposals can not specify the membership of WA committees.
Illegal for violation of the Game Mechanics rule: No mechanism for such votes currently exists, so the Admins would have to add one, and proposals are not allowed to tell the Admins what to do.

[Kenmoria]

"Clause 3 needs to have finishing punctuation. I also would recommend doing some active clauses that don't have such a heavy association with the committee, and I would recommend placing a “The World Assembly” line at the top."

[Castle Federation]

"Category? Strength?"

(OOC: This is definitely a committee only violation, there is not action for member states.)

I've removed the committee specific aspects, but clause 3 makes it mandatory for member states to comply with the Office. Would this count as member nation involvement?

[Kenmoria]

"Category? Strength?"

(OOC: This is definitely a committee only violation, there is not action for member states.)

I've removed the committee specific aspects, but clause 3 makes it mandatory for member states to comply with the Office. Would this count as member nation involvement?

(OOC: I'm not sure as the rule has recently been changed. I would recommend asking a Gensec member or a more experienced players.)

[Wallenburg]

04. All wages and qualifications of employees of World Assembly bodies are to be decided by the executive council of the Office of Human Resources which shall consist of nine members each from a different nation. Each member must be confirmed by a majority vote from the General Assembly.

OOC
Illegal for violation of the Committee rule: Proposals can not specify the membership of WA committees.

Where is that written?

Illegal for violation of the Game Mechanics rule: No mechanism for such votes currently exists, so the Admins would have to add one, and proposals are not allowed to tell the Admins what to do.

Pretty much this.

"Category? Strength?"

(OOC: This is definitely a committee only violation, there is not action for member states.)

I've removed the committee specific aspects, but clause 3 makes it mandatory for member states to comply with the Office. Would this count as member nation involvement?

Probably. I'd wait for SL or someone else working on the new committee rule to give their opinion on that, though.

[Masurbia]

Illegal for violation of the Committee rule: Proposals can not specify the membership of WA committees.

Where is that written?

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348

Committees: Committees cannot be the sole purpose of the proposal. It is an addition to the proposal and designed to carry out specific duties related to the proposal.
A proposal cannot define: who can/cannot staff the committee, how members are chosen, and term lengths
Committees continue to exist after its resolution is repealed if it's used in another resolution
Single-use committees that died when its resolution was repealed, may be revived for a relevant new proposal

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: The mention of the Security Council in the last clause is Metagaming. And I don't see any burden placed on member states aside from some paperwork in Clause 3. This would fail both the old committee rule and the new one, IMO. Which is not totally unreasonable from a drawing-board standpoint since the goal here is essentially just making a committee to staff the other committees; but it does mean you'll need to make nations actively involved in the process somehow if you want it to be legal. Picking a category and strength would help with that.

IC: "Ambassador, we vehemently object to this resolution on the grounds that referring to human - indeed any sapient beings - as 'resources' stands in direct contradiction to GA Resolution #23. People are people, not commodities or assets to be traded and flipped and exploited. No support as is; with a title change, perhaps we can talk. Good day."

[Kenmoria]

"Clause 4 seems extremely micromanaging; it means that employers cannot decide their employee's wage to even a small standard. We cannot support as written."

[Wallenburg]

Where is that written?

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348

Committees: Committees cannot be the sole purpose of the proposal. It is an addition to the proposal and designed to carry out specific duties related to the proposal.
A proposal cannot define: who can/cannot staff the committee, how members are chosen, and term lengths
Committees continue to exist after its resolution is repealed if it's used in another resolution
Single-use committees that died when its resolution was repealed, may be revived for a relevant new proposal

My apologies, I should have specified that I was referring to the upcoming edition of the committee rule.

[Separatist Peoples]

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348

Committees: Committees cannot be the sole purpose of the proposal. It is an addition to the proposal and designed to carry out specific duties related to the proposal.
A proposal cannot define: who can/cannot staff the committee, how members are chosen, and term lengths
Committees continue to exist after its resolution is repealed if it's used in another resolution
Single-use committees that died when its resolution was repealed, may be revived for a relevant new proposal

My apologies, I should have specified that I was referring to the upcoming edition of the committee rule.

I believe it was our intent to keep the bolded part and everything below it. That said, our draft clearly doesn't reflect that. I'll run that up the flag pole so that is clarified in the public draft of the rule.

[Wallenburg]

My apologies, I should have specified that I was referring to the upcoming edition of the committee rule.

I believe it was our intent to keep the bolded part and everything below it. That said, our draft clearly doesn't reflect that. I'll run that up the flag pole so that is clarified in the public draft of the rule.

I see. Good to know. You indeed might want to make note of that in the discussion thread.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I believe it was our intent to keep the bolded part and everything below it. That said, our draft clearly doesn't reflect that. I'll run that up the flag pole so that is clarified in the public draft of the rule.

I see. Good to know. You indeed might want to make note of that in the discussion thread.

Good call. Fixed.

[Castle Federation]

So if I reworked the proposal to force applicants for work in the world assembly to have a certificate of approval from their government which all member states must provide, then it would not run into so many barriers? I would also remove the Security Council distinction.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

So if I reworked the proposal to force applicants for work in the world assembly to have a certificate of approval from their government which all member states must provide, then it would not run into so many barriers? I would also remove the Security Council distinction.

OOC: It would still run into one major barrier at the very least. Support. I don't think a Human Resources department for the World Assembly would be very popular.

[Wallenburg]

So if I reworked the proposal to force applicants for work in the world assembly to have a certificate of approval from their government which all member states must provide, then it would not run into so many barriers? I would also remove the Security Council distinction.

Still illegal for category and game mechanics violations. It's also getting worse with its micromanagement.

[Jarish Inyo]

Don't we have the gnomes just for this reason?

[Alpha Cassiopeiae]

"This just looks like needless micromanaging to me..."

[Kenmoria]

So if I reworked the proposal to force applicants for work in the world assembly to have a certificate of approval from their government which all member states must provide, then it would not run into so many barriers? I would also remove the Security Council distinction.

"That is even more micromanaging, and would have less support."

[Ponaeamic]

So if I reworked the proposal to force applicants for work in the world assembly to have a certificate of approval from their government which all member states must provide, then it would not run into so many barriers? I would also remove the Security Council distinction.

"That is even more micromanaging, and would have less support."

OOC: I agree with you fully and this Draft, with good intentions, needs to be reworked to include less micromanagement. While I myself have not written any successful proposals. I have made sure I was fairly active in reading everything that has gone through the assembly. If you are open to it, I would like to work with you on rewriting this into a piece of legislation that can pass.

IC: The King of Ponaeamic reads his copy of the draft.*Proceeds to hand it to his Minister of Information with a nod* "His majesty approves of this legislation and has offered to help you in drafting, he hopes that you can get this passed and is willing to offer advice from his experience as a "watcher"."

[Kenmoria]

"All the preamble clauses need to have some sort of finishing punctuation."