Conflict of interests act

20260308-4 \\ ??? words \\ Rejected \\ No summary

\#1: A council member may not vote on a bill they themselves created/had a part in creating without direct disclosure that they were a part of its creation.
\#2: A bill may not involve anything that would directly benefit a council member to vote on it. This includes bribery, financial benefits, or would help remove consequences for a council member. Exceptions to this, however, may occur for giving government raises, yet the financial benefit is limited to raises.
\#3: A council member found, undeniably, responsible for breaking any stated 'conflict of interest act' rule should immediately be removed from their position, or if it isn't undeniable, they are to be given a trial on whether they should be removed or not.
\#4: A council member may vote on legislation that benefits them and their party if the legislation applies equally to all citizens without exception.
\#5: Justice members may not vote on consequences for a trial they are currently part of (prosecution or defense or witness), and they may not publicly state the verdict before the unrelated justices have made their choice.
\#6: The president may not ~~sign or~~ veto legislation for the purpose of granting themselves a personal benefit or avoiding legal consequences. Nor may they use their office to promote a bill of the type, but they may promote it on their own as a citizen.
\#7: In the circumstance a justice member fails to recuse themselves, they are to be put to trial by the other justices to determine whether they are to be removed or not. This requires a 2/3 majority (rounded up to account for justice size changing)
\#8: A justice may not issue or support a ruling with the intent of providing political advantage to themselves or their allies. An advantage is considered as directly removing a competitor, granting their ally/party member a non-guilty verdict in an undeniable case, or harming an opposing parties leadership. All of these limitations are considered naught in the circumstance that the law abides to the verdict, and is agreed upon as legally correct by the other justices.
\#9: If a citizen sees a clear violation of this bill, that hasn't been acted upon, they may file a direct complaint with the Justices, where the justices legally must look upon it.
\#10: ~~While nominations are subject to bias and cannot be prosecuted upon that, the president must ensure their nomination is for the best future of the server, and not simply caused by their personal prejudice. While unenforceable, it is necessary for the thought to exist.~~

\#1: A council member may not vote on a bill they themselves created/had a part in creating without direct disclosure that they were a part of its creation. \#2: A bill may not involve anything that would directly benefit a council member to vote on it. This includes bribery, financial benefits, or would help remove consequences for a council member. Exceptions to this, however, may occur for giving government raises, yet the financial benefit is limited to raises. \#3: A council member found, undeniably, responsible for breaking any stated 'conflict of interest act' rule should immediately be removed from their position, or if it isn't undeniable, they are to be given a trial on whether they should be removed or not. \#4: A council member may vote on legislation that benefits them and their party if the legislation applies equally to all citizens without exception. \#5: Justice members may not vote on consequences for a trial they are currently part of (prosecution or defense or witness), and they may not publicly state the verdict before the unrelated justices have made their choice. \#6: The president may not ~~sign or~~ veto legislation for the purpose of granting themselves a personal benefit or avoiding legal consequences. Nor may they use their office to promote a bill of the type, but they may promote it on their own as a citizen. \#7: In the circumstance a justice member fails to recuse themselves, they are to be put to trial by the other justices to determine whether they are to be removed or not. This requires a 2/3 majority (rounded up to account for justice size changing) \#8: A justice may not issue or support a ruling with the intent of providing political advantage to themselves or their allies. An advantage is considered as directly removing a competitor, granting their ally/party member a non-guilty verdict in an undeniable case, or harming an opposing parties leadership. All of these limitations are considered naught in the circumstance that the law abides to the verdict, and is agreed upon as legally correct by the other justices. \#9: If a citizen sees a clear violation of this bill, that hasn't been acted upon, they may file a direct complaint with the Justices, where the justices legally must look upon it. \#10: ~~While nominations are subject to bias and cannot be prosecuted upon that, the president must ensure their nomination is for the best future of the server, and not simply caused by their personal prejudice. While unenforceable, it is necessary for the thought to exist.~~

Metadata

Internal ID: 156
Bill proposed(Unix Epoch): 1772988707
Proposer: Trickster-123
Original link: https://www.reddit.com/r/TeenGovernment/comments/1ro9roq/conflict_of_interests_act
Approval admin:
Approval link: TAG
ARPD-Curator: Zeedith

Conflict of interests act

History