[2503.HQ] Retention Votes for Administrators

High Court
1
Submission

High Court of the South Pacific

I respectfully submit this case for the consideration of the High Court and in doing so state that the information contained within it is true to the best of my knowledge, and I further make myself available to answer any questions that the Court may have.

Reference Name
Retention Votes for Administrators

Request
Are members of the Administration Team “officials whose appointment is subject to Assembly confirmation” within the meaning of Charter IV(4)?

Description
Article IV, Section 4 of the Charter establishes annual retention votes for “[a]ll officials whose appointment is subject to Assembly confirmation.”[1] Members of the Administration Team, as established by Article XII, are appointed by that team itself, but “must be approved by a majority of the Assembly before being granted administrator permissions.”[2] On its face, it may appear that administrators are, by the plain language of the Charter, appointees whose appointments are subject to Assembly confirmation.

But that interpretation would mean the Charter contradicts itself. In Article XII, Section 2, the Charter makes clear that the Administration Team is “responsible for the … removal of its own members,” and provides only a single exception, for “a guilty verdict in a fair trial for abuse of administrative powers.”[3] It provides no exception for failing to garner sufficient support in a retention vote, and nothing in the text suggests that the phrasing “except for” is meant to convey anything other than an exclusive exception. Including administrators in retention votes would flatly contradict this provision.

Thus, I come before the Court to ask for a clarification on the meaning of Article IV, Section 4. Does it really include administrators? If so, does that create a contradiction with Article XII, Section 2? How should that contradiction be reconciled?

There are other potential arguments and counterarguments, but as an initial submission—and at risk of putting the cart before the horse—I will focus on one that can hopefully illuminate one area of justiciable ambiguity in the law.

What does Article IV, Section 4 mean when it refers to “officials”? It is not immediately clear whether administrators are officials. Where the Charter refers to ‘officials,’ it variously refers to “government official[s],”[4] “duly elected officials,”[5] and “official[s] of the Coalition.”[6] Nowhere does it refer to any out-of-character position as an ‘official.’ In fact, it refers to “official[s] of the Coalition” in Article XI, establishing a recall mechanism, while the Administration Team is not even defined until the following Article XII. That reflects a logical structure in the Charter vis-à-vis officials of the Coalition, where it first defines various official positions and their responsibilities and then describes how those officials may be removed from office. That structure does not include administrators.

Instead, the common meaning of an official refers to governmental authority, which the Administration Team does not wield. The Charter describes various government officials as exercising power on behalf of, or otherwise deriving their authority from, the Coalition—an in-character entity. This is true even of appointed officials. The Council on Regional Security is “a central authority for protecting the Coalition’s security.”[7] The Admiralty helps lead “the official military forces of the Coalition.”[8] And the Court itself wields “exclusive judicial authority in the Coalition.”[9] By contrast, Article XII—the article of the Charter that concerns the Administration Team—does not refer once to the Coalition.[10] That is logical: the Administration Team is an out-of-character entity, while the Coalition is an in-character government.

Indeed, this submission as a whole may raise the specter of piercing that divide between in-character and out-of-character matters. But we can respect that divide within our in-character world without breaking character because of the rightful deference within our laws to the out-of-character Administration Team. I ask the Court to maintain that divide.

It would be irresponsible to take the alternative approach, of letting a more expansive—and incorrect—reading of Article IV, Section 4 lie dormant. We maintain the in-character and out-of-character divide through our vigilance, not complacence, when it feels not natural, so that when it does not—when our political divisions are at their sharpest, and pose the greatest threat of piercing that divide into out-of-character matters—a dormant interpretation cannot be weaponized. The alternative leaves a plausible, but incorrect, reading of the law on the table like Chekhov’s gun, waiting to be weaponized in a time of greater political disharmony where the paramount independence of our out-of-character administrators is most threatened.

For these reasons, I humbly request that the Court make clear whether or not Article IV, Section 4 of the Charter applies to members of the Administration Team, and hold that it does not.

  1. Charter, Art. IV, Sec. 4. ↩︎

  2. Charter, Art. XII, Sec. 2. ↩︎

  3. Charter, Art. XII, Sec. 2. ↩︎

  4. Charter, Art. II, Sec. 1. ↩︎

  5. Charter, Art. IX, Sec. 9. ↩︎

  6. Charter, Art. XI, Sec. 1. ↩︎

  7. Charter, Art. IX, Sec. 1. ↩︎

  8. Charter, Art. X, Sec. 1. ↩︎

  9. Charter, Art. VII, Sec 1. ↩︎

  10. Charter, Art. XII. ↩︎

2
High Court of the South Pacific

This is a case before the High Court of the South Pacific considered under the following identifying information:

Docket Number
2503.HQ

Reference Name
Retention Votes for Administrators

Request
Does Article IV, Section 4 of the Charter applies to members of the Administration Team?

Submission: 13 Jan 2025

3
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2503.HQ] Retention Votes for Administrators

Whereas this Court has been asked to exercise the judicial power vested in it by the Charter of the South Pacific, it is resolved that:

  1. This case is justiciable.

  2. This case will be presided by Justice @Belschaft and signed by Justice @Griffindor.

  3. Petitioner and interested parties are invited to present arguments on this case no later than 2025-04-01T14:00:00Z.

Submission: 13 Jan 2025 | Determination: 25 Mar 2025
4

Your Honors, and may it please the Court,

I submit this brief in my official capacity as Deputy Chair of the Assembly and on behalf of the Chair’s Office.

The Chair’s Office has concluded that Article IV, Section 4 of the Charter does not apply to members of the Administration Team. As Pronoun’s brief correctly explains, Administrators are not “officials” within the meaning of that provision and are therefore not subject to annual retention votes. Acting on this interpretation of the Charter, the Chair’s Office did not open retention votes for administrators on March 15. As a practical exposition of the law by a coordinate branch, the Chair’s interpretation is entitled to substantial weight under this Court’s precedents. See, e.g., In re Citizen Participation in Election Campaigns, 1712.HQ; In re Retroactive Vote Changes on Legislator Removals, 1715.HQ; In re Anachronism in the Court Procedures Act, 1719.HQ. Thus, insofar as the Court finds Article IV, Section 4’s reference to “officials” to be ambiguous, the Chair’s Office respectfully requests that the Court adopt its reading of the Charter, which maintains the IC/OOC divide and accords with recent governmental practice. Cf. In re Retroactive Vote Changes on Legislator Removals, 1715.HQ (“A foundational principle of the Charter is the believe that government should be . . . above all predictable and understandable.”).

1 Like
5

Will the Court decide this case?

6

High Court of the South Pacific

[2503.HQ] Retention Votes for Administrators

Legal Question

Are members of the Administration Team “officials whose appointment is subject to Assembly confirmation” within the meaning of Charter IV(4)?

Summary of the Opinion

While members of the Administration Team require Assembly approval before receiving administrator permissions, they are not “officials” as that term is used in Article IV, Section 4 of the Charter. The Charter’s structure and language distinguish between in-character governmental officials and out-of-character administrative roles like the Administration Team. Moreover, the exclusive removal provisions for administrators in Article XII, Section 2 conflict with subjecting them to retention votes, which are designed for officials accountable to the Assembly. Therefore, administrators’ confirmation is procedural rather than political in nature, thus they are not subject to the retention vote mechanism.

Justice @Griffindor delivered the opinion, signed also by Justice @Belschaft

Starting first with a high level reading of the Charter, Article IV, Section 4 establishes retention votes for “officials whose appointment is subject to Assembly confirmation” [1]. On a surface reading, members of the Administration Team appear to fall within this category because, per Article XII, Section 1 of the Charter, administrators are appointed by the Administration Team but must be “approved by a majority of the Assembly before being granted administrator permissions" [2]. This suggests that their appointment is indeed subject to Assembly confirmation.

First, Article XII, Section 2 of the Charter expressly grants the Administration Team exclusive authority to remove its own members except in the case of a guilty verdict following a fair trial for abuse of administrative powers [3]. Notably, this provision does not provide for removal via retention votes or Assembly reconfirmation. The use of the phrase “except for” strongly implies an exclusive exception, thereby indicating that administrators are not subject to the retention votes contemplated by Article IV, Section 4 of the Charter. Including administrators in such votes would create a direct contradiction between these two provisions of the Charter. As it stands, no inherent contradiction exists. It could certainly be argued that as the amendment adding retention votes to the Charter occurred well after the relevant vote to establish the administration team within the Charter. While this is true, the author did not edit the relevant portion governing tenure of administration members, which could have been an oversight. However, it is not the business of the Court to decide the intent of the author.

Second, a natural question that arises is the Charter’s use of the term “official” within that section of the law. Through a cursory reading of the Charter, “official” is consistently tied to governmental roles that exercise in-character authority within the Coalition. Examples include elected officials such as the Delegate and Prime Minister, appointed officials within various institutions such as the Cabinet, High Court, Citizenship Committee, Admiralty, and others. By contrast, the Administration Team is described solely in Article XII of the Charter, without direct reference to the Coalition’s governmental structure or how it might interact with the in-character government, underscoring its out-of-character status. The only indication of the apolitical nature of the Administration team lies within Article XII, Section 1 of the Charter, which states that “Administrators will not be given responsibilities of a political nature” [2].Thus, “officials” in Article IV, Section 4 of the Charter, should be understood as those holding governmental authority within the Coalition, not out-of-character administrative personnel.

Finally, the confirmation of administrators by the Assembly is more accurately viewed as a procedural approval to grant administrative permissions rather than a political appointment subject to ongoing political accountability, such as recall or retention votes. This interpretation preserves the institutional independence and operational stability of the Administration Team, which is essential given its out-of-character role. Respecting this framework maintains a critical separation between in-character governmental processes and out-of-character administrative functions, preventing ambiguities that could otherwise be exploited in times of political division. This safeguards the impartiality and independence of administrators from political pressures, consistent with the Charter’s structural design.

In closing this opinion, members of the Administration Team are not “officials whose appointment is subject to Assembly confirmation” within the meaning of Article IV, Section 4 of the Charter [1]. While their appointments require Assembly approval, this confirmation does not trigger retention votes or the full scope of political accountability that applies to in-character governmental officials. Perseveration of institutional boundaries, and upholding the constitutional integrity of the Administration Team’s role is a core pillar of ensuring the in-character interactions do not impact the neutral out-of-character moderation and protection of the community.

It is so ordered.

Footnotes and References
(1) Charter of the Coalition of the South Pacific; Article IV, Section 4 (2025). The MATT-DUCK Law Archive.
(2) Charter of the Coalition of the South Pacific; Article XII, Section 1 (2025). The MATT-DUCK Law Archive.
(3) Charter of the Coalition of the South Pacific; Article XII, Section 2 (2025). The MATT-DUCK Law Archive.

Submission: 11 Mar 2025 | Determination: 25 Mar 2025 | Opinion: 09 Jul 2025

2 Likes