Pursuant to the Charter and the Legislative Procedure Act, the Chair of the Assembly hereby gives notice of a retention vote to be held on March 15th within this Assembly for the following member(s) of the Citizenship Committee:
This thread should be limited to discussion relating to the retention vote for the particular official(s) in the Citizenship Committee, or relating to any mistakes in the list presented above.
LordNwahs
Chair of the Assembly
Your Excellencies:
As we are all well aware, one of the primary challenges facing CitComm has been its processing times. This may, in part, be attributable to structural issues in the way citizenship applications are handled, and there are ongoing discussions within the Assembly aimed at addressing this. However, more broadly, do you believe that you have sufficient time to effectively adjudicate citizenship applications, or would it be better to bring in new members with fewer commitments elsewhere? I pose this question particularly with regard to @Griffindor and @Pronoun , given that you both currently serve as justices on the High Court and hold the offices of delegate and prime minister, respectively.
@New-Halo has introduced a bill which would expand CitComm membership to up to ten members instead of the current four ([2513.AB] Expand CitComm Membership). Do you believe that this would be an effective solution to alleviate your workload and address the issue of long processing times?
On the topic of @New-Halo, he recently became a citizen (New-Halo (New Halo)), but prior to that he had his citizenship application rejected three times (1, 2, 3). A subsequent application was closed (New-Halo (New halo)). Could you clarify the legal basis for closing that application? I ask this because § 3(2) of the Citizenship Act provides only two options for CitComm in adjudicating an application: either acceptance or denial.
Iâm not opposed to new members as a general matter, but think that itâs not entirely accurate to frame the issue around current commitments. I was a CitComm member before I was elected Prime Minister and Iâm not going to be Prime Minister forever. More generally, given the personally identifying information that CitComm has access to (and, to be clear, âhas access toâ is distinct from âregularly accessesâ), itâs natural to want some degree of existing trust in CitComm members, and sometimes that trust also translates into or stems from other positions.
I recognize these considerations, though. Personally, I have taken steps to try and streamline the process by developing internal tools to generate preliminary reports on those of our routine security checks that can be automated, as well as to accept applications.
Thatâs a legislative determination, and I donât see why we need to take a position as a CitComm member on a matter best left to the Assemblyâs lawmaking process. Speaking as a legislator, though, I recall that the limit of four was based on feedback from past LegComm members that too large a body actually aggravates a collective action problem, and that I think we should be cautious about the size of CitComm given the kind of user data that members have access to.
I think Griffindor might have more details, but to my understanding, he accidentally omitted posting a public reason when closing an application that he felt wasâat the time it was originally postedâidentical to a previously rejected application without anything suggesting a change in circumstances that could produce a different decision.
In general, the kinds of applications that we typically close are duplicate applications and applications from current citizens. In the former case, we still âaccept or deny each applicantâ as contemplated by the Citizenship Act without redundantly and confusingly accepting or denying each duplicate application; in the latter case, there is no âapplicantâ to speak of since an existing citizen has no need to apply for citizenship. Both of these typically arise from confusion about the wizard or quirks in its functionality.
Can you quantify (roughly) how many applications have been processed by each member of CitComm in the last six months?
I have no doubts about the trustworthiness of all of these members, but I think itâs appropriate to check-in on if they are actually doing the job.
Thatâs difficult to quantify precisely because weâve sometimes made the public posts for legwork that others did privately, but I imagine itâs roughly proportional to the number of posts weâve each made in Citizen Applications. Anybody is free to take a look for themselves, but in the last year, Griffidor has 172 posts, I have 151, and Anjo has 59.
Sounds like Anjo has been busy.
I hope to provide answers to any questions asked of me when I return from my work trip this coming Friday. I will be following debate until then, however.
Has CitComm explored reforms to its internal process for handling applicants in order to ease the speed of processing applications?
Weâve had some discussions over the course of the year, but I also think that a lot of the public discourse overestimates how much of the workload is actually required by established processes.
If it isnât a matter of workload what is it that causes the extended delays in processing applications?
Asking the same question as KrisKringle
That was poor phrasing on my part. In some of our past responses to public feedback, I think things were easier because there was a specific and explicit change we could point to. Here, itâs harder to have something like that. The workload is there, but I think there is always some degree of awkwardness in a government institution just throwing up its hands and saying, "welp, this is too much for us to handle, so weâre just not going to do it anymore.â For example, we could just decide not to give out Discord roles to citizens anymoreâthatâs not explicitly required anywhere by lawâbut I imagine that would be quite unpopular.
I think the idea I was trying to get across is that I felt like thereâs this perception that CitComm has a big long list of mandatory checksâthatâs what I meant by ârequired by established processesââbut that could equally be viewed as accepting applications by âdefaultâ unless the nation is not in the region, the applicant is also in a proscribed region, etc. Obviously whatâs contained in that list is subject to discussion, but I think thatâs an example of how more or less equivalent descriptions can feel like overestimates or underestimates. But framing the issue alone doesnât make the process faster or change the workload.
First and foremost, thank you for your detailed response. I am consistently impressed by your responsiveness to Assembly inquiries, both in your capacity as Prime Minister and as a member of CitComm. While this is, of course, a retention vote thread, I felt it was important to acknowledge.
I agree that only trusted members should be members of CitComm. However, with all due respect to you and @Griffindor , there are other trusted members who are not currently serving as Delegate or Prime Minister.
What I am seeking to understand with my question is whether the delays in CitComm primarily result from its current members lacking the time to process applications or if they stem from a broader systemic issue in how CitComm is required to operate. I believe this is an important consideration for the retention vote. If the issue is the former, it could be a reason for me to vote no; however, if it is the latter, it may lead me to vote yes. If you believe you have sufficient time to dedicate to CitComm, I trust your judgement on that matter. Based on the numbers you provided to @HumanSanity, it appears you have been quite busy.
Even if it is ultimately a legislative determination, it is valuable for the Assembly to consult CitComm members to ensure well informed legislative decisions. That being said, I acknowledge that this discussion may be slightly off topic for a retention thread.
That sounds reasonable. I will take it into consideration as I assess @New-Haloâs proposal.
While it may be true that there was no change in circumstances, @New-Haloâs citizenship application was ultimately accepted approximately two months later, despite the details provided in the latter application being nearly identical to those in the previously closed application.
Moreover, @New-Haloâs applications were denied on the grounds that they were not submitted in good faith. Under the Citizenship Act, this can be a valid reason for denial. However, § 3(4) of the same Act explicitly requires CitComm to provide a sufficient reason when rejecting an application. In this case, CitComm merely stated, âCitComm has reasonably determined that this application is not in good faith,â as its justification for the denial. In my view, this does not meet the Citizenship Actâs requirement to provide a sufficient reason.
Of course, I am not privy to any private correspondence CitComm may have had with @New-Halo, but based on the available information, the denial of his applications appears arbitrary. Given that this decision ultimately prevented him from voting in the January Prime Minister and Delegate elections, I consider it a serious matter of concern.
I would appreciate it if @anjo could specifically explain why you processed approximately one hundred fewer applications than @Griffindor and @Pronoun each have. Do you feel you have sufficient time to dedicate to CitComm?
I will remind all legislators that queries relating to any specific case ought to be directed to the CitComm in a separate discussion, either within this assembly or in a public/private query to CitComm itself, especially if they are not germane to the matter of the performance of specific CitComm members.
In the last months, I had been somewhat disinterested in NS generally due to being fixated more on other hobbies. In that sense, it wasnât solely an issue of time but moreso motivation in the time I did have, amplified by the nature of CitComm work (which my colleagues have already detailed here and in the other recent Assembly discussion). My interest has however resurged with the on-site Wonders event and Iâve been active on CitComm again thereafter. I very much intend to continue my activity.
While it is not uncommon on CitComm to have members active cyclically, I fully understand that my pause from activity was too long and has caused issues with response times. I apologize for this, especially to my colleagues, and would like to assure the Assembly of my determination to not slack off like this again.
Thank you @anjo for your response, I appreciate it! I understand that interest in NS can vary over time, as it has for me as well. In fact, my nation ceased to exist last summer. I will keep in mind your statement about becoming more active on CitComm when deciding how to cast my vote.
I have one final question that either @anjo , @Griffindor, or @Pronoun (or all of you, if you wish) may respond to. This is not a question about @New-Haloâs application specifically, but rather about the procedure in general: when denying a citizenship application, is the decision made individually by the member announcing the denial, or is it a collective decision made by CitComm as a whole?
As a Citizenship Committee member, I can say that my position on this is well known (a lack of drive to complete all the steps of an application as they pop up, which causes a few to pile up to make it more âworthwhileâ for me). The Citizenship Committee is engaging in internal dialogue to determine how to make applications more efficient, we hope to make sufficient progress in the coming weeks.
As for my tenure on the High Court and Delegacy, both of which predate by CitComm appointment, I can assure you that neither job interferes with CitComm duties from a time dedication standpoint. Additionally, given that the Assembly voted to curtail any possible additional tenure in office, Iâll have even more time for the Committee come the last half of the year.
This is it right here. I have nothing to add to Pronounâs answer.
Iâll take this one;
Any application, even an approved one, goes through a curing period where any member of CitComm can review the application and double-check its accuracy and reasoning for the result that it was given. In particular, when an application is denied, most are a fairly trivial matter (i.e., no nation in the region, CTE, etc.).
For applications that are a little more tricky, there may be additional discussion, or at least confirmation, that a member specifically asks for so we know its a proper rejection.
I might not say âlooks good (or hold up)â to every single application that either of the other CitComm members process, but I do take a cursory look-through of all apps as they come up to make sure there isnât anything obviously wrong. This is the same approach that the others have, too.
I hope my answers proved satisfactory. Please do not hesitate to ask any further questions.
Thank you for your response! It was especially illuminating to learn about the process by which CitComm approves or denies an application. I will give careful and thorough consideration to all of your answers before deciding how to cast my vote.