Dispute Resolution Committee/Application 2016-1

Application 2016-1 (Fletcher Boyd)
On Tuesday, 9 August 2016, the Dispute Resolution Committee received an application from Fletcher Boyd relating to the interpretation of the Party Constitution. That application was as follows:

Greetings DRC,

As you are no doubt aware there has been some concern over the interpretation of our Constitution in relation to CAPs. I formally request that the DRC investigate and rule on the following questions:

1) Does Article 9.1(5) disallow the modifaction of CAPs on the floor?

2) Does the National Congress have the ability to approve CAPs that only come into effect after a specified time?

3) Can a common understanding of the intended effect of provision be used to determine its actual effect?

Unrelated to the above I also have a question regarding headers.

4) Are headers (specifically Section 11) regarded as part of the Constitution? 2015/CAP-9 modified Section 11 such that the current header is no longer accurate and needs to be updated.

Interim determination
On Monday, 29 August 2016, the Committee determined that the application was of general interest to the Pirate Party. In accordance with rule 5(3) of the Committee's Rules of Procedure the Committee notified Mr Boyd and the members of the Pirate Party via the forum and email that the Committee intended to pursue the application, and invited interested members to make submissions on the matter by 11:59 pm on Tuesday, 6 September 2016. This was posted to the forum on the evening of 29 August and emailed to the members on the evening of 30 August, providing a period of slightly more than the seven days stipulated in the Committee's Rules of Procedure.

Submission (Ian Perry)
On Tuesday, 30 August 2016, the Committee received the following submission from Ian Perry (emphasis added to distinguish headings):

1) Does Article 9.1(5) disallow the modifaction of CAPs on the floor?

Article 9.1(5) should be strictly interpreted as saying that the proposer of an Amendment can modify it, within the stipulations of 9.1(5)(a) and 9.1(5)(b), before presenting it at Congress. It doesn't disallow CAPs to be modified on the floor; whether or not this can happen is not specified in the Constitution. An additional Article should be added to section 9.1 to clearly state the Party's position on this.

2) Does the National Congress have the ability to approve CAPs that only come into effect after a specified time?

The Constitution should, at all times, reflect the current core Party principles: If there is a time lapse before an approved Amendment is in effect, then either the current Constitution does not reflect the core Party principles or the future amended version does not.

3) Can a common understanding of the intended effect of provision be used to determine its actual effect?

If, to a "reasonable person", the intended effect of a Provision is not the same as the actual effect, the powers granted under Article 9.4(1) should be invoked to amend the Constitution and immediately reconcile the variation.

4) Are headers (specifically Section 11) regarded as part of the Constitution? 2015/CAP-9 modified Section 11 such that the current header is no longer accurate and needs to be updated.

Headers should be regarded as part of the Constitution, as they can be crucial to interpreting the Articles beneath. As above, if a Header is no longer reflective of the Articles it contains, Article 9.4(1) should be invoked to ensure the Constitution is clarified immediately.

Submission (Paul Templeton)
On Tuesday, 30 August 2016, the Committee received the following submission from Paul Templeton (emphasis added to distinguish headings):

1) Does Article 9.1(5) disallow the modifaction of CAPs on the floor?

Reading the article - Yes. But saying that if the Congress had a psychical quorum at the meeting I could not see a problem with amendments to a motion, otherwise delayed affect via on line voting (that is an amendment(s)where put but the amendment(s) would have to be passed with the quorum before a motion could be put).

2) Does the National Congress have the ability to approve CAPs that only come into effect after a specified time?

No - See above.

3) Can a common understanding of the intended effect of provision be used to determine its actual effect?

Yes it could - would help in the process of requested change.

4) Are headers (specifically Section 11) regarded as part of the Constitution? 2015/CAP-9 modified Section 11 such that the current header is no longer accurate and needs to be updated.

They are part of the constitution, but have no weight as it it a header/title of a section. If the header/title is not descriptive then it should be change according to the rules of the constitution. You could change the constitution to allow changes of the headers/titles of the constitution by the National Council.

ie Section 11 - 'Being Roughed up by Barnacles' would not change the sub sections

Submission (Daniel Oakley)
On Wednesday, 31 August 2016, the Committee received the following submission from Daniel Oakley (headings inserted for clarity, emphasis in original):

1) Does Article 9.1(5) disallow the modifaction of CAPs on the floor?

Yes. Article 9.1(5) clearly states "... may be modified by the proposer prior to the National Congress, so long as ...". On the floor is not prior to the National Congress.

I would not be against changes to Article 9.1(5) to make it so that they can be modified (to correct errors) prior to the vote on that specific CAP rather than prior to the National Congress, but the current constitution explicitly disallows the modification of CAPs on the floor.

2) Does the National Congress have the ability to approve CAPs that only come into effect after a specified time?

With the current constitution, no. It is not written into the constitution and would require special National Council actions (which is restricted to "where circumstances of urgency dictate, or where it is necessary for party operation". However, introducing a situation where we know that the National Council will need to create a temporary/operational amendment due to the party not being able to function properly is insane.

3) Can a common understanding of the intended effect of provision be used to determine its actual effect?

No, not when that common understanding goes against the textual content of the CAP. What is voted on and agreed upon by the party at large, and available later, is what's written in the CAP. If an explicit modification could be made to the CAP as stated in point 1) above, cool. Otherwise, the 'common understanding' doesn't trump the explicit text of the CAP being proposed.

4) Are headers (specifically Section 11) regarded as part of the Constitution? 2015/CAP-9 modified Section 11 such that the current header is no longer accurate and needs to be updated.

Similar to the titles of wiki pages vs their contents, the headers in the constitution mearly provide a simple overview of the content of that section or group of sections. Headers MUST relate to and accurately explain the content of the section it is representing, but they in and of themselves are not a part of the decision-making text of the constitution – mearly guides and markers for people who look over the constitution.

However, the grouping of related sections of the constitution are regarded as a part of the constitution. For instance, you couldn't just take 12.5(a) and renumber it to 12.6. The groups of sections themselves are part of the constitution, but the heading text explaining that section is not.

Submission (Travis Young)
On Wednesday, 31 August 2016, the Committee received the following submission from Travis Young:

1) Does Article 9.1(5) disallow the modifaction of CAPs on the floor?

As written, yes. It proposes that all modifications must be made prior. The deadline for amendments such as this should be made clear, eg 24hrs. It should also be stated that members must be notified of any amendments made in this way. So perhaps even 24hrs it too short.

2) Does the National Congress have the ability to approve CAPs that only come into effect after a specified time?

Unclear. It seems that this could be useful, but perhaps a limit on the timeframes would be needed.

3) Can a common understanding of the intended effect of provision be used to determine its actual effect?

if the common understanding is open to multiple interpretations then clarification should be sought and the provision amended before proceeding.

4) Are headers (specifically Section 11) regarded as part of the Constitution? 2015/CAP-9 modified Section 11 such that the current header is no longer accurate and needs to be updated.

Yes, they should be considered part of the constitution, but definitely need to be restated in the section and expanded upon.