Index ← 3759 CFJ 3760 3761 → text
===============================  CFJ 3760  ===============================

      If an Officer's report is CoE'd, and the Office changes hands
      before the deadline for CoE response, then the original publisher
      (not the new officer) is REQUIRED to respond by R2201.


Caller:                        G.

Judge:                         omd



Called by G.:                                     23 Jul 2019 16:47:41
Assigned to omd:                                  23 Jul 2019 16:47:41


Caller's Arguments:

Official duties pass with the office even if the office changes in the
middle of a legal process (e.g. if the ADoP changes in the middle of
an election, the new ADoP finishes the election).

In terms of responding to CoEs, R2201 reads in part:
          publisher of the original document SHALL (if e was required to
          publish that document) or SHOULD (otherwise) do one of the
          following in a timely fashion:

This is written in the past tense (if e *was* required) which implies that
even if the office changes hands, the requirement stays with the original
publisher.  Alternative possibilities are that the duty moves with the
Office, or that it becomes a SHOULD for the original publisher (because 
once e resigns e is no longer required to publish the document).

The answer may depend on whether "response to a CoE" is an official duty
       An official duty for an office is any duty that the Rules
       specifically assign to that office's holder in particular
       (regardless of eir identity).
which may depend on whether the "publisher of the original document" is
read as being "the [Officer]" (i.e. the publication is associated with the
office) versus "the person who held the office and actually published it".
By my reading, it is equally reasonable to say "the original publisher was
the ADoP (because that's who the duties trace to in the Rules)" as it is
to say "the original publisher was Murphy (because that's who held the
office at the time)" so I'm not arguing for either outcome in particular.

It's worth noting a knock-on effect of this judgement - if the duty stays
with the Office not the original publisher (i.e. the new officer is 
required to respond) then someone can deputise for the Office to respond.  
If the duty stays with the original publisher, deputisation can't be done.
I don't know if that's a bug or a feature.