On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 13:27, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> Alexis wrote:
> >                     The critical distinction, then, is that the
> obligation
> > to publish a report is not an obligation to publish a document (much
> less a
> > public document) purporting to be a report, but purporting is required to
> > invoke self-ratification.
>
> I'm not sure I follow this part. Are you arguing that a backdated
> "report" (assuming no technicality like there is here) would not _be_ a
> report, but would _purport_ to be a report, and therefore be self-
> ratifying (assuming an applicable office)?
>
> -twg
>

Not specifically for backdated reports, but consider if someone publishes a
report for eir office and it is later discovered that, in fact, someone
else was the officeholder (and there was no attempt to deputise, etc.). The
document, because it purports to be a report, would self-ratify. But
because the person is not the officeholder, it clearly cannot meet the
officeholder's obligation to publish the report. This is, as far as I can
surmise, very much a deliberate feature of the rule scheme.

I find myself in agreement with G.'s logic that the "report" that Aris
published does not purport to be a report and, consequently, doesn't
self-ratify. I also accept G.'s argument that the situation might be
different had the message explicitly said "Promotor's Report". In that
case, I might find myself arguing that it self-ratifies but does not meet
the obligation.

Alexis

Reply via email to