I withdraw my most recently called CFJ. I call the CFJ indicated in quotes below (I slightly edited the arguments from earlier because I forgot a couple sentences).
The below is CFJ 3760, I assign it to omd. On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 8:01 AM Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote: > > > I CFJ: 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. > > > 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: > The > 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 > (R2143): > 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. > > -G.
