[Saints News] Business Code: A Lesson in Executive Overreach

[borhoi]

 

Business Code: A Lesson in Executive Overreach

 

By Haley Niamh Connor

 

 

   I'm going to start this opinion piece off by pointing out the solid ground upon which I do believe my forthcoming argument is built - Section 36b of the Los Santos City Charter. Here it is in plain text:

 

b. Upon suspension of City Council activities, limited legislative powers are granted to the office of the mayor to enact ordinances addressing critical issues within the City of Los Santos, subject to the Governor’s veto, with all legislation enacted during the time subject to review during the first City Council session after resumption of its activities.

   Alright, so why is this relevant right now Haley? Well, beyond my firm belief that every citizen of Los Santos - or any other city, town, village, or group anywhere in the world - should be educated and current on how those who exercise power over them operate, section 36b was the justification used by the Office of Mayor Rockford to immediately enact the new Los Santos Business Code via Executive Directive!

 

   I've been on a leave of absence from Saints and I've been out of the country with my family in Ireland for personal reasons. Earlier today (the tenth of August), I finally got around to fully reading the new business code in its entirety.

 

   First of all, let's just get the text of this executive directive out of the way. The Rockford Administration claims to see the "lack of a single, codified approach to the regulation of economic activity" as having been a critical issue immediately alleviated by the institution of this new business code. This lack of government regulation somehow, to the Rockford administration, is in direct conflict with their policy of "increased economic freedom". I've never personally heard anyone, before having read this, refer to a huge swath of new government regulations as something that creates "increased economic freedom". I'd say the opposite, actually. This business code is vague as can be and leaves massive amounts of power to the city to enact new fees and restrictions without any consultation from the city's business community or its citizens at large. Here are some of my (least) favorite excerpts:

 

"The provisions of this code shall apply to any entity engaged in an economic activity in the State of San Andreas, regardless of its legal status and the manner in which it is financed. For the purpose of this code an economic activity is defined as making, providing, purchasing, or selling goods or services."

 

   Okay. So anything that makes money off of goods or services is now subject to seven chapters of regulation by the city government. Oh! And just like the jurisdiction of the LSPD, these regulations apply to the entire state of San Andreas! So if you have a side job doing interior decorating or mowing lawns or operating a lemonade stand, you'd better make sure to register with the city and obtain proper licensing before engaging in business activities!

 

"SECTION 303
§ 3. LICENSING TERMS & CONDITIONS — (a) The Department of Finance may, in consultation with the Office of the City Treasurer and the Office of the Mayor, make by-laws regarding the terms and conditions of any business license as defined in section one (1) of this chapter.

(b) It shall be the responsibility of the license holder to remain informed of any updates to the general terms and conditions of any acquired business license. Any amendment to the terms and conditions of a license shall be published by the Department of Finance in the Official Bulletin of the City of Los Santos prior to such change taking effect.

(c) The Department of Finance is authorized to levy a license fee, a license renewal fee, or similar fee and may in consultation with the Office of the City Treasurer and the Office of the Mayor determine the amount of such fees to be charged. License fees may be refunded for good cause, as determined by the department's director."

 

   This one is real fun. Under section 303a the city government has the power to change up the entirety of any of the listed licenses' requirements and scopes with no oversight from anyone! But it gets better. 303b goes on to clarify this further. Do you own a business? It's your responsibility to stay up-to-date on anything they decide to throw at you. Forget the fact that you're busy, you know, running a business. You need to take time out of your busy schedule to check the Official Bulletin regularly to make sure you're not about to be labeled and treated as a criminal. But hey, that's okay. You can just retain a lawyer to do that for you, right small business owners? Oh, and just so it's clear 303c codifies that the Department of Finance can levy any fee they want on licensure or renewal of licensure. Or a similar fee... that could really be anything.

"SECTION 501
§ 1. SCOPE OF INSPECTION — The Department of Finance shall have the right to conduct business inspections to monitor and enforce compliance with this code or any other relevant law. This right shall include but not be limited to (a) investigating complaints submitted to to the department; (b) questioning any individual on any premises in respect of any matter which may be relevant to the inspection; (c) questioning any person suspected of having information relevant to the inspection; (d) ordering any person to appear before him at a reasonable time and place with regard to the matter being investigated and/or (e) inspecting or copying any document, take photographs, make audio-visual recordings of any person, process, action or condition on or regarding any premises and take samples of any substance that is relevant to the inspection; (f) having the power to close any premises pending further investigation as provided for in this code."

 

   Oh, that's not exploitable at all, is it? So here's the deal. Someone's got a beef with your business? With you? God-forbid that person is in the Department of Finance or chummy with the people in the department? Congratulations. Your business is now subject to literally anything they feel like doing to it. You have no real rights anymore! They can inspect you whenever they feel like. If a "complaint" is issued, they can lawfully question "any individual on the premises" that might have something to do with their investigation (this is under their own discretion, of course). They can subpoena anyone that might have something to do with their investigation (once again - under their discretion). They can take any document from you and copy it. They can photograph anything they want. They can bring in a camera crew and make a movie about it. They can seize your products! Oh, and to top it off? They get to close your business "pending further investigation". Forget the negative PR this brings you anyway. You're now going to be treated guilty until proven innocent whenever someone decides to leave the equivalent of a bad FaceBrowser review with the Department of Finance, and during that time they're going to close your business!

 

   There's a lot more. Honestly, I could pick apart every single section and sub-section of this code and find something wrong with it. I'm not going to do that because that's not the point here. The point is that this business code, in all its lack of glory, was enacted unlawfully via executive overreach. Here's how.

 

   I'm going to posit two things I think are objective fact. First of all, it's not even up for debate that enacting something far-reaching as this business code is in any way covered under "limited legislative powers" for "addressing critical issues". There's nothing limited about the business code. Literally, every business in San Andreas is subject to it. And what made this a critical issue suddenly? Business was being regularly conducted in the city before the implementation of this new set of laws. There was no massive exploitation of consumers that spurred this. There was no city-wide fire started by a non-compliant business. Nothing happened that warranted this as a response. And the Rockford Administration's claim that this somehow creates more economic freedom? See the text for yourself above. Go read the thing in its entirety yourself, if you like.

 

   So, we've established what section 36b is and what it covers. We've established that this code falls out of the scope of section 36b. So why was the Mayor's Office able to enact this under section 36b? The section is clearly included in the City Charter to give limited power to legislate to someone in the event that some crisis occurs while there isn't a city council present to address it. This isn't limited, and there was no crisis.

 

   I'm going to put my personal answer to this question - and the only one that makes legal sense to me - out to the universe now: they aren't able to enact something like this under section 36b. By the letter of the law, the business code is not compatible with the section invoked to enact it through an Executive Directive. By this logic, I'd say that the business code should be null and void, but there's a problem.

 

   36b does give the Mayor's Office legislative power when there isn't a city council to do the legislating. There are only two checks on that power: veto from the office of the governor, or review by the City Council once it's reestablished. Given the fact that San Andreas' state government is all-but-absent (this business code applies to all of SA, remember), you can count out a veto from the Governor. That leaves one check - review and nullification by the City Council... once there is a City Council.

 

   This leaves the city government in a murky, kind of sort of really not-so-democratic spot when there isn't a City Council. Sure, there's technically a balance of power here. Realistically speaking though, that balance can't be acted upon right now. This gives the Mayor's Office basic free-reign to push anything they'd like through via Executive Directive under section 36b. They can do this without any review from citizens, or any oversight by any other body whatsoever really. And once there is a City Council? The worst that can happen is the legislation is repealed, no matter how egregiously out of line the legislation was.

   All of this taken into account, I think Los Santos is facing "a critical issue warranting limited legislative power" right now: the Office of the Mayor's power to legislate. In an ideal situation, none of this would need to be written by a member of the press because executive overreach wouldn't be a thing. It is though, and this business code is an absolutely egregious example of it. It comes down to executive responsibility to not reach past the scope of your station. Mayor Rockford's administration clearly has here.

   A solution to this problem would be the immediate scheduling of elections for all elected public offices - including a full and effective city council. Section 36b should be put on hold until after elections are held as the Rockford Administration has proven its incapability to understand and apply it correctly. The business code - which was enacted through executive directive unlawfully - should be nullified, and an elected city council should replace it after hearing input from their constituents.

 

   Democracy doesn't work when there is no one to hold officials accountable. Right now we live in an environment where there is no check on the power of the Mayor's Office from within or outside the city government - and we have no idea when there will be a check. Regardless of your feelings on the new business code, this example of blatant disregard for the Los Santos City Charter by the Office of the Mayor of Los Santos should worry you. It worries me.

 

 

The content of this piece does not reflect the opinions of Saints News as a whole, but those of its author Haley Niamh Connor.

 

 

Saints News

 

This article contains sponsored multimedia advertisements. This has not affected the content of this article.

 

Edited August 10, 2019 by borhoi

[Guest]

Username : Username1975

Comment : At least they are doing something. If the enforcement process itself transparent then I don't see an issue to pinch the herd a little. Democracy will never work anyways - we need a strong singular leader. Still a great article.

[Guest]

Username: inuyashalover

Comment: The government is fine as is, if elections were held we'd have Nigel Stanton as mayor and you'd be complaining about a lot more then just a few rules for businesses to follow. 

[borhoi]

On 8/10/2019 at 5:24 PM, Tr1bal said:

Username : Username1975

Comment : At least they are doing something. If the enforcement process itself transparent then I don't see an issue to pinch the herd a little. Democracy will never work anyways - we need a strong singular leader. Still a great article.

Username:  HalesTales
Comment: I'm never going to endorse totalitarianism. I think you should do a bit more research there.