Censor (Urcea)
| Censors | |
|---|---|
 Seal of the Censors | |
| Government of Urcea | |
| Style | Mr/Madam Censor (Informal and within the House) The Honorable (Formal) |
| Member of | |
| Seat | Julian Palace (nominally) |
| Nominator | Apostolic King of Urcea with consultation from the Urcean Conference of Catholic Bishops |
| Term length | 5 years |
| Constituting instrument | Constitution of Urcea |
| Formation | 1815 |
| Salary | ₮125,500 annually |
The Censors are two public officers of Urcea. The office is responsible for maintaining the decennial census while also maintaining public morality and virtue. Censorial activity typically relates to actions by the Government of Urcea and governmental subdivisions, but the office also has some authority over print and broadcast media such as music, arts, and literature produced for public consumption. Both censors serve five year terms concurrent with the Concilium Daoni and are elected by the people of Urcea. Censors are typically non-partisan, although party member Censors are not unusual; the office has often served as a nationally elected position for which an individual can receive prominence prior to running for some other post. The Censors sit as members of the Concilium Purpaidá though usually refrain from its business unless issues of public morality are being deliberated.
Origin
The office of the Censor was established as part of the Recess of the Julii, a period of Urcea's effective withdrawal from the institutions of the Holy Levantine Empire. Many of the responsibilities of Censors had been maintained by the Imperial Inquisition prior to them being ejected from Urcea after an agreement with the Pope. The Office was created in 1815 to replace them with a domestic political institution, and the office of Censor was modeled not only on the similar Caphirian office but also the Censors of Great Levantia who filled a similar role. The choice of the name was viewed as a symbolic Urcean claim for direct descent from Great Levantia and a symbolic rejection of the authority of the Empire. While the office was established in 1815, minor changes were made to the appointment, vetting, and election process, with the current form being finalized in the 1960s, replacing various previous Church officials with the Urcean Conference of Catholic Bishops which was established in the wake of the Second Vatican Council.
Nomination and election
The Apostolic King of Urcea every five years - coinciding with the term of Censor - makes a list of nominations for the office of Censor. These nominations are usually forwarded by Urcea's political parties as well as from the Collegium Scientificum and Ministry for the Church in Urcea, creating a wide list of possible candidates with political and academic support. The initial list assembled by the King's Household Office for Judicial Appointments is forwarded to the Urcean Conference of Catholic Bishops. The King's List is submitted at the end of January of each election year and typically consists of up to eighty candidates. The Conference of Catholic Bishops will return the list to the Household Office by the end of February with any subtractions the Bishops deem suitable. Many election cycles have seen no subtractions, and most election cycles only 2-3 candidates are removed from the list. The list returned to the King is disseminated to the Government of Urcea and provinces as the eligible candidates to serve in the office of Censor. Incumbent Censors are usually considered automatically eligible unless the Conference of Catholic Bishops lodges a specific complaint against one or both Censors. Censors serve on the same election cycle as the Concilium Daoni and following the nomination process are subject to an election for a five year term. Due to the number of candidates, Censors are often voted on by separate ballots given to voters on election day including the list of all possible candidates. Many candidates typically receive votes for Censor, and while party candidates for Censor exist, Urcea's political parties rarely expend resources on the office with the exception of specific individuals. Single, non-partisan candidates typically campaign in a more widespread manner and usually win election to the office. Censors are rarely voted out of office. The process of nominating and electing Censors has been subject to some criticism, ranging from complaints of religious institutional interference to administrative criticisms. Reform proposals to the system, which typically involve limiting the number of candidates to only 1 or 2 party nominees as well as 1 or 2 "institutional" nominees from the Collegium Scientificum and other institutions, have been introduced to the Concilium Daoni multiple times but have not been taken up for a vote.
Powers of the Censor
The Censors have multiple powers related to the enforcement of public virtue. Specifically, Censorial authority is broken down into two categories, "statutory", their authority to disrupt legislation or regulations they view to be harmful to public morality, and "regulatory", their authority to disrupt content in print and broadcast media which they view to be harmful to public morality. With respect to their statutory powers, each Censor has the ability to issue formal objections to legislation before the Concilium Daoni or, more rarely, by a province or other subdivision of Urcea. The Censors also have authority over the deliberations of the Concilium Purpaidá when they occur, and the Censors sit as usually non-voting members of the Concilium. A formal objection does not on its own halt the progress of legislation, however it does raise public and legislative awareness regarding moral problems related to legislation. Both Censors in concurrence are able to issue a suspensive veto, which prohibits any bill or regulatory measure from being considered for the remainder of a calendar year. Both objections and suspensive vetos can be accompanied by official requests for amendments to legislation, and suspensive vetos can be withdrawn by at least one Censor following being issued. A suspensive Censorial veto can be overridden by an 80% vote of the Concilium Daoni and cannot be overridden by a local government by any means. Both Censors may also issue objections to bills which have already passed the Concilium Daoni. Situations like these allow the Apostolic King of Urcea to veto legislation, although the Procurator will typically veto a bill objected to by one or more Censors in order to ensure what is known as "democratic chain of custody", i.e. that only elected officials are making decisions on legislation. The Censors also have "regulatory" authority, which describes their ability to oversee content produced for cultural and commercial consumption in Urcea. Censors only have jurisdiction over materials which are released for public consumption, either for commercial or artistic purposes, and does not include materials which have already received an imprimatur from an official of the Catholic Church. Rather than receiving permission to print, publish, or otherwise distribute from the Censor, Censors typically monitor materials already in circulation and submitted by broadcasters before making a decision to censor or otherwise request modifications to materials. The Censors themselves more actively take part in their "statutory" obligations while delegating their "regulatory" obligations to the Office of the Censor while establishing the guidelines, criteria, and policies for the Office to follow regarding cultural and commercial content.
The specific criteria in which the Censors regulate both legislation and public content depends greatly on the individual Censor as well as any particular mandates received by the Urcean Conference of Catholic Bishops both during their service as well as during the vetting process. The Conference has typically taken a "hands-off" approach to specific mandates or policy positions of individual Censors, with those issues being subject to the political elections in which Censors take office. Considerable legislation and litigation have been devoted to ensuring that the Censorial responsibilities do not conflict with the virtues of free speech and free practice of religion, leading to a relatively well funded Department for Appeals to be established within the Office of the Censor.
The Censors also have administrative authority related to their offices, particularly with respect to their oversight of the decennial census but also with respect to management of the nation's prisons for clergy.
Office of the Censor
The Office of the Censor is the administrative division of the Government of Urcea responsible for administrative oversight of the Censor's duties as well as providing assistance to the Censors in legal, legislative, regulatory, and other duties. The Office of the Censor is overseen by a single Secretary to the Censors, who has hiring and firing authority and typically manages the Office's normal operations. The Secretary to the Censors is appointed by joint concurrent agreement of both Censors at the beginning of each term. While both Censors nominally work from the premises of the Julian Palace, they typically conduct business from office buildings in the Flats. The Office is divided into four primary departments, representing the office of Censor's four main branches of responsibility; legislative and regulatory control, public content oversight, census administration, and administration of ecclesiastical holding facilities. The two "control" departments both flag content for both Censors to make final determinations on. The fifth department, the Department for Appeals, resolves appeals for removing content controls.
Department for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
The Department for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs (DLIA) is the Department responsible for reviewing all legislation that is brought before committees of or the floor of the Concilium Daoni for potential moral conduct impacts as well as generally overviewing the affairs of local governments. Accordingly, the DLIA is the largest portion of the Office of the Censor as the legislative affairs portfolio is the one for which the individual Censors actively participate in. The DLIA is responsible not only for issuing moral impact statements on bills which may have one, but are also responsible for flagging potentially deleterious legislation and regulations for the Censors to potentially formally object to.
Department for Public Content Control
The Department for Public Content Control (DPCC) is responsible for overseeing the publication of art, literature, television, music, video games, and other forms of media and ensuring these forms of media conform to social and legal expectations of provision for public morality. The Department does not oversee the individual production, release, or sale of materials and media, but rather is responsible for ensuring that only compliant materials are published and disseminated by media companies, internet services, and the like. Accordingly, when media companies seek to play a particular song, display a movie, or otherwise use media, they get approval from the DPCC. These materials are typically sent in batches to be reviewed by the DPCC, and material reviews typically take a week depending on the length of the media. The Department typically operates on behalf of the Censors in a regulatory capacity.
The Department also encourages self-regulation by signing memorandums of understanding with major broadcast companies and online services to not disseminate, publish, or otherwise spread materials that would likely be subject to censorship. These memorandums typically bind the publisher or service to the National Best Practices for Good Conduct, which prohibits the use of profanity, the negative portrayal of family life, irreverence for God and religion, illicit sex, drunkenness and biochemical addiction, presentation of cruelty, detailed techniques of crime, the use of horror for its own sake, and the negative portrayal of law enforcement officials, among others. Most memorandums also regulate how performers should dress and move to be within the "bounds of decency".
Department for the Administration of the Census
The Department for the Administration of the Census is an administrative agency responsible for collecting, collating, retaining, and disseminating information in Urcea's decennial censuses. Accordingly, the Department primarily serves in an archival and data analysis role outside of the decennial cycle and also provides annual population growth estimates. The Department typically adds about three million part time paid census takers in years ending with "9", with census takers visiting Urceans in person as well as digitally. Following the completion of the Census, the Department presents its findings to the Censors who hire independent analysts to audit the results before giving it a final seal of approval. The Censors then present the Census to the Apostolic King of Urcea for the Concilium Daoni apportionment process.
Department for Ecclesiastical Crime Management
The Department for Ecclesiastical Crime Management (DECM) is jointly responsible for Urcea's ecclesiastical prisons alongside the Ministry of Justice's Agency for Ecclesiastical Correctional Affairs. The administrative needs, logistics, and security of the two facilities are provided by the Ministry of Justice. The DECM is responsible for overseeing the rehabilitation and programs offered to inmates, with the office of the Censor working closely with the Urcean Conference of Catholic Bishops to identify necessary remedial steps and courses for those incarcerated clerics. Accordingly, the DECM maintains a large staff of educators, counselors, and psychologists necessary for providing these services to the incarcerated.
Department for Appeals
The Department for Appeals is responsible for handling appeals from producers of media with respect to an order of censorship. The Department operates outside the normal bounds of the Office and is made up of personnel appointed with the approval of the Chancellor and Temporary President. Accordingly, the Department works to impartially determine whether or not an appeal has merit and can recommend to the Censors to repeal a certain prohibition on dissemination of materials. The Department typically considers two types of Appeals, the first being an appeal that the free speech or free practice of religion value of the material outweighs the potential moral harm caused by the media in question, and the second being what is called a "cognitive appeal", meaning that either the Department for Public Content Control either did not understand the material in question or that the author of the media had no immoral intent and could be read through a lens which did not harm public morality. The Department of Appeals is also legally required to cooperate with litigation filed against the Office of the Censor, bringing an appeal to the appeal to the Judiciary of Urcea.