Acts of Council

Presented by: BinarySpace & Ethics Committee

Description: It creates an extremely unfair environment due to people spending months to earn their spots and people get positions instantly just for existing. This is a demoralizing feeling and is a leading factor of why people leave certain departments because they don’t stand a chance against competition against an Overseer's friend. Secondly, it promotes the ability to info breach or Admin Abuse. Especially when people are free ranked to Intelligence AD where they can info breach pretty much all classified guidelines. A counter-argument will be that “They had experience in other groups” In my opinion that does not matter. We are unique and different. You come to ARC-32 with a clean slate, and it is up to you to earn your position. We should not let free rankings walk over dedicated members of the Foundation.

Punishments for violating: A punishment against the giver and receiver. The receiver should be placed back to his original rank, while the giver should be fired or suspended. It is not fair for literally anyone.

• Free ranking becomes an EC violation

• The ranking is disallowed

Ratification 18/10/2020

Rank skipping is prohibited.

O5s are not immune to this act.

This act may be bypassed by executive order or O5 vote in times of need.

Presented by: The Administrator

Description: Executive & Department Head Act.

Recently, Executives and Department Heads (except those in Departments such as MD, ScR, SA & EC). Have not been performing their duties to their fullest extent. This involves, checking applications, recruiting more members, hosting training, or giving out disciplinary actions.

In that resolve, I propose this act to the Council. This means all Executives and Department Heads should be closely monitored by their Overseers. O5 Councillors of other Departments also reserve the right to criticize other Department Directors.

In order for an L4 or L5 to keep their rank they must perform the following:

• Leave of Absence is no longer than 2 weeks unless the situation is personally dire. (Family issues, education, or personal problems) because some L4s and L5s just get lazy.

• They must provide a report to their Overseer at the end of every month, stating activity, what they hope to change next month, suggestions, and general issues. Which the Overseer will relay to the Council in #department-health

• L4 and L5 must-read applications, if they neglect this duty. They will be warned. (Anywhere between 20 applications per week per executive is fine.)

• Executives and Department heads shouldn't hold any high-ranking position in any other department. (They can still join but they shouldn't be allowed to proceed to a role that expects them to use up most of their time.)

Important

- Executives and Department Heads should agree to hold their position for at least 1 month before resigning and they must give their resignation notice at least a week before their resignation so the Overseer has ample time to fix things.

Presented by: The Administrator

Description: Recently, a surge in complaints regarding security in the higher ranks has been brought to my attention. Foreign spies, Alt accounts of other foundation members, and members that hold high ranks in other foundations gaining top positions within our foundation have posed a serious threat to security. Enabling a possible attack within.

For these reasons, I have forwarded this bill to the Council for voting. As part of my bill, I propose the following measures be taken.

• Anyone who is in IA & ISD in another Foundation is prohibited from joining any department in our foundation and achieving the rank of Level-3 or being accepted into the Foundation, this means that other foundation departments that deem themselves classified but are not named IA & ISD. Should still be treated as foreign intelligence regardless of whether it is their purpose.

• Anyone who is a member of a foreign DEA is not allowed to be employed as a DEA member here. This is to prevent double jeopardy in the event that they have to choose between us and that other DEA should relations turn out to be bad.

• The Intelligence Agency has to give permission to DEA first before allowing a relationship to be made. Therefore, DEA must first form a connection with that GOI. Should DEA want to ally or enemy; GOI, they must ask for the Intelligence Agency to perform a thorough background check.

• Any individual who is going to be promoted to the rank of Level-5 or O5 in the future should submit to a full interview and background check by ISD.

Ratification 18/10/2020

• ISD must conduct a thorough background check, including prior violations, CEs, etc., and report any findings to the Council (O5-1)

• Prior to promotion L4+ personnel must submit to an interview and background check as do Level 5's and O5 candidates

Executive Protection Act

There's too much drama and shit from this happening, so here's my proposal. The only personnel who should be guarding anyone is Theta-1 guarding L4+. No one else should be receiving a protection detail from any other individual. This means SA cannot guard their Captains, MTF can not guard their captains, UIU can not guard their MRs, ISB, and IA cannot guard their personnel, etc. This is to prevent confusion with kill zones, stealing of theta's job, and general confusion.

• L4+ will be guarded by Theta only.

• L3- will receive no guarding force.

Ratified 2/20/2023

• L5+ will be guarded by Theta only.

• L4- will receive no guarding force.

Presented by: OfficialMH

Description:

I propose that we switch over from the 1 civil 1 combative department system to a primary and secondary department system. Primary departments will be MTF, SA, and UIU. Secondary departments will be ScD, DEA, EC, E&M, and MD. FP will be allowed to join either

• 1 primary or 1 secondary or JUST 2 secondary departments.

This will allow FP to have more freedom when selecting from civil departments and also allow civil departments to gain more members.

• MTF, SA & UIU will become Primary Departments

• ScD, DEA, EC, E&M. and MD will become Secondary Departments

• Limits changed to 1 primary and 1 secondary or 2 secondary. only.

Voting

6 - 0 - 1

Admin vote utilized as Yes

- O5s to receive administrative permissions in all discords in order to prevent hidden information that the Council has access to. 

- O5 Council role to be positioned between the Administrator role and any other role (excluding the Overseer role).

- Bans the use of administrative group chats without Admin permission. [AMENDED]

Amended 03/05/2023

Proposed by Schurk_Krijger

It has come to my attention that Council decisions can theoretically be overturned by the EC. I do not think this should be the case, as we only make decisions on punishments in rare cases, such as the current one with Auren. These decisions sometimes contain sensitive information on informants or personal info, and as such sharing with EC can lead to unnecessary risk. As such, I propose that O5 council decisions should only be able to be overturned or appealed by the O5 council itself, or by Francis or Nick themself by use of an Executive Order. 

Vote conclusion - 7-0 

Proposed by Schurk_Krijger

Any individual who gives or receives information that a candidate is running for Facility Director, or which speech an individual who running is, and fails to notify the proper authorities, shall receive a Class-E Sentence of no longer than 7 days, and possible removal from departments or positions. 

Proposed by Schurk_Krijger

Officially state that all documents made for the foundation must be given ownership to the Overseer. The Overseer will then transfer ownership to a centralized email that will eventually be owned by the group owner, meaning that no one can AA documents or try to claim copyright. 

Destruction or attempted destruction will still remain a CoRE violation under ISB jurisdiction, it just won't happen nearly as much. 

4-0, with 2 abstains

Presented by: Schurk_Krijger

Description: Due to some messy and forgotten votes recently, I'm proposing the following regulations and rules be imposed on voting for all councilors to ensure that voting remains fair but speedy. 

After a period of no more than 48 hours from the initial posting of a vote, the vote should be closed and tallied. In the case a councilor forgets to vote, they are considered to have abstained from this vote.  Should the vote result in a tie, The Administrator will use their vote to be the tiebreaker. 

Following the conclusion of a vote, O5-1 or the Administrator will place it on the official discord server and main website if applicable. In cases where confidentiality is necessary, this will not be the case. Failed votes will have their own location to be posted as well, for the purpose of record keeping. 

Anyone who votes for a proposal must provide reasoning as to why, to ensure that there is proper discussion and communication among the council members. These discussions and reasonings must take place in the attached thread to the vote, to ensure it is easy to find at a later time if necessary and to keep the discord organized and decluttered. 

Summary:

- All votes may not last longer than 48 hours.

- In case of a tie after 48 hours, the Administrator will tie break.

- O5-1 / The Administrator will post all non-confidential votes to an official means of communication.

- Reasoning of your vote must be given in the thread attached to a vote.

Passed 6-0

Presented by: Schurk_Krijger

Description: Act of Council 10 states the following.

- O5s to receive administrative permissions in all Discords in order to prevent hidden information that the Council has access to. 

- O5 Council role to be positioned between the Administrator role and any other role (excluding the Overseer role).

I believe it beneficial to add a couple of points to this act to ensure councilors are able to properly carry out their duties. First, the usage of Discord group chats without express approval from the Administrator should be barred. The Council should readily be able to see all information, and future members of the department should be able to read chat history. To most, if the Discord isn't being used, it just looks like no work is being done.

The act already is made to prevent hidden information from the council, so it's more of a formality to specify this, as a group chat technically is a loophole against this.

Summary:

- Bans the use of administrative group chats without Admin permission.

Passed 5-1

Presented by: Schurk_Krijger

Description: Allows members of groups of interest to also join strictly civil and special departments, while also holding a position in a group of interest. This will expand our ability to have people in ranks and bolster our numbers while providing activity and more balance to on-site raids and riots. This would also allow members of civil departments something to do during raids or riots other than just sitting in breach shelter, as they could be raiding or rioting as a GOI member.

Summary: Can be a civil department member as well as a GOI member, able to switch between both during events.

Presented by: Schurk_Krijger

Description: In order to protect people from unfair or biased punishments, we should make it so that all punishments are required to have evidence attached to them. This should mainly apply to department punishments, or violations of CoRE and foundation law, but can in some cases apply to in-game moderation for violations such as SC evasion or glitching. 

The main purpose of this is to ensure we can review punishments if necessary. It should be noted that this isn't in reference to a specific event, but more of a general rule to prevent issues in the future.

Summary: All punishments are required to have evidence documented and stored somewhere safe. Any punishment lacking evidence will be void unless approved by a council vote.

Presented by: JamesBlossoms, O5-11

Description: Due to the elevation of new O5 Councilors, I am prepared to re-evaluate the majority of admin commands available to O5 Council members in-game.

In the event that unanimous agreement is reached among all O5 Councilors, I am willing to reinstate the following commands to all O5 Council members should all Council members agree to the terms.

- 008 [plr | plrs | team] (transforms the specified players into an SCP-008 instance)

- announce [title] [subtitle] (displays an announcement at the top of each individual's screen)

- backrooms [plr | plrs | team] (transports the designated players to the backrooms)

- explode [plr | plrs | team] (triggers an explosion for the specified players)

- infect [plr | plrs | team] (infects the specified players with the same virus as the Jet Injector in the Class-D shop)

- radio [message] (transmits a message via the radio)

- terminal [terminal string] (executes terminal commands through the cmdr)

- bring [plr | plrs | team] (brings the specified players to a particular location)

- give [plr | plrs | team] [item] (equips the specified players with the specified item)

- god [plr | plrs | team] (sets the maximum health of the specified players to infinite)

- heal [plr | plrs | team] (restores the health of the specified players to their maximum level)

- team [plr | plrs | team] [team] (assigns the specified players to a designated team)

- refresh [plr | plrs | team] (refreshes the status of the specified players)

- teleport [plr | plrs | team] [plr] (teleports the specified players to the specified player)

- to [plr] (teleports the user to the specified player)

- ws [plr | plrs | team] [number] (sets the walkspeed of the specified players to the provided number)

Furthermore, all existing moderation commands (ban, case, chatlogs, fban, kick, klogs, logs, modhistory, mute, playerlist, respawn, unban, unmute, unview, view, viewtools) will remain accessible.

The reinstatement of these commands is subject to the following terms:

• Utilization of these commands must not disrupt ongoing in-game operations or activities.

• Commands should be used in moderation, avoiding excessive use.

• Prior consent from affected players is required when executing commands.

• By utilizing any of the aforementioned commands, you acknowledge and accept full responsibility for your own actions, as well as the actions of individuals who are granted abilities through these commands.

• It is essential to exercise clarity and caution when employing these commands. We aim to avoid situations similar to when a player was provided a grenade with implied immunity but faced subsequent prosecution for its usage.

It should be noted that the following commands will remain restricted exclusively to the Live Events Team.

- awardcredits

- deductcredits

- credits

- doublecredits

- get

- hover

- noethics

- pa_cassie

- pa_emergent

- pa_generic

- pa_situational

- position

- power

- replace

- riotevent

- run

- runif

- set

- shutdown

Summary: Upon unanimous agreement, the specified commands can be reinstated for all O5 Council members, while adhering to cautionary guidelines and accepting full responsibility for their actions and the actions of those empowered by these commands. 

Presented by: O5-1, Schurk_Krijger

Description: In order to provide a fair and equal shot for all individuals to obtain admittance into departments/subdepartments, I am proposing that we put a ban on private tryouts/scoutings as well as handpicking individuals. This will make it so that all admittance to closed departments must have some sort of tryout or application publically posted to the community. The only exemption to this should of course be ISB, due to the nature of their duties. Lemegeton in my opinion, as lore and actors, can have applications in which they are extremely selective. This will allow more people to attempt to join who might not be as prominent, but just as qualified.

Summary: Prohibit private tryouts / handpicked individuals from departments.

Presented by: O5-10, BloonstoDoB8

Description: 

Lemegeton will hereby be an exception to the following foundation regulations of the Code of Regulations and Ethics:

FR.9 (Murder and Manslaughter)

"Lemegeton will officially be an exception from CoRE sections such as FR.9 (Murder and Manslaughter) in the case that they are performing rituals or have been harassed, provided that the following conditions are met:

• The ritual in question is recognized as a legitimate and lawful practice within the Lemegeton's belief system.

• The Lemegeton are authorised to hold a ritual or sacrifice at that time.

• The harassment or obstruction is documented and proven to have occurred prior to the ritual, directly interfering with the Lemegeton's ability to conduct their religious practices.

• The actions taken by the Lemegeton in response to the harassment or obstruction are proportionate and necessary to protect their religious rights and ensure the safety of the ritual participants."

"Lemegeton will officially be an exception from CoRE sections such as FR.9 (Murder and Manslaughter) in the case that their identities have been revealed, provided that the following conditions are met:

• The revelation of the Lemegeton's identities is a result of a breach of confidentiality or a violation of their privacy rights.

• The revelation of their identities poses a significant and immediate threat to the secrecy of their organisation, the time and place of their rituals and sacrifice or the obstruction conducted prior and during the execution of their duties by another.

Legal Test: All grievances against Lemegeton or its members must be concluded first between the O5 Councillor of Lemegeton and the O5 Councillor of the Ethics Committee. Should no conclusion arrive, the O5 Council will act as the court of final appeal on Lemegeton legality matters.

FR.1/FR.30 (Trespassing/Surface Access):

"Members of Lemegeton are granted limited immunity from trespassing charges and restricted surface access, provided the following conditions are met:

1. Access to restricted areas is directly related to the performance of officially sanctioned rituals or duties.

2. Prior notification is given to facility security at least 24 hours in advance, except in cases of emergencies as defined in Lemegeton’s own protocols.

3. All members must be on-team to access FR.1/FR.30 immunity privilege.

4. Surface access is limited to designated zones outlined in Appendix A, unless special permission is granted by the Lemegeton O5 Councillor.

Legal Test: The Ethics Committee does not have jurisdiction to review cases where Lemegeton members are found in unauthorised areas. Lemegeton’s internal supervisor must provide evidence that their member’s actions were absolutely necessary for the performance of critical duties when asked however the division nor their members should they have been on-team at the time, cannot be prosecuted. The burden of proof lies with the Ethics Committee to demonstrate whether Lemegeton’s presence was unnecessary, however all grievances must start with arbitration between the O5 of Lemegeton and O5 of the Ethics Committee with the O5 Council as the court of final appeal.

FR.11 (Procedure During Alarms):

"Lemegeton members are permitted to leave designated breach shelters during alarm situations, subject to the following conditions:

1. The member must have a legitimate ritual-related reason for leaving the shelter.

2. The member must inform their own Lemegeton supervisor of their intention to leave, but may not be required to inform the shelter supervisor of their intention to leave unless the member expects to return.

   1. The shelter supervisor, unless stipulated in Foundation Law, does not have the responsibility to let in the member have they left during a critical breach or raid for the safety of those inside unless stipulated otherwise or by an O5 including the Lemegeton O5.

3. The member assumes all risks associated with leaving the shelter during an active alarm and are subjected to internal discipline by the Lemegeton should any wrongdoing be found.

4. Upon return, the member must submit a detailed report explaining their actions and any encounters to their own Supervisor during their time outside the shelter.

Legal Test: In the event of injury or incident resulting from a Lemegeton member leaving a shelter during an alarm, the Ethics Committee does not have jurisdiction to review the case. Lemegeton’s internal supervisor must provide evidence that leaving the shelter was absolutely necessary for the performance of critical duties when asked however the division nor their members should they have been on-team at the time, cannot be prosecuted." Due to the nature of Lemegeton’s immunity any grievances stemming from FR.11 brought forward by the Ethics Committee must be arbitrated between the O5’s of Lemegeton and the Ethics Committee with the O5 Council being the court of final appeal.

Additional Clause on Immunity and Appeals:

"Lemegeton members are granted broad immunity from prosecution by the Ethics Committee for actions taken in the course of their official duties, as outlined in this document. However, this immunity is not absolute. In cases of gross negligence, willful misconduct, or actions clearly outside the scope of Lemegeton's mandate, the Ethics Committee may initiate an investigation.

All grievances against Lemegeton or its members must be concluded first between the O5 Councillor of Lemegeton and the O5 Councillor of the Ethics Committee. Should no conclusion arrive, the O5 Council will act as the court of final appeal on Lemegeton legality matters.

The O5 Council reserves the right to revoke or modify Lemegeton's immunity at any time, should it be deemed necessary for the greater good of the organisation."

Presented by: O5-1, Schurk_Krijger

Description: Personally being guilty of this, I believe we need to set regulations for what personnel can do while suspended. The point of a Class-E suspension is to limit what a person can do, already being carried out fine on site. On-site, they aren't allowed to participate in events, break rules, riot, etc. They can only get on in the CDCZ and talk. 

I believe we need to take a similar approach to CE in our Discord servers and background work. A suspension should completely remove someone from doing gameplay or work. As such, I believe we should all prohibit suspended personnel from participating in work for departments, including off-site tryouts/trainings, selection for departments, or other background tasks such as paperwork or logs.

Summary:  Prohibit suspended personnel from participating in work for departments, including off-site tryouts/trainings, selection for departments, or other background tasks such as paperwork or logs.

Presented by: O5-1, Schurk_Krijger

Description: Communication services are meant to organize and provide easy communication for members of departments. However, there's been an influx of "honorary" or "former" ranks within departments. I do not believe these should be permitted, as it allows a bias for who gets to stay, or who leaves the communication services. These services should be for current department members only, not former or honorary members. As such, I propose we remove all honorary and former member ranks in department and sub-department Discords.

Summary: Remove all honorary and former member ranks in department and sub-department Discords.

Presented by: O5-1, Schurk_Krijger

Description: Mandate background checks for higher sensitivity departments and positions, including; 

Level-3 and above promotions, Mobile Task Forces admittance, Ethics Committee admittance, Tribunal Affairs admittance, External Affairs admittance, Lemegeton admittance. This would include extensive background checks on Facility Director candidates before they are confirmed for the position.

Summary: Mandated BGC's for 

• L3+

• MTF

• EC

• TA

• DEA

• Lemegeton

• FD

Presented by: O5-1, Schurk_Krijger

Description: Create severity behind punishments, specifically Class-E suspensions. Those who are punished for higher severity crimes by FIS or EC, such as rogue offenses, corruption, free ranking, mass toxicity, etc. are flagged during background checks by FIS (thanks to James' new bot it'd be easily accessible in notes). These people are not to be considered for positions that require a background check due to possible threats or harm to groups. Additionally, when people in positions that require background checks are punished for these crimes, they should be removed from said positions. This will help prevent problematic people from remaining in departments, and open the way for new people to prove themselves. This will not work retroactively, and will only be for future punishments.

Summary: If someone is charged with a higher level crime, they should not be eligible to earn or remain in positions that require background checks.

Amended 3/3/2024: Removed the phrase at the end of the description stating "utilized by James' bot". This removes a loophole and ensures the legislation is followed for punishments issued by any method.

Presented by: O5-1, Schurk_Krijger

Description: For lower level punishments, such as trespassing or general behavior, punishments can only be issued within 10 days of the initial report or discovery, for medium level punishments such as murder or assault, punishments can only be issued within 15 days of the initial report or discovery, and for high level crimes such as corruption/bias or freeranking, no limit shall be imposed.

For low and medium level punishments that are reported which have occurred over a month ago, no punishment shall be issued unless voted on by the council to bypass this act.

Summary: Low and medium severity punishments are required to be processed and a punishment issued within 10-15 days from the initial report or discovery. This is to prevent people from multiple issues, such as retribution (a violation being reported much later as an act of revenge from the reporter against the violator), inefficient prosecution (EC/FIS or department HC taking excessively long to discuss, establish, and issue a punishment), or old incidents (someone trespassing 6 months ago and it just now being discovered).

The goal of this isn't to get people out of punishments from committing crimes, but rather to A) force a speedy justice system in which departments will have to efficiently gather evidence and issue punishments, preventing an unnecessarily long period of stress for the violator, in which they are unsure of what will be done to them, B) Prevent people from reporting crimes as a method of blackmail or retribution for another act (such as reporting a superior for general behavior issues a few weeks ago after they punish you for disrespect), or from an excessively old crime that doesn't matter, such as trespassing, appearing after months and then effecting the person.

It should be noted that most of Foundation Law is excluded due to the severity of their crimes, such as corruption, free ranking, bias, etc. needing to be punished under any circumstances when it is found, as it can effect the health of the group, compared to shooting someone on site three weeks ago.

Certain parts of CoRE are also excluded, such as Loopholing, Executive Regulations, and Evasion of Authority, as these are more important to command or the general well being of the group.

Crimes older than 1 month will not be prosecuted. Once reported/discovered, they must be processed and punished within 10-15 days depending on severity.

Presented b: O5-1, Schurk_Krijger

Description: Make it so that all authorizations of Class-D must be in game to supervise. If you authorize someone, they can only be on the CD team for as long as you are in game. If you leave, they have to get off, AND you have to notify them. This will also double to FP only being allowed to ask O5s that are currently in game for permission, though they can ask either in game or on discord. Repeatedly breaking this rule can lead to disciplinary action by the Ethics Committe.

Summary: In order to authorize someone on CD you must be in game. FP will only be allowed to ask O5s CURRENTLY in game to go on CD.

Presented by: iiLeRoss [To Administrative Personnel]

Description: Proposal to amend the regulations regarding the permittance of L0s into the CDCVA.

Summary: With the relative success of E&M acceptance of L0 personnel, the increased flexibility of security tools, and the continued activity of combative personnel, as well as gradual reforms in the advancement process, I am of the opinion that the archaic regulations regarding L0 personnel being permitted in the CDCVA should be removed. This will allow for improved integration of new personnel both into the group and it's social structure, while providing larger access to the overall site experience for them. Assessed risks are both minimal and easily dealt with, in an educational fashion. The shutout of these personnel is largely a negative to the growth of the group, as it leaves newer personnel isolated on site from the rest of the group. This change would rectify all the prior issues.

Presented by: O5-6, fuzzmike11

Description: Make it a requirement that those who can promote and accept in their divisions to have 2FA enabled. I understand the recent issue with SDU was a rogue issue, but I have just heard multiple people don't have 2FA that are in a rank that can do this. It's a good thing to have normally and especially good to have to prevent AAing. 

Summary: Make those in a command position have 2FA 

Presented by: Schurk_Krijger, O5-1

Description: Limit the extent of the moderation team to be explicitly content which is within our services. This would make content in an individuals status/bio/about me and PFP restricted from being moderated. Cases in which this would be exempt include, but are not limited to; extreme NSFW (porn, gore, and similar content), content directly threatening individuals, slurs directly targeted at an individual (ie. "PERSON is a fucking [ENTER SLUR HERE]".

Summary: Prevent moderation from taking action on people's personal profiles within reason.

Presented by: The Administrator

Description: 

This Bill turned Act, intends to activate the position of Executive Secretary within the SCP

Foundation, delineating the responsibilities and duties thereof, and establishing the role as a

liaison between Foundation personnel, O5-1, and the Administrator.

BE IT ENACTED by the O5 Council and signed into Law by the Administrator, as follows:

Definitions:

a) "SCP Foundation" refers to the global group

b) "Executive Secretary", “Secretary” refers to the designated individual appointed to serve

as the primary liaison between Foundation personnel, O5-1, and the Administrator.

c) "O5-1" refers to the highest-ranking member of the O5 Council within the SCP

Foundation.

d) "Group Coordinator" refers to the Co-Owner aside the “Administrator”

e) "Facility Director" refers to the elected Level-5 member to Facility Director rank/role.

f) “Administrator”, “Group Coordinator”, “O5-1” can be summarized as “Group Staff”

Establishment of the Executive Secretary Position:

a) The position of Executive Secretary shall be reinstated within the SCP Foundation, with

the primary purpose of serving as a gateway and respective liaison between Foundation

personnel, O5-1, and the Administrator.

b) The Executive Secretary shall be appointed by the Administrator of the SCP Foundation

solely.

Responsibilities of the Executive Secretary:

a) Serve as the primary point of contact for correspondence directed to the Administrator

and O5-1 and Group Coordinator facilitating communication between Foundation personnel

and high-ranking officials.

b) Act as an intermediary for matters requiring the attention of the Administrator and O5-1,

ensuring that relevant information is conveyed promptly and accurately.

c) Monitor and address issues raised by personnel ranked Level-3 and below, escalating

matters of significance to higher-ranking officials as necessary.

d) Maintain confidentiality and discretion regarding sensitive information and discussions

within the SCP Foundation.

e) Coordinate with Executive and other affiliated entities to ensure effective communication

and collaboration between virtual Foundation operations and official channels.

f) Provide administrative support to the Administrator and O5-1, including scheduling

meetings, managing correspondence, and organizing official documentation.

g) Act as an "inner-eye" for the SCP Foundation, monitoring internal operations and

identifying potential areas for improvement or intervention.

h) The Executive Secretary shall hold the rank of Level-4, and such individual shall be picked

to hold such rank from the existing Level-4 members who qualify, unless the Administrator

chooses such individual for the rank.

h2) However, if the individual is Level-3, it is up-to the Administrator on whether said

candidate can elevate to Level-4 to undertake the role or retain Level-4 for the role.

h3) The Secretary shall be bestowed the O5 Council Cross as a sign of their position.

i) The Executive Secretary shall along work alongside the Facility Director and anywhom

who make take such position to facilitate, grow and report of their successes to the

Administrator, O5-1, Group Coordinator on the performance, as well as give advice to the

"Facility Director" on purposes to do with the Level-3 > Level 0 class.

i2) The Facility Director may request help from the Secretary on matters to do with

their role in regards to Level 0 > Level 3.

The Executive Secretary role is designed familiarly to the `Sergeant Major` in the US Army

Funding and Resources:

a) Adequate funding and resources shall be allocated to support the operations and

functions of the Executive Secretary such as the Department of External Affairs unit

responsible for census, in which the Secretary may draw upon data to inform themselves and

the Group Staff of.

b) The Administrator of the SCP Foundation shall ensure that the Executive Secretary has

access to the tools and technologies required to fulfill their duties effectively.

Implementation:

a) This Act shall come into force immediately upon receiving Administrator approval.

b) The Administrator of the SCP Foundation shall take all necessary measures to implement

the provisions of this Act within a reasonable timeframe.

Short Title:

This Act may be cited as the Executive Secretary Activation Act 2024

Summary: Nullifies Executive Order 1