[2354.CN] Nomination of HumanSanity to the Council on Regional Security

Mr. Chair and Members of the Assembly,

The Prime Minister and I, in accordance with our joint power under Article VIII, Section 5 of the Charter are most pleased to announce our joint nomination of @HumanSanity (HumanSanity, in-game) to the Council on Regional Security.

The Prime Minister and I reached out to the Council on Regional Security for their consultation and approval, which we are pleased to say that they provided.

HumanSanity has been a member of the region in good standing for the last couple of years and has demonstrated his commitment to the region repeatedly in that time. They have held several positions within the region, including Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Regional Affairs, Minister of Defense, and the Legislator/Citizenship Committee. Currently, HumanSanity is an active Citizen, Legislator, SPSF General, Junior Moderator, and part of the Libcord Update Command.

Outside of the region, HumanSanity has past experience in RGA as a Senator, Minister, Chief Executive, and Delegate, with identical offices having been held in XKI.

Their extensive commitment to the region and their deep knowledge of inter-regional activities highlights why HumanSanity is worthy of a place on the Council on Regional Security.

HumanSanity, the Prime Minister, the Council on Regional Security, and I are all standing by to answer any questions or comments the Assembly might have.


For HumanSanity — you recently resigned from the Citizenship Committee, stating that you didn’t see a path back to regular activity on the committee. In the past, you’ve also raised concerns about whether the Council on Regional Security is sufficiently active. Do you believe you’ll be able to maintain the activity levels that you feel should be expected from members of the Council on Regional Security?

For the Delegate and Prime Minister — why was the decision made to seek approval from the Council on Regional Security? If such approval was not obtained, would you have still proceeded with the nomination?

For HS - could you describe what you see as the role / function of the CRS in the Coalition’s government? For example, is it a primarily passive institution, standing ready to respond in the event of a coup or invasion but otherwise not taking much action? Or should it act proactively, e.g., monitoring potential threats, conducting / overseeing intelligence operations, etc.?

I realize that this thread is not in a private area, so you might need to keep your answer quite general for operational security purposes. That is fine–I’m just trying to get a sense of how you understand the role.

We are required, by law, to seek the approval of the Council.

(5) The Delegate and Prime Minister may jointly nominate any person meeting the requirements for membership and who are well suited to protect regional security. Prior to the nomination, the Delegate and Prime Minister will consult with the Council for their advice. To ensure collegiality and prevent dysfunction, if two-thirds of the members of the Council object to the prospective nominee’s membership, the nomination will not move forward. If no such objection exists, then the nomination will be submitted to the Assembly for approval via three-fifths majority vote.

If we were informed that a 2/3rds majority of the Council objected to the nomination, and subsequent conversations could not lower that threshold below that mark, then we would obviously not continue. Otherwise, we would have continued with the nomination.

The law you quoted refers to advice, not approval. My question was whether you would have proceeded if more than a third but less than a half of CRS members supported the nomination — i.e. less than the two-thirds disapproval but less than a majority approval.

We would have, as mentioned above.

I believe that I’ll be able to maintain the necessary activity levels for the foreseeable future. The type of work and the level of activity needed for these two institutions is different. I have been extremely critical of CRS activity in the past because I believe that proactive monitoring of potential security risks internally and externally, as well as effective communication and community relationship-building, are necessary to being prepared for a potential coup. There are things I think the CRS needs to work on and that I want to contribute to! I’ll discuss in more detail what in response to Welly’s question later, but in general I think my current activity pattern can support that kind of work.

This work burden is different than the one placed on the Citizenship Committee. The Citizenship Committee is tasked with the prompt handling of a constant workflow of new applicants, as well as handling the citizenship purges. That requires daily at-my-computer time to handle applications, instead of an ability to participate in discussions and periodically to put in more substantial work on a statement, endorsement level check, or other CRS-related project. When I was nominated for the Legislator Commission, I was very specific about how my RL habits at the time were actually ideal for LegComm work, including regularly being on my personal laptop and having time at the start or end of my day to handle apps. In the intervening year and a half, my daily routine has changed, not in such a way that I am not around on NS at all (although I have been taking some steps back) but more in a way where the exact structure of my habits aren’t suited to CitCo work.

The CRS’s purpose is to ensure the security of the Coalition which requires both proactive security monitoring systems and then an ability to be reactive to a crisis. I know this has (rather publicly) been a point of contention between me and members of the CRS for some time now. I don’t think proactive security measures are all that big – they’re certainly not close to the workload of an entire government Ministry, especially when distributed among the whole Council. I can distill the items I think the CRS should be proactive about three areas: endorsement monitoring/management, external threat monitoring, and public relations. If on the CRS, I’d work with other CRS members on these items (and, even if the Assembly rejected me, I’d be happy to work with the CRS on these items!) and I think that’s a pretty reasonable workload for both myself and the CRS itself as an institution.

I don’t support these things because they’re required of the CRS but rather because I think they’re smart of the CRS because they all build towards the main goal – preventing and repelling security threat – and a little bit of proactivity before a crisis can pay huge dividends after one has happened.

I move the nomination be brought to a vote.


Chair of the Assembly

We are now at a vote!