Hello, everyone ! It’s soon the the end of the term of KrisKringle ! So we should maintain or elect a new one !
If you want to nominate someone for the Chair, please ping and also if they accept please says how many times you want to be Chair (not over 12 months).
If he’s still willing to be Chair, I nominate @KrisKringle.
I am indeed willing.
But the flesh is weak?
Then I also nominate you.
I’m fine with Kris coming back as Chair. I know last time we did this there were reservations about his activity and speed in opening/closing votes, but I think that has been significantly better this time. Part of that is the Clerk program helped, although it created certain other challenges, but those challenges are things I thought Kris handled well.
I am curious if anyone else is potentially interested. I don’t view this role as “Kris’s forsure”, more as “Kris’s for now and if someone else is interested I’d want to hear their argument”.
My thinking has evolved from my previous stance on this topic. This is one position we don’t need to become political. It’s not a position that someone is going to run for unless they are passionate enough to deal with constant business of the Assembly. I see the Chair as someone who’s going to bring stability and wants to do the job because it’s a thankless job. Kris has demonstrated that narrative and has made it the most stable position here since I’ve joined. I think Kris should be allowed to serve on a no term basis. Let him decide when he’s ready to step down. Of course, pending he becomes inactive long enough or enough people want to remove him, I see no reason to hold an election for the Chair for a foreseeable future.
And effectively render any person willing to be Chair unable to do so unless Kris steps down?
Not necessarily. I’d just write the resolution to say Kris serves other wise unless a candidate emerges with a valid campaign that has a few motions to open up a nomination contest, he’s inactive, resigns, or is removed from office by the Assembly. That solves us having to have elections for a post that is not highly sought after.
I am very much opposed to letting anyone serve as chair indefinitely. Even if you created a system where new people can challenge the chair, it’s a much bigger barrier to entry than the pseudo-election system that currently exists. Running against an incumbent is difficult enough in an election where the office holder needs to prove they should keep the position anyways, but in a challenge system it creates the situation where the challenger needs to prove not just they’re qualified and should have the position but also that the incumbent shouldn’t keep the position.
More generally than just this election, definite terms also encourage people to step down when they don’t have the time anymore, and it wouldn’t be a surprise to me if an indefinite term led to future chairs holding the position past the point they have the activity to fulfill it.
I am fine with Kris serving as chair. I’m curious if any of our Clerks of the Assembly are interested in the position, but my opinion between Kris and anyone also interested is fully dependent on the kinds of policies that they will hold as chair.
I’m against having Indefinite term as we are in a democracy.
I also want to highlight that if other don’t want to be Chair now, don’t mean they’ll wont be interested in the future.
@Utopia I’m not interested, I will resign when the term of Kris end. I do not want to continue as Clerk for now.
Is @ProfessorHenn interested in putting their hat in the ring like last time?
Also, if we agree on a longer term for the Chair this time around, how long should it be? I think it really shouldn’t be shorter than a PM term, which is three months.
I’ll note that if the Assembly is at any specific point of the view that the Chair is not sufficiently active in starting votes, we have the ability to start our own voting threads as well (see Leg Proc Act 2(6)), on top of the usual procedures we have for removing people from office.
The max term length is a year… so we could certainly go beyond 6 months and give the assembly a bit of a breather before it elects again.
I would support a 6 month term. And to clarify, a resolution proposing an indefinite term would be unlawful under the Legislative Procedure Act. See Legislative Procedure Act Art. 2, Sec. (2)b. (“In no event shall any resolution to adopt a Chair provide for a term of service longer than twelve months.”). For the reasons that others have given, I would oppose removing that limitation.
I’m also curious if @ProfessorHenn is interested in running again.
As an aside, all of this is an argument in favor of moving back to … just having elections for Chair instead of whatever this awkward process we’re doing now is.
I am open to serving as Chair, especially given that my RL situation now permits me the ability to execute duties and responsibilities on NS again. My agenda would primarily be driven by a desire to lead a soft reform of existing laws, such as an executive restructuring and reforms to the Chair election process with current sentiments, and to involve more individuals into the administrative process via multiple Clerks, and potentially Deputies that may prefer to lead specific reform-oriented discussions.
Can you be more specific? What problems do we have that require legislatively-initiated (whether by a Chair or otherwise) executive restructuring?
I would support a 6 month term. To clarify, I don’t think we need an indefinite term. The frequency of the Chair elections is not needed in my opinion. Though, I do encourage people to step up and run if they are interested in the role.
I think it’s worth discussing whether we’d like to re-implement specific Ministries enshrined in law, directly electing Ministers, removing the PM and just allowing the Cabinet to exist as an executive council collective, and potentially other options that I am not smart enough to think of or haven’t heard from others.
I must say this did surprise me, but I’d like to hear your opinion.
What benefits do you think this would bring? Would you say our current system of cabinet has problems? If so, what are they?
A system like this would greatly increase the inefficiency of cabinet, mostly due to the removal of the supervisory and assistive roles of the Prime Minister, as well as their unified executive agenda—how do you think we can address this with a new system?