First, I’m not entirely sure why the Assembly is in such a rush to vote. HS has asked Henn to elaborate on several key aspects their platform, but they have yet to respond. One would think that legislators would be interested in learning as much as possible about the candidates’ plans for office before deciding how they will cast their vote. And there is plenty of time before Kringle’s term concludes, so there is no logistical reason to proceed without waiting for a response.
Second, I wanted to comment on one aspect of this discussion, namely the idea that if the Chair comes into office with a legislative agenda, then there is a risk of bias or abuse of authority in the Chair’s conduct of Assembly business. (As an aside, I’m bracketing Kringle’s further objection to the Chair having a legislative agenda, which seemed to be less focused on the potential for bias and more about the potential time constraints / distraction that pursuing such an agenda would have on the Chair’s ability to discharge their administrative duties. That’s a valid concern, but is individual dependent. Certainly some individuals could have time to balance both effectively.).
It strikes me that the risk of bias associated with an affirmative legislative agenda has been greatly overstated. Certainly there is always some risk of the Chair exercising their authority in a biased manner, but that’s the case regardless of whether the Chair has campaigned on a legislative agenda. After all, every Chair will have some personal views on the necessity of desirability of particular legislative reforms, even if they haven’t publicly articulated those views as part of their platform. Indeed, the fact that a Chair has laid out their legislative goals in advance might actually make it easier to determine if they are inappropriately using their powers to further that agenda; legislators are more likely to be attuned to a series of questionable rulings if those rulings support one of the Chair’s announced legislative goals. Which brings me to my second point, namely that abuse of authority by the Chair is quite easy to catch and therefore of limited utility to attempt. Basically every decision the Chair makes is public, and I fully expect that the Assembly would notice and react to any such misconduct.
I recognize that it’s an anecdotal example, but I actively pursued a legislative agenda as Chair. I ask this seriously and not in some attempt at self-glorification: did anyone actually suspect me of bias in my rulings in order to advance that agenda? If not, does anyone seriously think I could have gotten away with it had I tried? (And if yes, why didn’t you say anything at the time?).
To be clear, if the Assembly prefers a Chair that is solely an administrative figure and whose time is entirely dedicated to the smooth functioning of the Assembly rather than legislative drafting, that’s totally fair. I’m simply suggesting that concerns about bias should not be a substantial factor in opposing a legislatively active Chair.
Third, I am interested in the idea that the government could / should have an affirmative legislative agenda. I plan to raise that with the seven PM candidates.
I’m with HS, in that I still want to see more from the nominees before voting.
Particularly, in VC you mentioned to me you had a plan around rotating clerks of the assembly, and I’d like to hear more about the structure of that idea before voting, especially given you mentioned in that same VC that you’re not going to appoint a ‘permanent deputy’. The not appointing a permanent deputy is fine with me, so long as the other plan you had the idea for sufficiently fulfills the needs I feel the assembly has when it comes to deputies/clerks. I’d like to hear more about the structure of your idea before committing to vote.
I didn’t say that I would vote against a prospective Chair just because they had a legislative agenda. On the other hand, it sounded like other legislators were prepared to vote against a prospective Chair just because they didn’t have a legislative agenda. I disagree with that reasoning.
…none of whom even have to be a legislator?
If this is (in part) a reference to my comments, I think the executive should promote activity in our community and not just activity in the executive. I don’t think that has to take the form of legislation. If it does, well, the Prime Minister can seek legislator status and propose legislation like any other citizen.
And I’m not necessarily saying I agree with it, for the reasons you mention. But it is an interesting idea that I would like the PM candidates to react to.
I don’t know if anyone has said that the issue is bias (if so then I stand corrected) but my own issue is that the Chair is ultimately the presiding officer, not a political leader, and therefore their business should be presiding over the Assembly. If they wish to pursue a political agenda that is already something they can do as a legislator and there are no added powers or privileges the Chair has that would facilitate this, so I’m not sure what’s even the point of making it a campaign point: such a candidate would be promising to do in the future that which they can already do now.
It is correct that I do not intend to appoint a single permanent deputy. If it is the wish of the Assembly that I appoint individuals to assist in the administration of votes then I would select a number of clerks from among legislators who have never held elected or appointed office and who express an interest in participating, who would be assigned to specific votes on a rotating basis such that each clerk always gets a chance to assist in opening or closing votes.
I am deeply concerned with both options for the Chair. @ProfessorHenn , I think brings unique perspective. I am concerned with the idea of a political agenda. The second major concern is with the current Chairperson, @KrisKringle . I feel not appointing anyone like a deputy or a clerk makes them look distant and unapproachable. I would like to see a Chairperson who is willing to run the administrative functions the job requires. I also like to see someone who can be charismatic, be a mentor, help develop more leaders, and be a true representative of the Assembly. No disrespect to the current Chairperson, but I think we should see if we can open up the floor for other nominations.
Not to come off as irritable, but if I’m quite literally asked to explain my plan for the future appointment of clerks and I respond in detail, and somehow that’s not enough to assuage your concerns, then what even are you expecting from me?
I would like to guide the Assembly along several reform options, to include formalizing ministries, changing the election method for the Prime Minister, removing the Prime Minister outright, a return to pre-2023 executive, or other options as presented. I do not have a preference for what option is selected, if any, but I have had sporadic conversations with random legislators for several months now about our current executive structure and a minor-level desire for change. If these discussions result in contentment with the status quo, then the job is complete.
I’d like to see the process be streamlined to introduce a simultaneous legislator/citizen application, so that the Chair could run their checks concurrently with CitComm, as needed, and be good to authorize their admission as soon as CitComm processes the application. I’d want the dispatches/telegrams/wizard updated to reflect this change in application process as well.
Thanks for your responses. For me, I think it’s fine to start the vote at this time.
Truthfully, I’m not the most satisfied with either candidate at this stage and am not sure how I’ll vote—but more discussion won’t fix that.
@Utopia raised an issue with the expediency of the incumbent accomplishing very basic tasks in the most recent term. Discussion mostly focused on one potential solution, which Kris rejected discussing as part of their election campaign. But they also didn’t raise any other solutions, which is disheartening.
At the same time, ProfessorHenn’s campaign seems largely to be “do what Kris isn’t doing” and I don’t really agree with what they’re proposing to do instead. We don’t need a mega-reinvention of the executive right now. The fact that things are working well and we’re on a sustainable path now (and that all candidates for PM seem to agree with that) is a reason to continue allowing PM flexibility rather than boxing them in. Institutionalization for its own sake leads to apathy and neglect and not stabilization. If a system is working well, candidates will run on retaining it, and we should allow them to do that. Additionally, I found the candidate’s answers on integration reform lacking, and it’s hard to take seriously that someone would fix the incumbent’s activity problem when there’s an ~6 day gap between being asked and answering a question (granted, part of Henn’s answer is the appointment of deputies, but I think everyone in this thread is putting a little too much faith in the magical power of deputies to solve our problems).
Allow me to clarify: you discussed it, but you stated “any promises as to the appointment of specific people as a precondition for election feels inappropriate to me”. As a result of this (combined with not suggesting alternative ways to increase efficiency/promptness in handling of Assembly business), you haven’t offered reassurances that there will be improvements in the promptness issues that Utopia identified, which is what I was hoping to see.
I agree on starting the vote. I understand some of us aren’t sold on either candidate but at some point I think we need to recognize that any other prospective candidate has had since April 8 to jump in. We aren’t just picking a theoretical position in a debate, we’re picking someone to actually be the Chair, and at some point I’d prefer someone who wants the role over someone who jumps in because they feel there’s a middle ground they can fill.
I agree to an extent with expediency concerns but also feel that in some cases… I don’t know, I just don’t see the big deal? Like, I get why “it took a week for a Cabinet nomination to go to vote” is bad. But “it took a day and a half for a treaty to go to vote” feels fine to me, to be honest. I am actually more concerned that a day and a half somehow reflected poorly on us. Presumably, this is a treaty that we hope will last years at least. We’re getting hung up over less than a couple of days? Surely the relationship underlying the treaty is not so mercurial that it could change in just a couple of days…
This is where I wholeheartedly disagree with you. For one, you are creating a single point of failure. Admittedly, you would assume that risk and that’s your call. I respect that. In my opinion, I’d rather see a Chairperson who actually wants to as I said before, be a mentor, help teach the newer members your administrative duties, and have a passionate approach. If the Assembly has to tell you and possibly force a vote to appoint clerks, then why run for the Chair? Kris, I don’t doubt your work ethic at all. What I genuinely am questioning is are you running because you are passionate about this role? Or are you running because you have to? I hope this paints a better picture coming from me. No disrespect towards you. Just a genuine concern I have.
How so? The proposal is to appoint “a number of clerks.” That seems like the opposite of a single point of failure to me.
I think passion is subjective, so maybe we’ll agree to disagree there. (I thought Amerion was a great chair years ago but if I had to name something they were passionate about, it would be, uh, graphics )
But Kris’ proposal is to appoint “legislators who have never held elected or appointed office and who express an interest in participating” in a system that ensures each of them “always gets a chance to assist in opening or closing votes” — i.e. they actually can get mentoring, not just twiddle their thumbs in the name of having a clerk. To me, that sounds like helping to teach newer members?
)