Sure! Here’s my reasoning: At any one time, the biggest imminent threat to the region is an autocoup by the Delegate, and it’s the security institution (CRS, CSS, SecC, whatever) that is responsible for bolstering defenses and monitoring the situation. Having the Delegate be part of it would be counter-productive, of course, as they would contribute to a better situation for their autocoup, if so inclined. Now, suspending the Delegate from the security institution if they are already on the security institution isn’t a fail-safe, as they’ll already be aware of extant means and methods, but they wouldn’t be able to influence the monitoring or observe what is being detected already.
That all being said, since our Delegate is non-political, we’re incredibly unlikely to elect one that would autocoup, so this isn’t important whatsoever.
Oh, surely focus on just removal from office, for a number of reasons, not the least of which that it would be unconstitutional under extant law as well as KWB (2.1.e).
Beautiful!
I mean … I like CRS. I know you don’t. Maybe Regional Guard?
Will address this in a separate post.
I think in the past I would be more critical in this, but given that we’re a solidly Defender GCR and I doubt a PM would dare to do something like not let the SPSF deploy at will in Libcord between ordered missions. Though if the latter were to happen, I’ll be the first to yell for a recall + law change
Turns out that I still have access to the legislator roster, and the top 6 from eldest descending are:
Kringle
Tsunamy
Farengeto
Jay
Belschaft
Viet
(fun fact, I’d be between Belschaft and Viet if I hadn’t dropped off due to Reliant+NS stuff last year…)
The Dean is a cute idea thatI don’t mind, though I’m kinda bothered by Kris being the one to propose it and also the one to be the prospective first dean.
Alright, I took a closer look at the Voting Act, and really, in comparison with extant law, we have to look at the combination of Voting Act and Assembly Act.
In total, I like it. Ironically, despite splitting Legislator into two separate things (Voter and Legislator), it makes it simpler. I’m, in a way, the father of LegComm, but I never liked it, because it was meant to compromise on a few things that are nearly impossible to compromise on. I’m actually pleased to see it broken up, with Legislator management back in the Chair but the actual security checks only with SecC where they, strictly, belong.
There are a few things that are problematic and, imho, need to change, which I’ll address in the point-by-point below, but overall, once again, I like it.
That all being said, let me propose a somewhat radical idea that makes things even simpler. What if we got rid of Legislators altogether? By that I mean anybody that is a registered voter is automatically a legislator, no extra effort needed, and removals are only done as part of Voter removals once every forum election. As it is, almost everything TSP does is out in the open anyway where any TSP member can participate, registered or not, so it seems to me like the security implications are basically none (wrt LegLounge and Private Halls), and it massively reduces bureaucracy for counting votes and whatnot.
Just an idea.
Anyway, some specifics:
This … is problematic. I see where you’re coming from in one sense, as parts of a security check may sometimes involve things beyond the mere confines of a game being played by anonymous players, but that doesn’t mean we can give SecC a pass for parts of a security check that may very well be within the confines of the game. SecC can mess up, or be corrupt, or whatever (though hopefully it isn’t), and there must be an avenue to address that.
Apart from that, I generally believe that our Court should be able to review anything within its jurisdiction, and this is no exception.
See above, but here even more so because in this case, there isn’t even the PII justification like the previous one has. This has to go, in my humble opinion.
I suppose this means there could be a LegComm but ideally, there wouldn’t be and it’d just be SecC doing it. At the same time, I do think CRS could use a few fresh faces.
I finally have some time to catch up on comments. Please note that I agree in principle about the idea to move forward Chair elections instead of having the Dean take their place, but I am still trying to figure out a language that works well, based on what ProfessorHenn proposed, and use that also for the Prime Minister.
The provision on recalls has been adjusted to reflect both comments.
This has been incorporated.
This has been incorporated.
This is a leftover from when the Sunshine Act had other provisions that I eventually figured were unnecessary. I will adjust this to refer to the Sunshine Act.
I think there is merit in this argument. I would say however that, as you point out, the Delegate is a non-political figure and, in addition, the security institution does have the power to suspend its members, so there would be mitigating options in the event of a security breach. I’m fine either way, but I do think the situation is less urgent than if we had an executive Delegate.
I know it’s a bit of a running joke that I don’t like the current name, but I do genuinely think that it would be nice to have a different name. I like Regional Guard, though I wonder how we’d refer to its members?
I think it’s important to point that nothing in this draft says that there cannot be generals. If the Prime Minister thinks that there should be generals then nothing says they can’t appoint them or issue an executive order to set up that structure.
It is an interesting coincidence, but nothing more. The provision that the Dean would preside over the election of the Chair came as a result of a discussion I had with Henn about adding a certain element of ceremony to the Assembly (hence the separate idea of sessions) and me remembering that in the UK the Father of the House presides over the election of the Speaker, which to me seemed like a nice way to add ceremony and also emphasise the institutional memory of the Assembly.
If there is any doubt that I did not in fact want to reserve that position for myself, you need only see that the draft of the Assembly Act, as originally written, includes in the definition of the Dean a provision that allows the holder to opt out if they declare that they are unwilling to discharge their duties.
This is not a inherently a bad idea, but at the same time I’m not sure if I agree. Each ministry manages its membership and can decide to remove members who are inactive, so surely the Assembly should have the same power to self-regular its membership? I also think that having the Assembly as an additional option for registration could be useful in terms of promotion, if we did it the right way.
I do think you have a point about reducing bureaucracy and we should probably have a discussion about that. I just don’t think the way to go is to have an Assembly where the only requirement is to cast a vote every 3 months and do absolutely nothing else, and still get to vote on important bills if they so choose.
Yes, thank you. I was incorporating preferences that had been expressed in earlier debates but I wholeheartedly agree that the Court as a matter of both law and principle should be able to review anything within its jurisdiction, though perhaps a discussion could be had about the scope of that review.
As I said in response to the previous Kris/Henn omnibus, I would like a line included which defines the Delegate as voting and approving in accordance with the direction of the Prime Minister.
Extremely small, but there’s a numbering error starting here. It should be “5”.
My concerns that I expressed on the Henn/Kris omnibus still apply about giving the authority for voter registration processing to the Security Council. They would be slightly mitigated if greater accountability measures for the Security Council were to be implemented (as discussed below). I’ll answer the responses given in that thread:
The current Legislator Committee Act includes a provision that allows the CRS to reject an applicant who is a threat to regional security. We could include a similar provision.
I find this highly unlikely given structural activity levels on the CRS.
I realize we have had this debate many times, but I personally would prefer to move to instant runoff voting for all positions/elections, and that would include this. The top two candidates can still be identified before moving to the on-site voting round.
I would prefer in final reconciliation that we note the preference of GC members for a General Corps-led military rather than a Prime Minister-led military in the two competing versions of the Defense Act that were voted on.
I would like to propose two additional clauses to this article of the Regional Security Act:
(4) The Council will select from among its members a Chair who will be primarily responsible for overseeing the business of the Council, communicating with other branches of government and the public, and overseeing any programs to promote endorsements for officials trusted to maintain higher endorsements. The Assembly will be notified upon the election of a new Chair. The current Delegate may not serve as Chair.
(5) On July 1, the presiding officer of the Assembly shall initiate a retention vote for each member of the Council. If the Assembly does not vote in favor of retention of a Councillor by a simple majority, they will be removed from the Security Council.
The first clause is important because it establishes accountability for who on the Council has the authority to speak for the Council and is responsible for overseeing one of the core functions of the Council (endorsement promotion) which has recently been neglected. Establishing an accountable official for these core functions will help ensure they are accomplished.
The second clause is important for further accountability. If members of the Council have lost the confidence of a majority of the region, then they aren’t reliable and cannot be trusted to maintain regional security. Meeting this incredibly low threshold should not be difficult for any active and engaged members of the Council.
I don’t think we should prohibit communications which criticize allies of the Coalition as there are times where the government is consciously issuing statements against actions by an ally (our spat with TNP over quorum raiding comes to mind)
I disagree with the portion of this clause requiring Security Council approval to ban a nation that is not a low influence nation. If a nation is subject to a moderation (OOC) ban, the Security Council (IC) has no role in determining that ban’s ability to be executed.
I agree with previously expressed concerns about the role of the Dean of the Assembly. The position seems unaccountable, unnecessary, and like its responsibilities can be carried out by other officials.
I’m unsure whether this has already been suggested, but potentially the existing office of the Clerk of the Assembly could be given further powers and functions that allow for the position to administer the Assembly, as acting Presiding Officer during elections for Chair and other Assembly officers. Maybe the Clerk could be assigned other responsibilities too by the incumbent Chair, if they were willing that is.
The Clerk could potentially be elected by the Assembly or appointed by the Chair at the start of a person’s tenure all the way until they leave office? This is just a thought after all.
I haven’t been as active in the Great Council recently as I would liked to have been, however, I do believe that ProfessorHenn’s amendment to the Charter eliminated regular Chair elections. Now of course, in the case of a resignation, a loss of status, or any other thing that would remove the Chair from office, an election would occur.
Usually, in real life, I actually do support a larger government system but then again we’re in a online political simulator. I know that the Chair can appoint as many deputies as they please, but I don’t think that the Clerk of the Assembly is needed. If I remember correctly, I was told that the Clerk was originally established under Cryo as an administrator and publisher of some Assembly journal which to my knowledge is now defunct.
So why do we even need this special position called a “clerk” after all? Why should it be given these special powers ever since when it’s been more of a name and less than an actual political office?
It was just a simple suggestion, I like to seem my statement as a way of gathering some opinions from other Great Council members. Tbh, you are correct in saying that the current roles of the Clerk as previously outlined and stated, are now defunct.
I see that it was a suggestion. I’d like to hear @Jebediah’s thoughts about this are because, well, they are the actual Clerk of the Assembly or whatever it is really.
I will be away from home until the next weekend, so my ability to respond to posts will be limited until then. Please know that I am not ignoring anyone’s questions or comments.
That title was only really a name for the person who managed the Journal. It doesn’t really exist any more, nor would it need to exist any more unless we need another position for which the title would make sense.
Would you support BlockBuster’s suggestion of giving the Clerk special powers? Or keep it as a “de facto” Deputy Chair? For me, I don’t really see the need for more than one deputy but then again I’m not the Chair and that is their respective decision.
I don’t really care about Jebediah’s response. It’s exceptionally obvious the Clerk is just not doing anything right now. Even if Clerk Jebediah was running the entire Assembly, it would not merit legislative establishment of the position.
I have added a provision that clarifies that the Delegate should vote as directed by the Prime Minister or, in the absence of clear direction, as prescribed by law.
Thank you. This has been adjusted.
I think any further discussion on this would depend on a discussion on how we approach regional security (see below).
I do not have a preference either way, in fact I had simply borrowed the system laid out in the current Elections Act. I have adjusted the Voting Act to reflect the use of IRV across the board.
I feel very strongly that the military is exactly like all other ministries in that it should be led by, and respond to, civilian authorities. I am not fundamentally opposed to the idea of a senior command, but the Prime Minister should as a matter of course retain final authority on military policy. Perhaps we could have a discussion and see how we could find some compromise language on this issue?
Perhaps we should have a discussion about how we see regional security and what role each government institution plays in that process. I get the impression that the current arrangement merges two roles -(i) elder figures who should lead the response to a coup or invasion, (ii) endorsement promotion and oversight- that maybe do not need to be merged.
This has been adjusted.
Much like the use of approval voting to elect the Delegate, this was copied from current law without much thought. This has been adjusted.
I mentioned this in a prior post, but I will restate that the intention, after I find a suitable language, is to remove the provision that has the Dean succeed the Chair during vacancies and keep their duties limited to presiding over the vote to elect the Chair. I want to clarify that I envision this being quite similar to an appointment vote, rather than a full election, so the Dean would play an administrative and ceremonial role rather than any policy role.
We have already had a discussion over this issue, one of the most elaborate of the entire Great Council. What way of potentially addressing this question do you feel was unaddressed in that discussion or the subsequent competingvotes about possible structures for the military?
I believe that the two changes I propose here are important regardless.
If the SC are solely elder figures within the region, it is still important that they remain engaged and active enough to maintain the trust of the region. Is someone really an elder figure for the region if they are so disengaged that most members of the Assembly have never spoken to them or even seen them speak? Is someone really trusted to handle security issues if they demonstrate not a single iota of knowledge about the current security environment?
If the SC are solely endorsement holders, it is important that they actually do that, and annual “confirmation votes” by the Assembly would further serve that purpose.
I have made it abundantly clear multiple times that civilian leadership over the military is something that as far as I’m concerned is not up for discussion. We can discuss compromise solutions where senior commanders are appointed to provide experienced leadership and support, or some other arrangement that addresses any concerns that may be had, but final authority should always remain with the Prime Minister as the elected chief executive.
I disagree that micromanaging the Security Council is important. We can outline the tasks that they should be expected to do (communicating with other branches, overseeing endorsement projects, etc.), that much is reasonable. Mandating that they elect a presiding officer, specifying who can and cannot serve as such, is an exercise in micromanagement and futility. We should give the Council its duties and allow them to determine how best to perform them.
I disagree with the concept of reconfirmation votes. If we think that we need reconfirmation votes for a position then in all likelihood legislators would not have sufficient access or knowledge to adequately judge if the official should be reconfirmed, which would turn the process into a popularity contest. If we truly want to ensure that officials stay engaged and also continue to meet their duties, then a more suitable solution would be to have appointments be for a specific term, that way those who did well and are still up to the task, as judged by whichever authority is in charge of making nominations, can be nominated for another term.
The Chair of the Assembly is the presiding officer of the legislature, elected by its own members to manage its own procedures. It is not an office elected by the region at large, so the vote should be no different, as far as the administrative aspect of it goes, than the vote held for Justice or General appointments in the sense that a debate would be held for a few days and then a vote would be opened in the Voting Floor.
