| [DEBATING] Ministry of Citizen Affairs |
Here is the deal. Don't define the WA thing in the bill. Just wait until we have a real WA ministry then we can do that.
Chief Supervising Armchair
First off - I think we need to be clear that there are two separate pieces of what we're talking about when we say "WA ministry", that often seem to get confused and put together: SWAN and related endorsement stuff (henceforth 'Endorsements') and GA voting recommendations/getting people to write resolutions (henceforth 'WA').
I'm not sure a full ministry, adding another member to the Cabinet, is the right way to go about this. As Belschaft pointed out, there's a lot of overlap with the mandate of MoRA and the Delegate. I'm also sympathetic to the idea that the Delegate should have some role in a WA body, seeing as they're the one voting ultimately-- but I'd really like it if the ultimate decider of the Delegate's vote remained the popular vote of the region (even if influenced by a recommendation dispatch or something). Encouraging people to get involved in writing resolutions (just like encouraging people to get involved in any other facet of the game - military GP, roleplay, etc.) can still fall under our integration agenda, which also would include Endorsements and the other integration stuff that's part of MoRA right now. However, even though there's substantial overlap with MoRA and Delegate, Endorsements and WA currently have no official management. Integration could do with some serious expansion and would do well to be tied into Endorsements more closely. So what I was thinking was that instead of a full-on Ministry, which might draw away from MoRA, we could have a sort of specialized "Citizen Engagement Agency" or "Bureau for Citizen Engagement". It could be hosted in the MoRA subforums/on the MoRA discord server or in a separate server, though either way it would probably take up several different channels - integration, Endorsements, WA recommendations, WA writing involvement, etc. I'm imagining that the agency would consist of (or be led by, however you want to look at it) the Delegate, Local Council, Minister of Regional Affairs, and a single Director to manage the whole thing (think Viet  ), plus all the other members who currently participate in #integration and #swan-lake or would apply to join just like a MoRA department. In the scenario that we pass the Security Reforms, it would probably also include the DC. The Director could be either appointed or elected; I don't have strong feelings on that. The agency would operate as something between a mini-ministry of its own and a highly formalized program.The basic reasoning for creating such a body that's not quite a department of another ministry but also not quite a full-fledged ministry on its own is that on the one hand, there are a bunch of offices that already cover parts of the areas that it would cover (offices which should still have some say over those areas), but on the other hand, at this point it's an important and big enough to be something more than just a ministry department. Thoughts? ![[Image: AfI6yZX.png]](https://i.imgur.com/AfI6yZX.png){kind=small} ~ Aumeltopia ~
I still think that the probably of something happening will increase if it's the majority of the mandate of an elected official, but I'm not opposed to your idea. Indeed, despite writing a basic draft, I'm not committed to any one course of action, I just wanted to get people drafting something.
Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond! Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi. Salma 145:8
I agree, but, the problem is that the newer sub-ministry, as I see it, would have little to no involvement within the MoRA, becoming like and operated like a fully fledged ministry, but possibly without any elected officials and without any clear mandate. It would not just become an agency, and I can see the nightmare of it spiralling towards inactivity down to a lack of structure. Having another cabinet member also isn't a good idea, as Somy and Belschaft pointed out.
Some SC resolutions also have much to do with foreign affairs, and may require FA specialization. I think we should have a Ministry of Integration, which expands on integration, does SWAN and NS integration and split WA resolutions up between MoRA and MoFA. Aga/Eunopiar
Mostly does boring things.
*wears my minister of Regional Affairs hat*
Somy's idea isnt terrible. I like the idea of a SWAN/MoRA/Delegate/CRS-lead (for lack of a better word) committee. Though, Im not sure what else, if anything, should be grouped into this. If we're going with a "Gameside Affairs" kinda mini-ministry, that could get confused with the LC.
"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011 One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium
(07-22-2019, 10:56 AM)Rebeltopia Wrote: I like the idea of a SWAN/MoRA/Delegate/CRS-lead (for lack of a better word) committee. If we’re going to go in the direction of a committee to lead something, why not go all the way, and make it like the US handles their committees? Have the Chair appoint a small number of Legislators to the World Assembly Committee, and charge the entity they serve on with the goals here: increased GA/SC participation, SWAN proliferation, resolution creation, and other -tions that would come into play. Every few months, rotate a single member out, or something to ensure that the committee isn’t entirely without a lack of knowledge in how to effectively carry out their duties, but does not grow old and stale with the same members. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ProfessorHenn
Legislator
Id see it run more like the Assembly - with a designated "leader" but all equals, and anyone who wants to get involved can. I'd hate to see a forced number, as thats not indicative of the amount of people who'd want to be involved.
"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011 One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium
(07-22-2019, 12:46 PM)ProfessorHenn Wrote:(07-22-2019, 10:56 AM)Rebeltopia Wrote: I like the idea of a SWAN/MoRA/Delegate/CRS-lead (for lack of a better word) committee. Any sort of committee which does executive work should be handled by the executive branch. The Chair or any body of legislators should have no business handling executive work. Anyway, the executive branch should create any sort of committee they like rather than depend on formalization by legislation whose end result is usually bad. Effective leadership of the MoRA is enough to complete the ambitious integration New Deal. When we have enough people who are specialized in integration and have too many big integration projects going on, we can create a separate ministry. On the WA thing, the best course is an informal WA department (which only does GA resolutions) hosted by the MoRA becomes a full ministry (which does GA and SC resolutions with an advisory purpose) if there are enough people. Also, I hope everyone realizes legislation =/= plans. Using legislation to create organization X doesn't mean X will do things magically without a plan (E.g. add SWAN into the Charter won't make it happens). You need people who can plan and can tell other people to work in order for something to happen.
Chief Supervising Armchair
|
![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
![[Image: fKnK6O4.png]](https://i.imgur.com/fKnK6O4.png){kind=small}
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
translate
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |