After a discussion on one of the private channels of the MoRA, I'd like to share several concerns with the split that is currently proposed. First, one senior official shared with me that they feel like this split is being imposed by people outside of the ministry who are not currently involved in the ministry. Second, another senior official said that they are concerned that these successor ministries may discontinue projects that the MoRA are working on during this term. Third is the point that the opinions of officials within the ministry are not being adequately heard by the members of the Assembly. Fourth, it feels like this debate is being developed through majoritarianism and not consensus. I'm inclined to agree on a number of these concerns and I don't want this debate to continue if these opinions and concerns of people from MoRA are not adequately addressed.

(04-28-2020, 04:06 PM)Jay Coop Wrote: After a discussion on one of the private channels of the MoRA, I'd like to share several concerns with the split that is currently proposed. First, one senior official shared with me that they feel like this split is being imposed by people outside of the ministry who are not currently involved in the ministry. Second, another senior official said that they are concerned that these successor ministries may discontinue projects that the MoRA are working on during this term. Third is the point that the opinions of officials within the ministry are not being adequately heard by the members of the Assembly. Fourth, it feels like this debate is being developed through majoritarianism and not consensus. I'm inclined to agree on a number of these concerns and I don't want this debate to continue if these opinions and concerns of people from MoRA are not adequately addressed.

So, I'm going to be a bit blunt here, but these "criticisms" are ridiculous, Jay. And, feel free to pass these sentiments back everyone.

First, just because people don't "participate in the ministry" doesn't mean they don't have good ideas or won't be involved in the future. This is the equivalent of saying legislators shouldn't have a say on treaties or the workings of the SPSF. 

Second, MoRA projects shouldn't be lasting in perpetuity. Any minister should be able to discontinue them when they feel like it. If this is a legitimate fear then the project *should* be broken out of the ministry because it's clearly too important to be left up to the whims of any incoming minister.

Third, we've now had two substantive debates about this, so unless there's some brand new points someone wants to raise this is a non-starter. "Not being heard" is different than "not being listened to." 

Fourth, TSP is a democracy and runs on majoritarian rule. 

Considering this is now the second time these same arguments have been trotted out, either the work of the MoRA is incredibly vital to the region and, the region should have a hand in it, or it's unimportant and we don't need structures to protect it from any and all criticism. We can't have it both ways; Regional Affairs doesn't get to create a structure to shield from any outside input and expect its projects to run forever; that's literally the opposite of what we have going on here.

And, to be clear, as I mentioned I don't have a dog in the fight and would either abstain or vote against the current proposal since it doesn't really seem needed.

But, I'm really, really tired of these charges that anyone trying to change the structure of the government is doing something to mortally wound regional affairs. That's not how this region ever worked — nor should ever work — and there are plenty of regions out there where one can one if they want a structure that isn't accountable to the larger community.

(04-28-2020, 04:33 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: So, I'm going to be a bit blunt here, but these "criticisms" are ridiculous, Jay. And, feel free to pass these sentiments back everyone.

Your sentiments have been heard very loud and clear by the ministry leadership. Thank you very much. Precisely the kind of input we needed to come in good faith to the discussion table.

Yeah, those concerns leave me more concerned than I have been (and I have been, I've just not being saying much about it) that the Ministry is operating under a conservative model which sits apart from the Assembly and might shackle a future minister. I can understand why that model might have developed since my last time as Minister and that it may have done so with only the best of intentions (I believe the idea of continuity is an important part of that), but I'm worried that it might be time for the MoRA leadership to consider a serious review.

(04-28-2020, 04:44 PM)Seraph Wrote: Yeah, those concerns leave me more concerned than I have been (and I have been, I've just not being saying much about it) that the Ministry is operating under a conservative model which sits apart from the Assembly and might shackle a future minister. I can understand why that model might have developed since my last time as Minister and that it may have done so with only the best of intentions (I believe the idea of continuity is an important part of that), but I'm worried that it might be time for the MoRA leadership to consider a serious review.

The leadership isn't inherently opposed to the very idea of a split (individual members might, but that's a separate issue). Its concerns arise from the fact that the leadership feels the discussion is being imposed on them and that conclusions are being drawn without a prior conversation with them to see if common ground can be found. The result is they feel attacked and left out of the decision making process by people who don't necessarily have as much experience in the management aspects of the ministry as they do.

Is that a fair feeling? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't; that's for each person to decide. However, I would argue that the result is still the same: the Assembly makes a decision that the leadership feels is being imposed on them, which in turn results on a possible loss of talent in the succeeding ministries.

A much more productive way to go around things would've been for Omega or others to approach the minister, deputies and seniors, talk about our mutual concerns with how the ministry works and try to figure out a common solution. That solution might well have been a split, but at least this time, when the thread was finally posted, the debate would've started with the leadership being involved, listened to and feeling like there was a good faith effort to improve the RA infrastructure. As things stand the leadership simply doesn't feel like good faith exists.

Some may, and probably will, read this post and reply with a single sentence along the lines of how the leadership's concerns are ridiculous and that we've had our chance to participate in this thread. Maybe they're ridiculous, but they are its concerns and they deserve to be heard and received in good faith. Right now they aren't, not by everyone, and that creates resentment.

(04-28-2020, 04:33 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: ...

Okay, no. At no point did I say that the MoRA shouldn't be held accountable by the Assembly. That's ludicrous. Of course it should. The problem here is that senior MoRA officials feel like their opinions mean little to the Assembly at large in this debate and they should mean something.

Sure, any ministry has the right to discontinue projects, but I find it to be in the best interests of everyone that if someone in a ministry wishes to continue a particular project, any reasonable minister should allow that to happen.

I'd much rather split the MoRA based on consensus than a proposal that just barely gets through with 60% of the vote, especially if senior officials within the MoRA have serious concerns about the proposed structuring of the successor ministries. We have senior officials in the ministry who either leaning toward a split or supportive of one, but no one here seems interested in winning their votes for a split.

The MoRA is accountable to the Assembly, but the MoRA also have every right to be listened to by the Assembly, especially on a matter like this. We should be drafting a split proposal that wins the support of the minister, the deputy ministers, and the senior fellows, not draft a bill that goes without any of their support.

So, I'm drawing the line in the sand: if we can't draft a proposal that wins the support of several senior officials within MoRA, I'm not gonna support whatever proposal goes to vote.

I can understand where the feeling is coming from, but I don't think there should be a MoRA leadership outside of the constraints of a minister's term and given that any revision of the ministry would be intended to occur between terms, at which point many things are up for electoral negotiation anyway, nothing should be being imposed on anyone.

Any discussion of those revisions, other than those a minister can legally impose during the course of their term, should rightly happen in the Assembly first. Here is where any discussion can be had because changing a ministry affects the region and any one of us may choose to be involved, or not, in the future as they see fit.

Edit: I've said more than I really wanted to say and this kinda conflict id upsetting to me anyway, so I'm really going to try to butt out of this now.

(04-28-2020, 05:15 PM)Seraph Wrote: Any discussion of those revisions, other than those a minister can legally impose during the course of their term, should rightly happen in the Assembly first. Here is where any discussion can be had because changing a ministry affects the region and any one of us may choose to be involved, or not, in the future as they see fit.

With respect, we've tried to voice concerns respectfully. Jay, our Minister, posted a very civil paragraph where he summarised the concerns of deputies and seniors. The first response, which you have liked, was a former Delegate calling the concerns ridiculous and pretty much claiming that whatever decision that is made will be the result of majority imposition over careful consensus, contrary to longstanding Assembly precedent.

If whatever concern we have is treated like that, even when it's posted by the Minister, I have a hard time understanding how you expect anyone at MoRA to participate in this debate.

(04-28-2020, 05:10 PM)Jay Coop Wrote: So, I'm drawing the line in the sand: if we can't draft a proposal that wins the support of several senior officials within MoRA, I'm not gonna support whatever proposal goes to vote.

With all due respect, time and time again the majority of the leadership in the Ministry of Regional Affairs have said they would be opposed to any kind of a split, and have reaffirmed that they are not going to change that belief. This is a line in the sand you know can't be met and are just using it to shield yourself from criticism for a proposal you were one of the biggest advocates of. If this senior leadership is so concerned they should voice their opinions publicly as opposed to simply having their Minister do it for them. If they are afraid to share their opinions with their constituents, perhaps they need to reconsider their opinions or have some trust that their constituents want to hear from them. I for one would be very interested to hear from the MoRA leadership as opposed to them hiding from the Assembly in private discord chats.

Don't get me wrong, I understand why leadership would not want to reduce their own realm of authority. That is a human response after all. But I don't feel inclined to reach out to a Ministry who just blames its problems on inactivity and the fact fellows aren't as strong as they used to be. Perhaps if the Ministry had seriously looked at top-down reorganization, I would have felt like maybe I would find sympathetic voices in the Ministry leadership.

If someone can answer this question in an honest way I will be amazed: why should I have reached out to the leadership of a Ministry that every juncture has seemed to be revolted by the fact anyone would dare suggest a split could potentially do some good? Nothing would have come out that conversation that would have been substantive. You are being disingenuous to claim otherwise.

I am not opposed to any individual in the MoRA. I want to give them a Ministry in which they can succeed, and I think we have seen time and time again that the current system is not working.

(04-28-2020, 05:28 PM)Omega Wrote: If this senior leadership is so concerned they should voice their opinions publicly as opposed to simply having their Minister do it for them. If they are afraid to share their opinions with their constituents, perhaps they need to reconsider their opinions or have some trust that their constituents want to hear from them. I for one would be very interested to hear from the MoRA leadership as opposed to them hiding from the Assembly in private discord chats.

(04-28-2020, 05:25 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: If whatever concern we have is treated like that, even when it's posted by the Minister, I have a hard time understanding how you expect anyone at MoRA to participate in this debate.

(04-28-2020, 05:28 PM)Omega Wrote: I am not opposed to any individual in the MoRA. I want to give them a Ministry in which they can succeed, and I think we have seen time and time again that the current system is not working.

It's been made abundantly clear by our Minister that he and his deputies and fellows do not believe your proposal will achieve any of that. When the people in charge of enacting and working with whatever changes you make insist that this is not the right way to go, they should be listened to instead of ridiculed.