I think it's because you have two ideas of how cabinet should be run:

- Structured cabinet responsibility.
- Structured, individualised cabinet where nobody takes the responsibility for each other.

And you consider anything else but these two extremes to be "cabinet responsibility with the responsibility."

The best cabinets are the ones that meld those structures. We cooperate and work as a team, but we retain our individuality. Under structured cabinet responsibility, the result is groupthink, and under structured, individualised cabinets, the result is indecision and dysfunction. If you wanted to know how you could have improved as delegate in managing the cabinet, you should have asked Kringalia, who already ran a successful cabinet, as opposed to Raven. The system you're proposing won't work - plain and simple. It's a convenient model if you want to guard your mandate as a minister, but nothing gets done and the whole cabinet is plunged into chaos.

We needed more discussion, not less. 

I also don't think the major problem with the cabinet was ideological difficulties. Raven and I agreed on a great deal number of points and when I made suggestions, they were almost always incorporated into our region's foreign policy (i.e., TNP's treaty being redrafted, the Spiritus treaty). I think the problem was that you favoured Raven as a Minister and listened to him more than your other ministers - when they brought up problems, you did everything you could to dismiss their problems - and questioning their legitimate right to discuss those policy decisions was one of the ways in which you went about dismissing their opinion. 

(03-18-2015, 11:21 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: I'll be honest in that I dgaf why these fractures happened.

(03-18-2015, 01:47 PM)Unibot Wrote: I also don't think the major problem with the cabinet was ideological difficulties. Raven and I agreed on a great deal number of points and when I made suggestions, they were almost always incorporated into our region's foreign policy (i.e., TNP's treaty being redrafted, the Spiritus treaty). I think the problem was that you favoured Raven as a Minister and listened to him more than your other ministers - when they brought up problems, you did everything you could to dismiss their problems - and questioning their legitimate right to discuss those policy decisions was one of the ways in which you went about dismissing their opinion. 

Seriously, I'm pointing out how the Cabinet was unable to work together and how I don't what to be — or shouldn't be — the referee, and you're willing to criticize me as an unfair referee? That is absolutely ridiculous.

If it seemed like I "favored" Raven, it was because I felt the need to step in when I thought he was getting an raw shake from of members of the Cabinet.

You, personally, undermined Raven's foreign affairs from the get-go, arguing that anything that was done was undermining relations with our "defender allies" — despite every effort to renew relations with all of our allies.

Then, you undermined Crimson by publicly opposing and attacking his first mission. In case you missed it, I also took Crimson's side there.

With regard to the Spiritus treaty, I deferred to Raven as the person who was negotiating the treaty, but in almost all regards said I was open to changes.

What I've been trying to say is that I don't want to play referee and — much to my chagrin — I had to do it because one of the member of the Cabinet felt the need to bully others into submission.

Moreover, I listened to everyone — as I've always tried to do within the region — but some Cabinet members felt like I was "dismissing their opinion" when I didn't agree with them fully. Or, after hearing both sides, I suggested a course of action and was roundly shouted at for the decision. Unfortunately, there's not much I can do about that unless I, too, am expected to simply fall in line with the loudest members.

(03-18-2015, 02:34 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:

I am not sure what you are proposing then. You say that each Minister should have their area of responsibility and only in certain situations should the Cabinet act collectively. That is not a new concept, that is how all our Cabinets have always worked. That is how the Cabinet is supposed to work. However, it is also true that discussions and policy coordination can and should be discussed collectively, because in the end our executive is not a Delegate and his Ministers, it is one Cabinet led by the Delegate.

Having each Minister get unquestionable authority over their jurisdiction is not the right way to go, nor is it good to keep communication exclusively between the Delegate and each Minister. We had that this term, and it is plainly obvious it did not work. We need to have a balance of both, in that communication must be keep with the Delegate, but in the end the Cabinet has to be kept aware of what is going on. Our collective executive should remain collective.

(03-18-2015, 11:21 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: I'll be honest in that I dgaf why these fractures happened.

You should. If you are not interested in knowing why there were fractures in the Cabinet, then how can you say for sure that this or that method will solve the problem?

Kris — I'm saying it's not going to be a "delegate and his ministers." It's going to be "Is there a problem with regional affairs? Talk to Kris." I'd like to take me out of the equation.

Back to point about the causes of the fractures, we often get into a situation where we chalk up disagreements to "political ideologies" and suggest that people with opposing viewpoints aren't expected to act civilly toward each other. (Or ... that's just the way things are.) As such, I'm less interested in justifying the disagreements as much as I am finding a way to work with them.

Sorry for the several-time post here, but the more I think about it, the more I suppose I'm not getting my point across regarding the Cabinet communication.

What I envision is essentially, this:

Say ... the Minister of the Region would like to hold an event with Lazarus. Instead of coming to me and Pen, and then either individually or together we could to the Minister of Foreign Affairs to discuss such an possibility, the MoRA should go directly to the MoFA.

Likewise, if the MoFA has a treaty s/he would like to proposed instead of coming to me pushing for it, s/he should do directly to the Chair of the Assembly and say "I'd like to get a treaty with X." Then the Chair of the Assembly can say, "This is great," "This really sucks," "The Assembly probably won't OK it without ... these changes." 

The idea isn't that there needs to be more communication between myself and the ministers, but more between the ministers (and perhaps less with me).

While I disagree with Uni's point that I favored Raven, the fact that I got pulled into the fray makes such feeling possible. That is expressly not what I want. Moreover, since there are times when I get busy with RL issues, having all of the communication through me brings things to a standstill. By having of ministers work together more, things can get done with me.

I'm also not trying to blame anyone for the way it broke down this term ... and the above examples are purely fictional. I admit the culture was more-or-less my fault and something I wasn't really expected. But that's why we live and learn.

I agree with Tsunamy that cabinet decisions need to be civil and that it seems every delegate is plagued with issues when the cabinet is at each other's throats. I was only delegate once but I recall that cabinet members often over-stepped their bounds. Delegates sometimes spend more time trying to get cabinet members in accord rather then their personal goals promised in their campaign statements.

One thing I always liked was allowing cabinet members to post a "dissenting opinion" if they so chose if they didn't agree with a fellow cabinet member's decision. Of course this isn't the only solution.

I do think that Tsunamy's point that cabinet discussions need to be less hostile is an important one.

One thing that I would have changed about my own delegacy was the cabinet drama that sometimes overtook the actual making beautiful and enjoyable things for the people of the region.

The issue with that Escade is dissenting opinions undermine the department that issued the original statement or performed the original action.

Tsu I don't envy you one bit. Keeping the Ministers focused and not tearing each other apart is one of the most time consuming jobs a Delegate gets. Overall, I believe you have done a great job trying to do this. I hope for your sake that the new Cabinet is able to work better together.

(03-18-2015, 05:50 PM)Hileville Wrote: The issue with that Escade is dissenting opinions undermine the department that issued the original statement or performed the original action.

Tsu I don't envy you one bit.  Keeping the Ministers focused and not tearing each other apart is one of the most time consuming jobs a Delegate gets.  Overall, I believe you have done a great job trying to do this.  I hope for your sake that the new Cabinet is able to work better together.

Thanks Hile — it's much appreciated.

Having such strong and passionate individuals in the Cabinet is both a blessing and a curse. It's so great to have many competent and passionate people in the government and taking an interest in the region — we just have to make sure to find mutual ground.

I get seasick even looking at a picture of a boat (your signature does wonders there!) but I'm happy to keep sailing for another term towards tsu-pen-dousness. There had better be brightly coloured cocktails at the other end though!!

More seriously, I think the Great Council was a big success in encouraging participation and the overall direction you want to guide TSP in has been one I support.

Quote:However, we promise — if you give us your vote — that Pen and I will fight for the region in an open and transparent manner.

I think that answers my key concerns. Fight for that - and successful or not - I'll be happy.