| [Debate] Splitting RA Round 2 |
So, I want to jump in here since -- from all signals I'm getting I started this fire storm, but don't feel like digging through it's rubble.
First, to Jay's point of an alternate proposal, there's no need to to assume this is a done deal or resignation that a spilt is going to happen. When we have debates like this, we need to ask why the proposal is being made and what it hopes to accomplish and all that jazz. If it's not needed, etc., etc., that's the terrain we should be discussing. The last time we had this debate, Aggie noted that this isn't likely to increase participation — which is essentially what Jay said. So, the question becomes why are we doing this? (Answer: I'm not sure we should be.) Second, and I apologize if I somehow misread or contributed to this, but those of you who work in RA should be in this thread expressing yourselves ... as it seems you're now doing? I'll be honest is that I was particularly annoyed with Jay raising concerns on behalf of the unnamed "senior staff" as though you don't have a voice or desperately need to be protect from the rest of the region! Here's the thing: Everyone values you, your work and sees the importance of what RA does. That's why we're having these discussions. If people didn't see it as important, we've never bring it up. That said, you're also part of the Assembly. You should be here expressing your opinions here; we want you here expressing those opinions. That is what the Assembly is here for. You shouldn't feel the need to hide behind the minister or stick to some chain of command. That's not how TSP has ever worked nor should it work that way. We want to do things out in the open and welcome everyone into the decision making processes.
-tsunamy
[forum admin] (04-29-2020, 09:30 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: Second, and I apologize if I somehow misread or contributed to this, but those of you who work in RA should be in this thread expressing yourselves ... as it seems you're now doing? I'll be honest is that I was particularly annoyed with Jay raising concerns on behalf of the unnamed "senior staff" as though you don't have a voice or desperately need to be protect from the rest of the region! (04-29-2020, 09:30 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: You shouldn't feel the need to hide behind the minister or stick to some chain of command. That's not how TSP has ever worked nor should it work that way. We want to do things out in the open and welcome everyone into the decision making processes. I would like to apologise for my interjection, however, I am under the impression that the Minister posted whatever he did on his own volition, and I belive that my colleagues did not exlpicitly request or coerce him into posting anything that he would not like to do. His post came shortly after an amicable conversation with the Minister, and I for one did not expect the minister to post anything following said conversation. Aga/Eunopiar
Mostly does boring things.
(04-29-2020, 04:00 PM)Ski Slopes of Agalaesia Wrote:(04-29-2020, 09:30 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: Second, and I apologize if I somehow misread or contributed to this, but those of you who work in RA should be in this thread expressing yourselves ... as it seems you're now doing? I'll be honest is that I was particularly annoyed with Jay raising concerns on behalf of the unnamed "senior staff" as though you don't have a voice or desperately need to be protect from the rest of the region!(04-29-2020, 09:30 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: You shouldn't feel the need to hide behind the minister or stick to some chain of command. That's not how TSP has ever worked nor should it work that way. We want to do things out in the open and welcome everyone into the decision making processes. I appreciate this. And, again, I apologize if I jumped the gun here. I didn't mean to imply Jay was doing anything he didn't want to to. I suspect he saw the people he worked with upset and, as a good minister would do, attempt to help and speak for those he's working with. My comments earlier were especially in response to Rose feeling uncomfortable here because that's certainly not what we want. After chatting today on Discord, I don't know how to make this feels less charged. But, I do think it's important to note there's a distinction between MoRA, the ministry, and the follows and officials who work within the ministry. And, throughout this debate the two have gotten conflated in ways that have seemed personal — on both sides of the debate. I'll see myself out here because I've done enough damage, but I do want to reiterate, that while I'm always open to entertaining new directions and changes in the region, I don't think breaking up RA is needed nor is it likely to result in increased activity as we're hoping.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
At this point, we all have feelings that we want this debate to end. It's degenerated down to petty dismissals, miscommunication, and nonconstructive arguments made just for the sake of arguing.
Local Councillor (3/15/20 - 6/23/20)
Deputy Minister of Educational Affairs (2/19/20 - 4/9/20) Senior Fellow of Integration (12/20/20 - 2/19/20) Fellow (1/12/19 - ~10/14/20) Ambassador to Osiris and TWP (4/3/20 - 7/8/20) Legislator (1/19/19 - 11/1/21) Chair of the Assembly (6/23/20 - 9/3/20) Secretary of State (7/8/20 - 2/4/21 | 6/14/21 - 11/1/21) Deputy of Media (2/14/21 - 11/1/21) Ambassador to TNP and Lazarus (6/14/21 - 10/22/21) MoE Leadership (10/14/20 - 11/1/21) (04-29-2020, 04:57 PM)Rabbitz Wrote: At this point, we all have feelings that we want this debate to end. It's degenerated down to petty dismissals, miscommunication, and nonconstructive arguments made just for the sake of arguing. Yes, I want the current debate to end. I do not want to make the entire topic a taboo, though. ![[Image: AfI6yZX.png]](https://i.imgur.com/AfI6yZX.png){kind=small} ~ Aumeltopia ~
Reflections on the Structural Balance of the Government
There was admittedly some hesitation as whether or not this piece should be written. However, upon reflecting on the current debate, we feel that it is desirable if not necessary to be very clear on what we assert to be our primary motivation for government reform: structural balance. It is not a question of personal competencies in the Ministry of Regional Affairs or of its activity. If we consider the main areas of a typical NationStates executive government (separate from that of the legislature and the judiciary), players would most likely identify foreign relations, military affairs, integration, events, communication, and perhaps education. These are the focal points of a region which most players would engage with in their time here. As it currently stands, our executive composition is not reflective of this reality. Rather, we maintain ministerial portfolios for foreign and military affairs but have amalgamated similarly critical areas into one mega-ministry. In so doing, we have inadvertently created an unnecessarily large vertical and unequal hierarchy in the executive government which spans some several layers when it could very well be more horizontal and balanced. ![[Image: oAEwaET.png]](https://i.imgur.com/oAEwaET.png) Proponents for a mega-ministry argue that their areas are related; that an integration portfolio would be unable to educate a new player without some mention of culture and events, and that as such, these should be intertwined with one another in a large portfolio. It is not an unreasonable argument but it severely undervalues the potential of Cabinet as a decision-making body, and more importantly, the role of the Prime Minister. As the above graph shows, currently and no doubt inadvertently, there is a whole bureaucracy which exist separately from Cabinet — the Minister of Regional Affairs is in a position similar to that of the Prime Minister in coordinating these portfolios. As two former Prime Ministers, we say from personal experience that our roles were therefore more focused on foreign affairs issues and, where necessary, to the military. Overall, we feel a split ministry would create a more balanced, more logical and more aesthetically pleasing cabinet structure, better placed to serve the region and work together to produce solutions for the future. Signed, Amerion and Seraph
First off, I would like to associate myself with the comments made by the two former Prime Ministers. While I have not had the privilege serving as head of government for the Coalition, I nonetheless agree with their analysis and am glad to see them present that side of the pro-split beliefs in such a concise way.
Largely speaking, I am in favor of the proposed split put forward by the Ministry leadership and I am glad to see they brought their proposal to the Assembly with all due haste. I would be curious to know which specific members of the leadership are in favor of this proposal as I believe that transparency to be important to our legislative process. Simply saying the Senior Fellows, Deputy Ministers, and Advisory Council gave their support is in no way specific as there could be a significant minority who are opposed. I would like to provide the following critiques of the policy presented: 1. Section 2 of Article VI must also be amended. 2. I remain staunchly opposed to continuing to use the name "Ministry of Regional Affairs". I have detailed this position before and would appreciate hearing why the proponents of this proposal believe in leaving the name intact even with all the connotations already surrounding that name in our regional vernacular. Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been What's Next? CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021 (05-01-2020, 02:29 PM)Omega Wrote: Largely speaking, I am in favor of the proposed split put forward by the Ministry leadership and I am glad to see they brought their proposal to the Assembly with all due haste. I would be curious to know which specific members of the leadership are in favor of this proposal as I believe that transparency to be important to our legislative process. Revisions will be made based on the first point: On the second point, we do not see it necessary to rename a ministry that has stood for nearly nine years. In this proposal, Integration could be removed from the mandate of the Ministry of Regional Affairs, but the original ministry will continue to exist under a revised mandate. On the matter of senior leadership being in favor of the alternative amendment proposal, it must be made clear that some are not in favor of the amendment per se, but believe that such an amendment is favorable to other proposals. However, as indicated in the letter, the senior leadership of the Ministry wish to have a substantive and productive discussion on the merits and flaws of dividing the mandate of the Ministry before committing to a vote on the alternative amendment proposal.
Beyond what has been discussed over some two to perhaps three dozen pages of debate on this issue, is there anything which has not already been noted about the merits of a split?
|
![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
![[Image: fKnK6O4.png]](https://i.imgur.com/fKnK6O4.png){kind=small}
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Visual text| Users browsing this thread: |
| 7 Guest(s) |