To be fair, I do think the Assembly tends to rubberstamp appointments. I don't mean to imply that the Cabinet somehow nominates unqualified individuals and expects them to be confirmed without any accountability; on the contrary, I think the Cabinet does nominate qualified individuals whose records speak for themselves. That said, I think the Assembly does have an issue of precisely letting a nominee's record speak for itself, rather than at least trying to question the nominee and playing a more active role beyond the typical "full support" post, even if for the sake of playing out its role as a legislative body. This is, of course, more of a community issue than a Cabinet one, and I don't think amending the Sunshine Act would do anything to do to address it, but I think the concern that nominations are "rubberstamped" does have a basis in reality.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

(This post was last modified: 03-24-2022, 10:39 AM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

It is kept in the dark because those elected by it doesn't trust the Assembly.

I can assure you that any percieved trust issues that you believe exists between the Cabinet and the Assembly are completely unfounded. Previous Cabinets have consistently kept this august body informed on ongoing diplomatic discussions with other regions. You're utilizing a set of extraordinarily unprecedented circumstances that no one could've foreseen to make your point, which doesn't exactly lend credence to your argument that the Cabinet is inherently secretive in nature.

Assembly kept in the dark so all it does is rubberstamp whatever the Cabinet puts in front of it.

I find it offensive that you would suggest that our Assembly is merely here for rubber-stamping things that the Cabinet puts forth, when the reality is probably the farthest from it. Several of the threads that I've linked above has prominent, outspoken Legislators object to various points put forward by the Cabinet and several previous Cabinets have faced heavy criticism for the things they did while in office. That doesn't sound like the Assembly is merely rubber-stamping whatever the Cabinet puts foward; the exact opposite actually.

 

To be fair, I do think the Assembly tends to rubberstamp appointments. I don't mean to imply that the Cabinet somehow nominates unqualified individuals and expects them to be confirmed without any accountability; on the contrary, I think the Cabinet does nominate qualified individuals whose records speak for themselves. That said, I think the Assembly does have an issue of precisely letting a nominee's record speak for itself, rather than at least trying to question the nominee and playing a more active role beyond the typical "full support" post, even if for the sake of playing out its role as a legislative body. This is, of course, more of a community issue than a Cabinet one, and I don't think amending the Sunshine Act would do anything to do to address it, but I think the concern that nominations are "rubberstamped" does have a basis in reality.

I do not argue that the Assemblies inclination of going ahead with whatever the Cabinet is saying is the sole fault of the Cabinet even if the Cabinet tends to keep the Assembly in the dark. This body must indeed look inwards to see the reasons why the legislative branch is not as heavily involved as it perhaps should be on policy effecting both the region and our foreign affairs. Further, my observations are not solely based on the nominations the Cabinet puts forward before the Assembly, but what Cabinet does in general and the reaction, or lack thereof, of the Assembly.

The extraordinarily unprecedented circumstances that you mention that I am trying so hard to lend credence to my arguments were initiated nearly a year ago, according to you. It has been made available to the public five months ago by one of its signatories. And the Cabinet found no reason to inform the Assembly until it was shared within #legislator-lounge on the 19th.

And I find that offensive.

(This post was last modified: 04-03-2022, 01:23 PM by LFP.)

Reply

The extraordinarily unprecedented circumstances that you mention that I am trying so hard to lend credence to my arguments were initiated nearly a year ago, according to you. It has been made available to the public five months ago by one of its signatories. And the Cabinet found no reason to inform the Assembly until it was shared within #legislator-lounge on the 19th.

And I find that offensive.

Once again, extraordinarily unprecedented circumstances that I sought to rectify immediately upon taking office. My predecessors have laid their reasons behind keeping this under wraps for so long and while I can't really agree with what they did, I understand where they're coming from. Is this something worth setting strict restrictions on us without considering the relevant context behind? No, it's really not.

I'll oppose any amendments to the Sunshine Act as long as it includes shortening the requisite time period for releasing logs. Two months is not nearly enough time for a sensitive issue to lose its criticality like Kris said, not to mention that the unnecessary burden that would be imposed upon a new Cabinet's shoulders to focus on making antiquated discussions public instead of dealing with more pressing issues.

I would be much more amenable to the creation of a seperate, Assembly-appointed position that deals with the release of discussions in collaboration with the Prime Minister and makes sure on behalf of this body that our executive branch is not engaging in actions that goes against the interests of this region, if we're so concerned. That's much more preferable than setting hardbound mandates on the already-limited operational capabilities of the Cabinet.

(This post was last modified: 03-29-2022, 08:37 AM by Moon.)

Reply

We could add it to the Chair's duty or always make sure the the PM has a Deputy for this purpose. OR! the outgoing PM (if that is the case) gets put in the position to do this work.

This is Penguin!!
Nothing Gold Can Stay
Penguins shall one day rule the pie!
And by "pie", I mean "World"!!
Goddess Empress Queen Princess Lady of TSP 
Lilium Inter Spinas // Non timebo mala
I have done a lot of things in the Region in my History.
There's a list somewhere if you wanna go looking. 

Reply

I have been trying to find a way that would be a compromise without destroying the spirit of this amendment from my point of view for the last couple weeks and I have been able to find none. To elect another group of people to have access to the information the executive may deem private goes against the very reason why this amendment was authored. So does increasing the time between discussions and releases, both for (amended) Section 3 and Section 4. 

It is perhaps near impossible to both address the concerns of this bodies right to know what the executive branch is doing behind closed doors, and the executive branches need to keep information under wraps.  

Thus, I motion to move this amendment to a vote, with hopes of a second, by the Assembly for the legislators to decide either way.

Reply

I will be withdrawing my motion to vote as it has been two weeks and it has shown that the Assembly isn't in support of this amendment.

Reply

Personal Clarification and Observations. Amendment remains closed:

I fail to see the Main Cabinet being inactive or withholding information vital to the Assembly. In this including offices of the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Defense and their related offices and/or bodies.
I do believe that the temporary Cabinet positions, relating to matters of engagement and increasing participation, are not the most efficient. This is a judgement, not an observation, which I am making based on frequency of interaction via all 3 avenues (NS, Discord, Forums). However, this has been questioned and displayed already.
What I believe this Amendment completely missed is ironically stated in the closure:

I will be withdrawing my motion to vote as it has been two weeks and it has shown that the Assembly isn't in support of this amendment.

The Assembly is very static. Exhaustion, fear/lack of experience and confusion might explain this (in)action but it is not an excuse of it. Furthermore, discussions on how to take it out of inertia have all hit a brick wall. Nonetheless, I am informing LFP that I do agree with his observations but that I believe they are aimed at the wrong body.

The Orange Records | Viliakmon (Pacifica) | NationStates Account Main | Discord: genericsequencealias#0990

Reply