• Delegate election process (does a forum-side and game-side round really add value?)
  
• Delegate term length (are 6 month terms and regular rotation really important for a job with so few responsibilities?)
  
• Local Council abolition and replacement
  
• Prime Minister appointment vs election of Ministers
  
• Whether Minister portfolios should be set by the Charter at all or if the Prime Minister and/or Cabinet collectively should have flexibility
  
• Citizenship reform (should we introduce WA requirements? alter activity requirements? change LegComm's structure/function?)
  
• CRS/Coral Guard reform - how is that going? We should review it again
  
• should the MoD remain a portfolio within the Cabinet or should SPSF be spun off as a Constitutionally independent organization?
  

We've seen debate on several of these issues already. Genuine question as someone who's never been through one of these things — how would a Great Council spur more debate and activity?

Granted, I've never seen one of these in action before as well, and the process will be different each time, but I see two areas:

First, a Great Council forces us to reach resolution to these topics instead of perpetually spinning our collective wheels about them and never reaching a resolution. The mandate to resolve the process of a Great Council and the Great Council forcing these topics to be moved to the "proposal" stage rather than a "I'm going to agitate about some stuff" stage are all important considerations in driving reform and discussion.

Second, the decision to call for a Great Council, by the current Prime Minister of the Coalition no less, will spur political energy, focus, and attention. The passage of a resolution to call a Great Council would also undercut the standard response that "no change is necessary". It would force the Assembly to reconcile with the very real structural problems we have running TSP in 2022 on the government model of TSP in 2016, which ordinarily there is no clear declaration of intent or political willpower for.

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

Reply

Appreciate HumanSanity's post above.  As someone who doesn't have the time, energy or desire to be greatly involved in TSP governance matters, I still lurk enough and have enjoyed being part of the discord community these past few months as a legislator.  I am your classic "under the radar" legislator who really doesn't create or drive any activity on my own, but will respond and do what I need to do in my current roles (right now as leg and CG).  So take what I say with a grain of salt as I'm certainly not volunteering for anything myself.  Just thought I'd speak up.

Anyways, as has been stated above, the main issues I'm seeing are:

1. A small (and shrinking) talent pool in the "next generation" to provide leadership and fresh energy
   
   1. The old guard is still present and with us for the most part and have good perspectives and knowledge, but cannot be counted on to lead us into the future
      
   2. Seemingly little desire for newer TSP members to step into government roles
      
2. An apathy in the wider region population
   
   1. Why should they get engaged?  What is the point?
      
3. A fundamental lack of understanding of TSP's identity as a region
   
   1. For a while, we've been known as the more inclusive, "fun", chill region.  How does this square with our new and renewed focus on championing the Defender cause?  Can we do both?  If we're not careful, we shall soon be known as the stodgy, boring region
      
   2. We seem to have a case of schizophrenia, not really sure of who we are as a region.  Hence, newbies don't really know the purpose of TSP and have no reason to stay engaged or in the region.
      

I think unless some of these core issues get debated, any structural changes will just be paint on a crumbling edifice.  I do think structural changes are needed (we over-complicate things some times I feel!), but we need to nail down our purpose as a region, clarify our vision and take steps to create a government structure that aligns with our stated purposes.  Once that's done, understand how we can drive engagement, genuinely grow excitement in our region and structure a leadership pipeline.  Let's step into a bold, bright future as a region that knows what it wants in life.

Land Without Shrimp

Reply

Haughtherlands is the elected Chair of this Assembly. I can't understand why someone else would need to be appointed to be the Chair if this Great Council is called. Further, someone holding both the Chief Justice and Chair positions is against the Elections Act. Sure, the law specifies 'Chair of the Assembly', and the Resolution mentions 'Chair of the Great Council' -- but they are effectively the same. You are not dissolving the Assembly, just temporarily changing its name.

(This post was last modified: 04-26-2022, 03:34 PM by LFP.)

Reply

I've seen some good points about having a Great Council, but the one below is not it.

should the MoD remain a portfolio within the Cabinet or should SPSF be spun off as a Constitutionally independent organization?

If you are suggesting that we go to the TRR way of doing things, I am vehemently against it. It is frustrating to work with TRR if it's something that blends FA and R/D because you have to talk to two people because of their separation of the RRA from the rest of the government. It's not something I would want us to replicate.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

(This post was last modified: 04-26-2022, 03:43 PM by Jay Coop.)

Reply

A brief note but if we're going to go through with this, "those holding valid legislator status on April 26, 2022" should probably be changed to the start or the end of the day, considering we now have these two applications accepted today.

Esfalsa | NationStates | Wiki | Roleplay | Discord

Reply

Haughtherlands is the elected Chair of this Assembly. I can't understand why someone else would need to be appointed to be the Chair if this Great Council is called. Further, someone holding both the Chief Justice and Chair positions is against the Elections Act. Sure, the law specifies 'Chair of the Assembly', and the Resolution mentions 'Chair of the Great Council' -- but they are effectively the same. You are not dissolving the Assembly, just temporarily changing its name.

First, the Assembly will still be its own entity while a GC would be in session. The GC is made up of participating members of the Assembly, while the Assembly itself gets a vote to adopt a proposed charter at the end. Second, the "Chair of the GC" is not an office under the Elections Act, which means that someone could hold it while also maintaining their other positions. Third, I wholeheartedly support Kris being Chair of the GC should we go through with this. He is a very neutral figure and understands regional history well. He can ensure that we don't go down too radical a path, while also ensuring that we are given proper advice on what has and hasn't worked before.
 

---

What if we were to, instead of doing a complete re-write of the laws, put in this resolution what we wanted to remain the same beforehand, that way we are only trying to fix what is truly in need of fixing rather than get sidetracked reinventing something that works well. I would be more inclined to support that version of a resolution, over a blanket reset.

One last thing, one large aspect of the GC resolution is the noted issues with the LC. Would it not be prudent to give the LC a chance to address its own issues that we compelled them to do not even five days ago. If the solution does not manifest, then we give the GC a harder look?

-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions
-Legislator 2/24/20-
-High Court Justice 6/7/20-
-South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20-
-Minister of Engagement 6/17/22-

-Past Roles/Positions
-Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18
-Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21
-Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17
-Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18
-Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17
-Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and  2/26/16-7/3/2016

Reply

Haughtherlands is the elected Chair of this Assembly. I can't understand why someone else would need to be appointed to be the Chair if this Great Council is called. Further, someone holding both the Chief Justice and Chair positions is against the Elections Act. Sure, the law specifies 'Chair of the Assembly', and the Resolution mentions 'Chair of the Great Council' -- but they are effectively the same. You are not dissolving the Assembly, just temporarily changing its name.

First, the Assembly will still be its own entity while a GC would be in session. The GC is made up of participating members of the Assembly, while the Assembly itself gets a vote to adopt a proposed charter at the end. Second, the "Chair of the GC" is not an office under the Elections Act, which means that someone could hold it while also maintaining their other positions. Third, I wholeheartedly support Kris being Chair of the GC should we go through with this. He is a very neutral figure and understands regional history well. He can ensure that we don't go down too radical a path, while also ensuring that we are given proper advice on what has and hasn't worked before.

Chair of the Great Council is not an office under the Elections Act because such an office does not exist in anywhere in our laws. 2015 and 2016 GCs had Chair of the Great Council established via procedural resolutions, while GCs previous to that seem to have Chair and Delegate sharing such responsibilities.

Further, the intent for the Elections Act is clear as its goal is to establish a firewall between Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the government. Whether it is the Great Council or not, the Assembly remains to be the legislative branch, and the Great Council is called in order to legislate. Kris is the head of the judicial branch in their role as the Chief Justice of the High Court.

That is a clear conflict.

Reply

That's like saying a legislature and a constituent assembly are one and the same, which they are not.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

Reply

Haughtherlands is the elected Chair of this Assembly. I can't understand why someone else would need to be appointed to be the Chair if this Great Council is called.

Two lines of thought went behind this;

• Kris is an experienced figure in this region, having been playing since 2013. He has been through at least two GCs during his time here and is aware of the work that goes behind organizing and running something huge like this. I thought it would be wise to get someone who has experienced previous GCs to conduct this whole thing instead of Cryo, who's been with us for a year I think? Same time I joined.
  
• Like Griffindor said, Kris is someone I feel is a well-respected and reasonable figure with a really deep understanding of our regional history. As such, he's uniquely qualified to ensure that we remain on a straightforward path and not do something crazy, as well as chime in with well-meaning advice at discussions on what has worked before and what hasn't.
  

 

Further, someone holding both the Chief Justice and Chair positions is against the Elections Act. Sure, the law specifies 'Chair of the Assembly', and the Resolution mentions 'Chair of the Great Council' -- but they are effectively the same. You are not dissolving the Assembly, just temporarily changing its name.

What.

Okay, let's clarify something here really quick. According to Section XIV of our Charter, which sets up a procedure for "constitutional conventions", the goal of a Great Council is "to rewrite all laws in their entirety, or establish a new state for the South Pacific". It's a constituional convention, a one-time special body formed by an Assembly resolution, a completely different thing than the Assembly. Yes, it's main constituents are those who hold legislator status in our region before a certain date, but that doesn't make this "Assembly with its name changed", like you're saying. We aren't going to be putting appointment motions or recall motions through a GC, we'll be putting those through the Assembly instead, which is ordered to continue function normally in the draft resolution. The Assembly itself isn't going anywhere and will continue to work as intended, we're instead creating another seperate body to discuss the problems we have and what solutions we can come up to solve those. The duties of a Chair of the Assembly and the duties of a Chair of the Great Council thus doesn't deal with even remotely the same subject matters, making the claim "they're both effectively the same", well, wrong.

This in no possible way breaches any of our laws, unless we take it by your interpretation, which is definitely not what it is.

Reply

That's like saying a legislature and a constituent assembly are one and the same, which they are not.

We are a direct democracy. Legislators are both the electorate and the members of the Assembly. There are no proxies or elected representatives that legislate on behalf of us. Additionally, all legislators are to be members of the Great Council. I think legislature-constituent assembly comparison is bit of a stretch. 
 

Haughtherlands is the elected Chair of this Assembly. I can't understand why someone else would need to be appointed to be the Chair if this Great Council is called.

Two lines of thought went behind this;

• Kris is an experienced figure in this region, having been playing since 2013. He has been through at least two GCs during his time here and is aware of the work that goes behind organizing and running something huge like this. I thought it would be wise to get someone who has experienced previous GCs to conduct this whole thing instead of Cryo, who's been with us for a year I think? Same time I joined.
  
• Like Griffindor said, Kris is someone I feel is a well-respected and reasonable figure with a really deep understanding of our regional history. As such, he's uniquely qualified to ensure that we remain on a straightforward path and not do something crazy, as well as chime in with well-meaning advice at discussions on what has worked before and what hasn't.
  

 

Further, someone holding both the Chief Justice and Chair positions is against the Elections Act. Sure, the law specifies 'Chair of the Assembly', and the Resolution mentions 'Chair of the Great Council' -- but they are effectively the same. You are not dissolving the Assembly, just temporarily changing its name.

What.

Okay, let's clarify something here really quick. According to Section XIV of our Charter, which sets up a procedure for "constitutional conventions", the goal of a Great Council is "to rewrite all laws in their entirety, or establish a new state for the South Pacific". It's a constituional convention, a one-time special body formed by an Assembly resolution, a completely different thing than the Assembly. Yes, it's main constituents are those who hold legislator status in our region before a certain date, but that doesn't make this "Assembly with its name changed", like you're saying. We aren't going to be putting appointment motions or recall motions through a GC, we'll be putting those through the Assembly instead, which is ordered to continue function normally in the draft resolution. The Assembly itself isn't going anywhere and will continue to work as intended, we're instead creating another seperate body to discuss the problems we have and what solutions we can come up to solve those. The duties of a Chair of the Assembly and the duties of a Chair of the Great Council thus doesn't deal with even remotely the same subject matters, making the claim "they're both effectively the same", well, wrong.

This in no possible way breaches any of our laws, unless we take it by your interpretation, which is definitely not what it is.

There are no arguments against Kris being a well-respected figure who has been part of this community for a very long time, holding a variety of positions including the Delegacy, and someone who has a deep understanding of the regions history. And whether he is the Chair or not, I am certain that he will offer his well-meaning advice at discussions, as well as his suggestions, along with all other legislators new and old-alike.

Point of my argument that you seem to so willingly ignore is that the Great Council is delegated with writing and re-writing our laws as you have mentioned with your quote of Section XIV of our Charter. It is legislative in its very nature. Kris, as the Chief Justice of the High Court, is the leader of the judiciary. This proposal will also appoint Kris as the Chair of the Great Council, the leader of this legislative proceedings, whether it is the Assembly, a subcommittee created within the Assembly, or as you claim it, an entirely different entity separate from the Assembly that is tasked with legislating and is compromised of all legislators but for some reason is not part of the Assembly. 

What happens if Chair of the Great Council Kris'es decision is taken to Chief Justice Kris'es High Court for a reason or another, either as a legal question or for review? What happens if the Court finds the filing not justiciable? Or judgement goes in favor of Kris. Or the decision needs to be appealed?

Would it be fair to put the judiciary in a position that their impartiality may potentially be questioned? Would it be sensible for the Great Council to draft laws for the next 'version' of the region under such circumstances?

Reply