Here's a half-baked idea I've been kicking around in my head for a bit now.

The Assembly is simultaneously our legislature and our oversight/accountability body. Yet, right now it doesn't have individuals who fulfill any specialized tasks in any of those regards. There's no defined set of individuals who take charge of overseeing foreign affairs, or the SPSF, or gameside outreach, or the CRS, or LegComm, or really anything. It's all up to whatever can achieve all-of-Assembly attention, and the day to day of governance gets entirely lost.

My proposal is both simple and complicated at the same time. I'd like to give the Chair the power to form committees for different oversight or legislative purposes, and to appoint and dismiss members to them, which would have the initial/primary responsibility for their domains. Other Legislators would still be able to do things in the specified area (i.e., if I have a thought about Culture but I'm not on the Culture Committee, I can still post), but the people on the Committee would have the primary task/responsibility to address that area. They could even bring proposals or suggestions to the entire Assembly regarding that area and take special time to stay in contact with the relevant executive officials in charge of that area. If we care about public oversight, it might be good to have a few people on an SPSF committee who occasionally ask the Minister "hey, what was this op we did?" or "we noticed we didn't have as many updaters for this operation, what was up with that?", etc. It might be good to have a Culture committee that can say "why was X event not promoted on Y platform? How did you decide to schedule the events?", etc.

I'm not super attached to this idea, but it's been kicking in the back of my head for a bit now

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

Reply

I'd like to give the Chair the power to form committees for different oversight or legislative purposes, and to appoint and dismiss members to them, which would have the initial/primary responsibility for their domains.

Will be noted in the final draft concerning The Chair of the Assembly.

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

Reply

I'd prefer this be debated and discussed separately rather than as part of an omnibus "Chair reform". In my opinion, even though the concept assigns a responsibility/power to the Chair, it doesn't actually relate to a reform of the office of the Chair.

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

Reply

I have three arguments.
1. You've already rejected the idea to form Committees using the existing Political Party structure instead of addressing the Political Party Act itself. When I proposed a Committee for MSPRP community, you were against it.
2. If you're going to suggest something like this, do it on an existing thread which deals with all existing laws.
3. We'd... I'd prefer doing this with other legislators.

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

Reply

1. You've already rejected the idea to form Committees using the existing Political Party structure instead of addressing the Political Party Act itself. When I proposed a Committee for MSPRP community, you were against it.

Political parties aren't in use currently and don't seem likely to be in use for the foreseeable future, so the idea of creating a committee structure centered around them seems unproductive.

I don't recall a discussion of a Committee for MSPRP (what does that acronym stand for?). If it happened, I may have been against it based on how the proposal was structured. I'm more skeptical of legislating a specific committee into existence than I am of establishing the framework for a broader system of committees.
 

2. If you're going to suggest something like this, do it on an existing thread which deals with all existing laws.

The Great Council is an opportunity to re-evaluate all of the laws of the Coalition. Individual members of the GC don't get to dub their thread as the sole thread to discuss a component of government.
 

3. We'd... I'd prefer doing this with other legislators.

I understand we have not gotten along in the past, however I am being respectful and explaining my arguments regarding this. I request you do the same instead of being petty.

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

Reply

I understand we have not gotten along in the past, however I am being respectful and explaining my arguments regarding this. I request you do the same instead of being petty.

Ok, HS. Some people have started comparing us to Belschaft and Glen. So, I will comply. I suggest asking Kringle on Main Discord to merge the threads (as I will prioritize my own - since it's the basis of what you want), but do as you wish.
I will agree to a "tabula rasa" relationship in working on Committees and the Chair together as to avoid the ^above mentioned comparison.

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

Reply

I have always liked the idea of committees, but I just don't know how useful or active they would be. Though, I do think a standing committee on oversight and accountability would be cool.

-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

I have always liked the idea of committees, but I just don't know how useful or active they would be. Though, I do think a standing committee on oversight and accountability would be cool.

I've actually addressed this in the original PDF attached to the thread but didn't think people would take an interest in it. Anyway, referencing and outlining issues with the existing mechanism for this, Political Parties Act:

1. Defining Political Parties

(1) A political party is any group of people in the South Pacific, counting at least as many members as senior Cabinet officials, who organize together in an official association for political or electoral purposes.

(2) Associations for purposes other than politics, including satirical, social, or casual groups, do not qualify as political parties under this act.

2. Rights of Political Parties

(1) Political parties have the right to exist without undue government interference, per the freedom of assembly guaranteed in Article III of the Charter.

(2) Political parties have the right to engage in coordinated legislative and electoral efforts, without fear of reprisal from any government official.

(3) Political parties have the right to conduct business in private, without the arbitrary interference of the government or arbitrarily being compelled to publish private communications.

3. Benefits to Active Political Parties

(1) Political parties that maintain an accurate public membership roster, and field at least one member for public office in an election per year, qualify for a dedicated public and private subforum.

(2) Political parties may petition the Chair of the Assembly for approval for a subforum. The Chair of the Assembly will verify the qualifications of the party, and if the party meets those qualifications, notify the Off-Site Administration Team to create the party's dedicated subforums.

(3) Dedicated party subforums will consist of two parts--
a. a public subforum, where the party must pin an up to date version of its membership roster;
b. a password-protected subforum, which will have the necessary permissions to ensure non-members cannot read threads without authorization.

(4) All political party subforums are to be contained within a single catch-all forum designated for political parties in an appropriate forum section of the official offsite forums of the South Pacific.

(5) The subforums of political parties are to be sorted by order of registration.

4. Archival of Inactive Subforums

(1) The Off-Site Administration Team will non-destructively archive political party subforums if the requirements listed in Article 3 are no longer met.

(2) Inactive political parties may petition the Chair of the Assembly for revival of their archived subforums, under the same process outlined in Article 3.

---

-So, pretty much like, 5 members? How big is our current (active) legislator roster?
-Why do political parties, whose purpose is (I may be wrong) to represent the unrepresented, somehow hold an office once a year for the political party to be eligible?
-Again, needless responsibilities of the Chair.
-3 (3) is basically what the Assembly already does. Why should it do it separately for political parties?
-3 (4) and (5) are in that colour because there isn't a single active political party ATM.
-The last clause may be political catastrophic. It's genuinely dangerous to allow ancient-archived political organizations to revive. There should be a limit to this or they should need to register as a new party.

We can instead, replace this entire Act as it's never used, with an Assembly Commission Act, where the Legislators can form their own "Ministries", sort of like "Shadow Governments" in RL UK.

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

Reply

I’d rather see the Political Parties Act left alone (just in case it’s used in the future), and have a codified commission created under a new law.

I see what you are trying to do by treating a political party/commission as one in the same, but I think a commission/committee would need to have more stability and statutory basis that doesn’t change based on fluctuations in members.

-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

Since you've been around longer, have political parties actually been utilized (not including crisis/coup times such as 2016)?
We can keep it around if yes, but 4 (2) definitely needs a revision to it.

We can instead, replace this entire Act as it's never used, with an Assembly Commission Act, where the Legislators can form their own "Ministries", sort of like "Shadow Governments" in RL UK.

What do you think of this though? I can see a procedural issue with it - not a numerical one as some have pointed out (even if we had 40 legislators, ~10 could be in the cabinet and ~10 could be in the commissions).
Or are you more inclined to for Commissions to be representative of sub-communities of TSP?
Or something else? I'm interested

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

Reply