| Proposed Change to Article 3.9 of the Code of Law |
Honestly, the SPSF review process is broken. No one really cares anymore and certainly no one wants to take the time to write a new resolution every couple month.
As such, I'd like us to change Article 3, Section 9 of the Code of Law to the following: Quote:9. During the month of July, November, and March, the Minister of the Army will present the Assembly with a review of the SPSF's development, activity and leadership. Assembly members will be able to offer comments, feedback and suggestions for future reform. This rewrite will still require the MoA to present a report to the Assembly — and allow the Assembly to discuss — but will not require a vote. This is more streamlined and still achieve the same goals. If the Army is inactive, as was the original idea of the clause, we would need to have a separate vote, anyhow. This takes out an intermediate step.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
Full support
Having been a Chair during both the ones we've done, I despise the SPSF reviews.
I like knowing what the SPSF has been up to. Especially since it's been the most active is ever been. But we don't need to vote on/approve it.
This resolution had my full support. Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011 One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium
As a quick follow-up, to RT, I really like the SPSF reports, too. I think they're helpful and I like to know what's going on. My issue is solely with the expectation of the Assembly to write a a separate report and I hope this proposal can keep the good while getting rid of the bad.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
Seems to me if the charter was amended that every cabinet officer needed to issue a state affairs report it once or so a term that didn't need any vote or anything it would be easier and fairer. Still not so sure why the SPSF needs to account for itself so much
Hm, QD raises a fair point.
We've discussed this at several different times, but I'm not sure we need to codify everything here. The SPSF is less public than the rest of the departments.
The RA is clearly public and the FA is often voted on by the Assembly. The SPSF really has no other oversight than elections.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
The nature of the R/D game play makes the need for it to be secret. Can't go out anouncing we're doing a liberation/raid tonight of region X. And we dont get status repost form the MoFA stating "We're talking with" or the MoRA with "We're playing having this activity" Or the Delegate with "I'm thinking of". Just saying.
There's a Worlds Fair underway and not a word, or even an effort to set up our booth and no one is hounding. Just wonder what the big deal is.
(12-06-2015, 07:36 PM)QuietDad Wrote: The nature of the R/D game play makes the need for it to be secret. Can't go out anouncing we're doing a liberation/raid tonight of region X. And we dont get status repost form the MoFA stating "We're talking with" or the MoRA with "We're playing having this activity" Or the Delegate with "I'm thinking of". Just saying. QD — this generally misses my point. I'm not saying that the SPSF shouldn't be secretive, but that makes Assembly reporting more important after the fact. If you're interested in the World's Fair situation, that seems like a different topic — and one that should be brought up with the Cabinet. Not exactly something we need to change the Code of Law over.
-tsunamy
[forum admin] |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
POSITIONS! POSITIONS, EVERYONE!!
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |