| [Discussion] Transparency and Community Building with Cabinet Appointments |
|
Now that I've been part of two processes (the LegCom and the AJ appointments), I would like to suggest we amend our laws so that the process is more public, transparent and also has a clearer time frame.
For example, what can be public in this process? The cabinet makes the application and questions public and allows legislators to apply\answer and post questions publicly. Then both the cabinet and fellow legislators engage in a civil discourse on any points or bring up follow up questions or hypothetical scenarios. Everyone knows I will ask, as a legislator or cabinet member, about past and contemporary experiences and what the player has contributed to the region. Others may have questions or interesting points that could help build the committee or give them fresh ideas or even potential interns to recruit. This would have a time frame, lets say of 1 week to apply, 1-2 weeks (the public discussion), and 1 week to make a final decision where the cabinet would present their choices along with some public reasoning as to why. Taking more than a month on this process seems a bit excessive. This would also help weed out candidates who don't reply in a timely frame, etc. This would involve the whole community and improves transparency. It also creates a sense of urgency. Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest
I'm not 100% certain if forcing such things to be public is a good idea (though the idea certainly is compelling). However, this fits with a general idea I've had for a while now, and that is that I'd like to be able to have hearings on the forum!
The idea is roughly this: There is a subforum for hearings, which contains further subforums for Room A, Room B, Room C, etc.. On demand, when a hearing is requested, the access permissions of those subforums are adjusted accordingly. For example, if Cabinet+Court decide to hold a public hearing on nominating MysteryPerson to the court, the mask would be read/write for Cabinet, Chief Justice, and MysteryPerson, and read-only for legislators. The drawbacks here is that it's quite annoying for administrators, almost prohibitively plus the question is then where the hearings are stored for posterity. So it's not a fully fleshed out idea. ![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
I honestly don’t see a reason why appointments to the judiciary shouldn’t always be done in public. There are no security concerns. The only concerns are political and social, and politics and personal relationships aren’t supposed to factor into judicial nominations. Doing it all in public would either ensure that the Cabinet and Chief Justice deliberate fairly and professionally, or it will expose when they don’t. That seems like two pluses to me.
I can tell you that my opinions would be expressed in vastly different, and vastly more dishonest, terms if discussions for nominations were held in public. I count on a private discussion with the Cabinet to express my opinions on each possible nominee with candor. That liberty is lost if everyone can see our discussions.
Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk 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
(05-07-2018, 09:03 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: I can tell you that my opinions would be expressed in vastly different, and vastly more dishonest, terms if discussions for nominations were held in public. I count on a private discussion with the Cabinet to express my opinions on each possible nominee with candor. That liberty is lost if everyone can see our discussions. Frankly, that sounds a lot like the second scenario in my last post. If the true reasons why you support or oppose a nomination need to be kept secret, to the point where you would offer up dishonest reasons in public, why isn't that something the Assembly should be massively concerned about?
I don't care about a potential nominee's politics. But if I feel they are unqualified, ignorant about the law or simply not fit for office, I want to be able to say that in unequivocal terms. That is easier to accomplish when the discussion is private.
There will also inevitably be a private equivalent to any public discussions, so you really wouldn't move the discussion to the public realm as much as you would create a second, less active discussion. Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk 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
(05-07-2018, 09:15 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: I don't care about a potential nominee's politics. But if I feel they are unqualified, ignorant about the law or simply not fit for office, I want to be able to say that in unequivocal terms. That is easier to accomplish when the discussion is private. Would the Assembly not be better served by knowing that the Chief Justice thinks somebody is unqualified, ignorant of the law, or not fit for office? Honestly, I get the desire to keep things secret. But the only reason for it is really that the things being said are things that would reflect poorly in public light. We keep the Cabinet channel logs secret because the way the sausage is made isn't pretty, but there's ultimately political accountability via elections, and the whole institution is about politics. We keep CRS logs secret because of the security implications, though I don't see any reason why application discussions need to be secret either. But court appointments aren't supposed to be political or personal, so there shouldn't be anything in the deliberations that the Cabinet or Chief Justice would be ashamed of or would reflect poorly in the Assembly. If your reasons for opposing somebody need to be kept secret, again to the point where you'd prefer to lie to the Assembly about them, doesn't that reflect very poorly on the way the Cabinet and Chief Justice are picking their nominees? We can't control the private thoughts you guys have, but we can ensure that the Cabinet and Chief Justice are conducting proper and professional deliberations when they shape an important branch of our government. If the public sees a hearing where a nominee has the credentials, shows a command of the law, and overall does very well objectively, but 3/5 officials vote against, that tells us that things not being brought up publicly have come into play. And if public hearings lead to the Cabinet and the Chief Justice feeling pressure to avoid saying things that would reflect poorly upon them, or obviously making their decision based on those things (rather than what came up in the hearings), that's an overall good for the region, isn't it? (05-07-2018, 09:15 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: There will also inevitably be a private equivalent to any public discussions, so you really wouldn't move the discussion to the public realm as much as you would create a second, less active discussion.So we prohibit secret discussions about it. If the Cabinet and Chief Justice still choose to bypass public discussion, that's their choice and reflects on them exactly what it should.
I don't think anyone is served by the Chief Justice saying that about a potential nominee so directly and publicly. Keep in mind that we consider people who may not be nominated in the end, and things may be said about them that aren't flattering, and may even be direct attacks on them.
I think the process is hopelessly politicised already, and I've absolutely hated every second of the discussions I had with the Cabinet, but based on how they went, I can see them going down much worse if they were public. I also don't feel comfortable with my thoughts on a future colleague being so openly distributed. If I have issues with them, I want the courtesy of sorting them out privately with them, rather than starting our working relationship on those terms. Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk 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
Perhaps we only publicize the discussion after a candidate has been decided on and brought to the assembly for confirmation. The discussions could be released in a separate thread visible only to legislators for the voters to mull over when deciding to vote yes or not. I feel this would be a good common ground that gives us the privacy we need during discussion while supplying legislators with the info they need to make an informed vote.
Greetings, I am The Serres Republic.
Currently 'The Future Greatest and Most Splendid General of All TSP.' I know you all look forward to when I complete my grand quest ;P. Official ‘Most Dedicated Raider’ in all of TSP. Look at me all evil and shtuff ;P Heck I was MoFA, Now Im PM. I must be loved owo
We should not release discussions at all.
Justices are subjected to the most thorough nomination process of any official in the Coalition. Once you see the survey questions and answers in Belschaft's thread, you will see that this process was not a mere discussion where we talk about how much we like or dislike each nominee. The Assembly also has an opportunity to question the nominee and have their own concerns addressed. If you, as a legislator, want to know more about a nominee, just ask them! Seriously. We don't nominate people so the Assembly will rubber stamp them. That's not the idea. When I was nominated, I faced some serious questioning from Glen, and even if I think some of his questions were beside the point, they were good because they allowed me to address some elephants in the room and to inform the Assembly about my adequacy for the Court. Glen had every right to ask me questions, and I had every duty to answer them to the best of my ability. This is how the process is supposed to work. Do you want to know more about what each individual Minister, or the Chief Justice, thinks? Go ahead and ask them. They'll answer, and it'll be all the better because we will create a culture of legislators asking questions to their officials, rather than forcing them to be less honest in their private deliberations. I'm happy to give a professional opinion on the pros and cons of a nominee. I'm not happy to risk having the Assembly see logs of me calling a nominee a dangerously ignorant person, or someone who will coup the region if given the chance. I'll have to work with them, if they are confirmed, and it doesn't do anyone good for our working relationship to start with those comments. Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk 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 |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |