I wasn't involved in the discussions that created the set-up we have now, but I wonder what put all the disparate parts of the current ministry together?

Just looking at the archives, we have had this setup since at least 2014. 

(Apologies for the double post, but didn't want to try and edit my last post.)

To be clear, having this setup since 2014 is not the same and intentionally creating the ministry as is.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I haven't decided which way to vote.

On one hand, splitting the ministry would increase activity as more experienced people would join. On the other hand, a split would de-centralise fellows and agendas.

Aga/Eunopiar

Mostly does boring things.

Reply

Sorry for the double post, however, I feel like this is a suggestion that should not be missed.

What if the cabinet would appoint an Editor in Chief of TSJ to serve like the WA secretary, using an application based appointment system like the one for Justice Applications?

I don't think that media is active enough to warrant it's own ministry, and I think that it would have a natural home as a cabinet project.

Aga/Eunopiar

Mostly does boring things.

Reply

Here is our current draft:

Assembly Resolution on the Ministery of Regional Affairs
A resolution abolishing the Ministry of Regional Affairs and laying out the process for the election of successor Ministers for the June 2020 Elections

Whereas in dividing the Ministry or Regional Affairs the Assembly wishes to ensure continuity of governance, the Assembly

Resolves the following:

(1) Article VI of the Charter is to be amended as follows with the Chair of the Assembly empowered to make all changes to numbering as needed. This amendment to the charter is to come into effect at the conclusion of the term of the current cabinet following the next regularly scheduled Cabinet elections in June of 2020. The Amendment is as follows:


(2) The Cabinet will consist of ministers with the following portfolios: Foreign Affairs, Regional Affairs Culture, Integration, and Military Affairs.

...

Minister of Regional Affairs

(7) The Minister of Regional Affairs will be responsible for promoting regional and forum activity, integrating new players into the forums, organizing cultural events, and communicating with the world about the South Pacific’s activities.
Minister of Culture

(7) The Minister of Culture will be responsible for promoting regional and forum activity, organizing cultural events, and furthering the education of the members of the Coalition.

Minister of Integration

(8) The Minister of Integration will be responsible for integrating new players into the Coalition's government and community.

(2) In relation to Article 4.1 of the Elections Act, the offices of Minister of Integration and Minister of Culture are to be considered Cabinet offices while the office of Minister of Regional Affairs is to no longer be considered a Cabinet office. This change in interpretation of Cabinet Offices with respect to, and only respect to, the Elections Act will take effect at the commencement of the regularly scheduled June 2020 elections by the Election Commission.

(3) The Assembly, at the time of passage, expects the cabinet to form a department overseeing the publicly sponsored media outlets of the Coalition.

(4) Due to the change in the Charter, this resolution is to be considered a constitutional law.

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

 

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

(This post was last modified: 04-27-2020, 03:23 PM by Omega.)

Reply

I guess now's the time for the MoRA to share an actual opinion. I've put in place a system that drew from the previous proposed split and I have yet to see where this system gets us. I believe that we should spend the next term or two test running a MoRA where the deputies are in charge and the Minister is only there to give project approvals and appoint Senior Fellows based on the recommendation of Deputy Ministers. We should see how that works out before an actual split.

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

My History

(This post was last modified: 04-27-2020, 05:29 PM by Jay Coop.)

Reply

As long as only the minister is electorally accountable, I'm not sure that such a test will really yield any meaningful results.

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love.
Psalm 145: 8

Reply

I still think it would be better to put education under the Integration ministry since most of the job of the integration ministry is already educating newcomers. Further education of existing players would logically fall where the education would pf new people would exist to keep all education together.

-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

If we move forward with this, I think we should have a sunset provision in place so that we can assess how the split is doing sometime down the road. I just don't want this to set in stone if we determine that it's not working out. By all means, I'm supportive of *a* split, but we need to make sure we're doing it right.

Edit: If we go with the currently proposed split, I think we should go with "Ministry of Cultural Affairs" and "Ministry of Educational Affairs" as the names, which was the most supported split proposal in the previous debate iirc.

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

My History

(This post was last modified: 04-27-2020, 06:59 PM by Jay Coop.)

Reply

I say we get it over with and just do it!

Perhaps inserting a sunset clause effective 1 year after the first election the ministry is split, if we don't like it after 3 terms we can bring it back together with a simple vote.

 

If we move forward with this, I think we should have a sunset provision in place so that we can assess how the split is doing sometime down the road. I just don't want this to set in stone if we determine that it's not working out. By all means, I'm supportive of *a* split, but we need to make sure we're doing it right.

Edit: If we go with the currently proposed split, I think we should go with "Ministry of Cultural Affairs" and "Ministry of Educational Affairs" as the names, which was the most supported split proposal in the previous debate iirc.

Funny you should mention that  
I support a codified sunset clause too!

-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

If we move forward with this, I think we should have a sunset provision in place so that we can assess how the split is doing sometime down the road. I just don't want this to set in stone if we determine that it's not working out. By all means, I'm supportive of *a* split, but we need to make sure we're doing it right.

Edit: If we go with the currently proposed split, I think we should go with "Ministry of Cultural Affairs" and "Ministry of Educational Affairs" as the names, which was the most supported split proposal in the previous debate iirc.

I strongly advice against any form of time limit. We will merge when we see it is needed. There is no cost related to removing stuff at any time. A time limit will give whoever lead the effort a very bad time, given that they will face significant scrutiny from anti-splitters. (the elected person either needs to be the best integration minister in this game or the split will undo since some pro-splitters and anti-splitters are placing their hope of “true activity” too high with a warped perspective.

Chief Supervising Armchair

(This post was last modified: 04-27-2020, 11:31 PM by USoVietnam.)

Reply