| [Debate] Splitting RA Round 2 |
|
Howdy fellow Legislators,
It's time to split up the Ministry of Regional Affairs into two ministries: one to be called the Ministry of Internal Affairs and one to be called the Minister of Cultural Affairs. Before I go any further I want to make one thing abundantly clear: this is in no way an indictment or personal attack on any single member of the Ministry of Regional Affairs or the Minister. They do outstanding work and we are lucky to have them do as much as they do. Here are my thoughts for the proposal: Internal Affairs will be responsible for media (including graphics) and integration. These two mandates are similar in a very key way: the use of an active media service by our government helps to highlight activity (positive or negative) which in turn generates excitement to come to the forums and join the broader coalition outside the gameside. Integration then helps these arrivals to find a place where they can feel they contribute to the Coalition in a meaningful way, perhaps even in Media. Cultural Affairs would be responsible for continuing to foster the roleplay community, TSP University, and plan and run festivals. As we have all seen as of late, role play is becoming a bigger and bigger part of the standard TSP festival, so it only makes sense to pair these two together. I put TSPU with this group as TSPU could be a place where the community really comes together, much like they do for festivals. Allow me to take this time to answer some objections which I know are coming: "We are doing our best we just don't have the people." First off, thank you for working in RA. I am glad they have members such as yourself at their service. Here's the deal, by separating off integration it becomes a key part of a dual mandate as opposed to a forgotten part of a mandate that in the charter today includes at least four roles for the Ministry of Regional Affairs, and major projects like TSPU have been added to that workload. Similarly, there is no large program across the ministry to try and get new fellows to be able to produce what is needed beyond just trying to get them experience on projects that matter. I feel this last approach might be better than simply saying the people we have just aren't dedicated. "Why do we need to split it up when we have senior fellows?" Ah hello. When was the last time you saw an edition of the Souther Journal? Have you ever attended a lecture at TSPU? When was the last time you saw a region-wide push for integration directed by the MoRA? This is not an indictment against any senior fellow, it is an indictment against the senior fellow system. It simply doesn't work. Here's why: when you elect someone on a specific platform they will do everything they can to ensure that platform is achieved assuming they want to seek office again (and let's be honest, this is a political simulator.) By giving two ministers half the portfolio a single minister has today, it easier to hold that minister accountable while currently any shortfalls can simply be made up for by success in other departments. At the same time, there is nothing on the line for senior fellows who all they have to lose if their job if the MoRA fires them. Even then they can always be fellows because we need staff. "Why not have three ministries?" Because there isn't enough for three ministers at this point with media in the state that it is and how well the roleplay community is doing these days. Also, there are only 23 current staff members in MoRA. If they split evenly and only were in one ministry, there would be ~11 in each of these two ministries but with three, the ministers would only have ~8. It doesn't feel like a big difference but by simply exposing these people to a wider variety of projects they are more likely to help out with them. And if we get to the point where integration has done a stand-up job and we have unique staff in each ministry, maybe talking about having a third ministry wouldn't be the worst idea. We can always check and adjust this policy. If it fails, we can always go back to the old MoRA anyways; the language will be saved in the law archive. "You don't get it because you are Minister of Foreign Affairs and MoRA is different." Yes, I do not have any experience as a senior fellow in the Ministry of Regional affairs. I also know that no other major, non-meritocratic GCR (maybe with the exception of TRR but their officer's portfolio's can be changed by the delegate at any time) gives a single minister as large a mandate as our Minister of Regional Affairs has. Maybe they are all wrong and we are right, or maybe we got caught up in a period of unfathomable success in RA 5 years ago and have never stopped reminiscing about it and refused to look at if the fundamental structure of the MoRA is flawed. Here is my proposed language Article VI of the Charter Wrote:Minister of Regional Affairs(Chair to renumber as needed) This proposal may also need an enabling resolution so we don't have a sudden snap election. I am willing to write one up if this has significant support. Thank you for your time and I hope you will consider what I laid out to be an opportunity for growth within RA and not any kind of attack toward the leadership of the Ministry of Regional Affairs, as their job is close to impossible. 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
My thoughts haven't changed since the last time we had this debate, nor has the situation changed.
It's not going to change anything for the better. At best it's going to exacerbate the existing manpower and leadership issues.
I think we're all dug in on where we stand on this issue and, from our last debate on this topic, you probably already know where I stand on this issue. The pro-split people are arguing that MoRA has too broad a mandate and the anti-split people are arguing that MoRA suffers from a lack of activity, but I believe that both claims are equally true. The question is: how do we adequately resolve this issue?
Let's just compare TSP with the other feeders:
At the moment, the Minister of Regional Affairs has a mandate most similar to the Pontifex Maximus in NPO and the Minister of Cultural Affairs in TWP. As for TEP, they have given integration and media their own ministries. In the case of TNP, integration is given its own ministry and media is split between two ministries unrelated to events and roleplay. This table is just a presentation of the facts and I'll leave it to everyone else to gather an opinion from this table. At the moment, TNP and TEP are first and second respectively in terms of population of their regions and TSP is in a position between them and the other two feeders. We're at the crossroads in terms of expanding the Cabinet, but I think the size of our region plays a role in why we're even considering splitting the MoRA. I firmly believe that a MoRA split will happen—that it's inevitable—but the question there is when? When is it appropriate to split MoRA? If we want to grow as a region, our Cabinet will have to grow as well, but when? The MoRA's mandate is too broad, but it suffers from inactivity. We owe it to the future of our region to have an honest conversation about both.
On Jay's point, in both the NPO and TWP these positions are appointed not elected. Both of these regions are also run as meritocracies, and I know TSP does not see itself as or want to be a meritocracy. TNP and TEP have their minister's report to elected officials, while not being directly elected. We are the only GCR to have elected ministers (kind of TRR has a weird system, but we are definitely the only feeder or sinker). I wish to draw more attention to the fact that meritocracies are the only ones with this broad of portfolios outside ourselves.
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
As for the matter of electing ministers, I think we should consider the idea of electing a Prime Minister who appoints the Cabinet.
(04-22-2020, 07:14 PM)Jay Coop Wrote: As for the matter of electing ministers, I think we should consider the idea of electing a Prime Minister who appoints the Cabinet.I don't know where I stand on this yet but I am all for us beginning to have that discussion. Perhaps in a separate place though? 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
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. -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
Round Two (Ding Ding Ding!)
Firstly, we should not be imitating other GCRs, and just because others do it does not mean that we should do it too. I agree with you, as there is a lack of content coming from the Ministry, however, there will be an edition of TSJ out be next week, and there are three cultural events being planned at this stage. The split would only de-centralise management and the fellows, meaning that people will have to sign up to various ministries to do similar things. All departments currently work in harmony, events are planned for integration purposes, articles are written to promote events. Currently, everything is in harmony, and I spend a lot of my term contacting other seniors to determine what they are doing, how they are doing it and if there is anything that we could do to help with the other senior fellow's agenda. That being said, I don't disagree with a split in Education, however, who would actually run for the department? This is a genuine question, and I am genuinely curious to see who would be interested in running for an Educational Affairs Department. That being said, I'm not actually against an Educational Affairs split, however, as Integration needs specialist knowledge to run, and a lot of it requires technical knowledge (like th dispatch system and SWAN being two examples) or a wealth of NS experience to work for Integration. I think that any poential legislation should not obfuscate on the roles of the ministers, however, and I don't think that we should Ctrl+X the MoRA either. The proposals below is a rough idea of what I'm thinking of: Minister of Regional Affairs (7) The Minister of Regional Affairs will be responsible for promoting roleplay in the South Pacific, organising events and cultural activities for the benefit of the region and overseeing regular publication from The South Pacific's media Outlets. Minister of Educational Affairs The Minister of Educational Affairs will be responsible for the integration of new players into the forums, collaborating with the Local Councillors to integrate and retain new players into the South Pacific and NationStates, and will be responsible for collaborating with other ministries to integrate and recruit people into the ministries. I think that keeping MoRA in the charter would also allow for the staff to cary over to the next term, which would be an added benefit, and it will allow an established structure to remain, albeit on a smaller scale, and test whether the Regional Affairs Structure works on a smaller scale. Aga/Eunopiar
Mostly does boring things. |
![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |