Users browsing this thread:

**Belschaft** · 08-23-2021, 07:39 AM

Do people feel that our recent experiments in creating new ministries has led to improved performance in those areas?

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

Witchcraft and Sorcery · 08-23-2021, 10:00 AM

Long story short: Yes, Bel, I do. And I'm also supportive of elevating OWL to full ministry status.

To answer your question specifically (and to pre-empt your likely reply in which you attack the Ministry of Media/MoRA split generally): The subdivisions of the MoRA have been absolutely vital to the progress we've made in Cabinet this term.

- Moon has got the MoM finally to a stable, dependable release schedule and several interested and active people working for him. There's tell of a MoM bot and gameside subscription system in the works.

- Luca's input into the technical side of things like OWL, the unified application which we just launched, and the SPSF record compiling that HS did has been utterly indispensable. They are the first person I turn to when I need something super technical dumbed down for me.

- Tin and now Quebecshire have made tremendous strides to recovering the MoC after inactivity derailed an otherwise fantastic term by Prarie. There is likewise a gameside subscription system in the works here and (EDIT lol i was going to finish this sentence but obv didn't)

The reason I'm spelling these things out in one place is because I need to emphasize how critical it was that we divided these tasks and made them individual ministries instead of keeping them all under one roof. Making ministries out of these three departments and making each of them directly accountable to the people (instead of indirectly through the MoRA) was a huge leap forward in terms of progress in ALL these areas at once. MoRAs used to solve this problem by picking an area of focus and not really advancing others - which they could get away with because they had different areas of expertise and the ministry was so bloated. Now, with three ministries, they remain interconnected but there is enough compartmentalization in terms of leadership that no one person has to be responsible for everything.

All of this goes to say that the current position of OWL is untenable, and the best thing to do legislatively to fix it would be to elevate OWL to full ministry status and make its leader directly accountable to the people. Somewhat ironically, increasing the number of ministries in this case actually reduced the amount of needless bureaucracy. That obviously has somewhat diminishing returns at some point, but I'm confident that isn't the case here.

Witchcraft and Sorcery

Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Formerly many things in other regions. Defender. Ideologue. he/they.

(This post was last modified: 08-23-2021, 12:35 PM by Witchcraft and Sorcery.)

***Roavin*** · 08-23-2021, 10:04 AM

(08-23-2021, 07:39 AM)Belschaft Wrote: Do people feel that our recent experiments in creating new ministries has led to improved performance in those areas?

Yes.

**Belschaft** · 08-23-2021, 10:48 AM

Well argued.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 08-23-2021, 01:20 PM

(08-22-2021, 04:19 PM)Apatosaurus Wrote: I agree with the idea of removing Senior Staff and merging it with usual OWL Staff, but I also would support making OWL a normal ministry, rather than just an office.

(08-22-2021, 09:40 PM)Langburn Wrote: The only solution is to make OWL a standalone ministry and treat it as such. Only then will it be taken seriously and treated equally to all other ministries. If Media has it's own ministry, why doesn't the World Assembly?

(08-22-2021, 09:59 PM)Luca Wrote:
(08-22-2021, 09:40 PM)Langburn Wrote: The only solution is to make OWL a standalone ministry and treat it as such. Only then will it be taken seriously and treated equally to all other ministries. If Media has it's own ministry, why doesn't the World Assembly?

I support this position.

For some time this area of government has been called an experiment, but we do not have the luxury as a region of our stature to say that a World Assembly department isn't right for us or shouldn't be at the forefront of our consideration. With a substantial margin, the South Pacific has the second most endorsements of any region on NationStates, and is a giant in political power. It is really not acceptable that resolutions take us by surprise, especially when they may be at the core of our cultural or strategic interests. All resolutions should be subject to the process of our debate and consideration, and OWL becoming an electable ministry will promote it being held to direct accountability and ease the difficulty of reform when desired.

Not trying to be rudely blunt here, but... This is absolutely the wrong lesson to be learning. OWL has struggled as an executive office without being a full ministry, so the solution is to make it a full ministry? There are only 2 differences between OWL as an executive office and as a ministry:
1. A minister would be elected, rather than a director appointed.
2. A minister would be involved in non-OWL responsibilities when the whole Cabinet has to do something (like treaties or security issues).

So the solution here to OWL being over-burdened is to add non-OWL responsibilities to the workload? That makes no sense.

I think what's happened here is exactly what I feared when we were voting on making a WA Ministry before: relying on one person to drive things forward. It's clear that OWL is still relying on legacy staff like Anjo to function, and would probably completely crumble if they left. That needs to be addressed. And if part of the reason why OWL has to rely on Anjo is technology, then the tech either needs to be improved or the office needs to find a way to do things without relying on what's basically undocumented proprietary tech.

To be frank, I'm not sure why this is being punted to the Assembly. OWL is an executive office answerable to the Prime Minister. Why aren't changes being implemented by the Director and PM themselves? I'm not sure what the purpose of this discussion is. You've identified the problem, apparently have discussed the solutions, so the Director should be implementing them now. Not seeing where the Assembly fits in here, unless the whole prompt is to convert OWL into a ministry.

As for HumanSanity and Luca's points about a ministry offering accountability, there's an obvious answer here that maybe the Cabinet is avoiding? The Director is the accountable officer here, and they answer to the Prime Minister. If OWL is languishing under an inadequate Director, then the PM needs to find a new Director. And if the PM isn't doing that, then they're accountable to the Assembly at the next election. OWL is an office within the Prime Minister's portfolio. If that needs to be made more explicit, let's do that.

TSP having the 2nd-most endorsements in the world also isn't a reason to make OWL a ministry. That power and influence can be wielded by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet itself, like it had been before. (That's even something we account for in how OWL functions!) OWL's problems are that it was always created to be RMB-focused (it was Somy's project, after all) and to merely "channel the will" of TSPers, rather than be a legit tool of TSP's soft power. I've never found the RMB voting to be much added value, but it's kind of the organizing principle. If the Cabinet is wanting to move away from OWL being an RMB-based polling outfit, then that's something we can debate in the Assembly to amend the World Assembly Act. Though the current laws don't require OWL's functions to be done via the RMB at all. They do pre-suppose that the recommendations will be made via democratic votes, though.

(08-23-2021, 10:00 AM)Witchcraft and Sorcery Wrote: All of this goes to say that the current position of OWL is untenable, and the best thing to do legislatively to fix it would be to elevate OWL to full ministry status and make its leader directly accountable to the people. Somewhat ironically, increasing the number of ministries in this case actually reduced the amount of needless bureaucracy. That obviously has somewhat diminishing returns at some point, but I'm confident that isn't the case here.

MoRA was a blob that had its tentacles in many different areas, and that's what warranted the creation of new ministries. OWL has one job: solicit debate on resolutions and issue a voting recommendation. This comparison isn't apt at all. A legislative fix doesn't sound like it's warranted, when as PM it doesn't seem you've tried many things (anything, really!) so far to change how OWL functions internally. Executive fixes should be tried before the Assembly starts discussing whether or not OWL should be further elevated when it's apparently not functioning as needed in its current constitutional role in the first place.

(This post was last modified: 08-23-2021, 01:25 PM by sandaoguo.)

Apatosaurus · 08-23-2021, 05:03 PM

(08-23-2021, 01:20 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: Not trying to be rudely blunt here, but... This is absolutely the wrong lesson to be learning. OWL has struggled as an executive office without being a full ministry, so the solution is to make it a full ministry? There are only 2 differences between OWL as an executive office and as a ministry:
1. A minister would be elected, rather than a director appointed.
2. A minister would be involved in non-OWL responsibilities when the whole Cabinet has to do something (like treaties or security issues).

So the solution here to OWL being over-burdened is to add non-OWL responsibilities to the workload? That makes no sense.

No, the solution is to keep the OWL ministry directly accountable.

(08-23-2021, 01:20 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: As for HumanSanity and Luca's points about a ministry offering accountability, there's an obvious answer here that maybe the Cabinet is avoiding? The Director is the accountable officer here, and they answer to the Prime Minister. If OWL is languishing under an inadequate Director, then the PM needs to find a new Director. And if the PM isn't doing that, then they're accountable to the Assembly at the next election. OWL is an office within the Prime Minister's portfolio. If that needs to be made more explicit, let's do that.

No, the leadership position of an office should be directly accountable to the Assembly. Firstly, having a Minister do the job means that they (usually) have to campaign, and if they don't follow through with their campaign promises, they're less likely to be reelected, which makes sure to keep them at an even higher standard of accountability. Secondly, having OWL as a ministry would prevent one person from being OWL Director for eight whole months, as we have now. Thirdly, having OWL as an elected position would theoretically increase engagement within OWL as more people would be interested in potentially running for the position.

Local Councilroar.

Selfie

(This post was last modified: 08-23-2021, 05:04 PM by Apatosaurus.)

***Kris Kringle*** · 08-23-2021, 05:42 PM

I fail to see how making OWL a ministry is a solution to anything other than the lack of direct voter accountability. If we want to solve OWL’s issues than we need to talk about what OWL does and what exactly is lacking.

If we want to make OWL a ministry then let’s be honest about it. That’s a legitimate discussion. But it feels intellectually dishonest to claim that making OWL a ministry will solve things when, other than how the leader is selected, the core of the institution remains the same.

I know we pride ourselves of being the democratic region, but voter accountability isn’t a cure-all.

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

(This post was last modified: 08-23-2021, 05:59 PM by Kris Kringle.)

***sandaoguo*** · 08-23-2021, 06:09 PM

(08-23-2021, 05:03 PM)Apatosaurus Wrote: No, the solution is to keep the OWL ministry directly accountable.

The Cabinet, OWL staff, and the Assembly as a whole have had the option all along of holding the Director of OWL directly accountable by recalling them, and that hasn't happened.

Floptop · 08-24-2021, 04:26 PM

(08-22-2021, 09:40 PM)Langburn Wrote: The only solution is to make OWL a standalone ministry and treat it as such. Only then will it be taken seriously and treated equally to all other ministries. If Media has it's own ministry, why doesn't the World Assembly?

I wouldn't support an OWL ministry if it were to work as OWL does now. If OWL were to become a ministry I think it should have more power for example allowing the cabinet to decide how to vote for WA legislation or maybe the minister voting as he sees fit following our region's interests.

Langburn · 08-25-2021, 02:08 AM

(08-23-2021, 06:09 PM)sandaoguo Wrote:
(08-23-2021, 05:03 PM)Apatosaurus Wrote: No, the solution is to keep the OWL ministry directly accountable.
The Cabinet, OWL staff, and the Assembly as a whole have had the option all along of holding the Director of OWL directly accountable by recalling them, and that hasn't happened.

And OWL has continued to not be taken seriously because it is not a fully-fledged ministry in its own right. Creating a Ministry of World Assembly Affairs will ensure that OWL/the MoWA is respected across the region. If it worked for The North Pacific and Europeia, regions with much more active World Assembly affairs ministries and departments than our OWL, why won't it work for the South Pacific?

The Commonwealth of Langburn

Nation info

WA Member
Regional Legislative Office