More Consolidations

Hersfold

Hersfold

TNPer
Here goes my next attempt to make the bueraucracy smaller...

We have a Security Council that currently has seven seats, with a minimum of five specified in the Constitution. Anyone can hold these seats, including those people who already hold another government position. Often times, they do hold another government post, but not always - in fact, it is entirely possible to have a security council is comprised entirely of non-government officials.

So here we go:

A bill, probably a constitutional amendment again, to require that certain offices hold a seat on the Security Council. These offices should probably include: The PM, the Chief Justice, the Delegate, and the Vice Delegate. With the way the constitution specifies it, that would leave two seats open - we're not allowed to have more than 10% of the RA in the Security Council, and at the moment we have about 60 members. (I should point out here that technically we've been doing it incorrectly these past several terms, when the RA was less than 50 and the SC should have numbered only 5 nations)

Anyway, the point is that those four offices are best positioned for ensuring the region's security - The Delegate and VD are obvious, being required to hold the two highest endo counts. The PM is head of the government, and thus in charge of the region as a whole. The Chief Justice should be there to ensure that all proceedings are done in a legal manner, and to be aware of any trials that may come up as a result of the SC's actions. Hopefully, this will help to reduce the size of the government somewhat, and it should certaintly help the SC to be a little more informed.

Comments, questions, target practice?
 
No, no, a thousand times no.

The entire idea behind the security council was to serve as a independent committee of what is now the membership of the regional assembly to review and act on behalf of the regional assembly on security issues. (And that is why the Speaker is the chair of the security council.

The Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense, the Delegate, and the Vice Delegate are members of the Cabinet. They can deal with their concerns through that body. The security council serves as the check and balance on security issues requiring imminent action. That is why security council members are expected to be availanle on short hotice. The membership was intended to be those nations that are trusted by the regional assembly membership to act to protect their interests in an emergency matter brought to the security council for deliberation and action.

If the voters choose to have an officeholder also serve on the council, that is their perpgative. As a matter of form, it would be a bad practice to have the PN, the MoD, the Delegate and the Vice Delegate serve on the security council, since it is their actions that the security counsil has to discuss and authorize.
 
I am with Grosseschnauzer on this one. If one of the "Ruling 4" needs to be brought into the council for a specific topic, fine, but not a permanant seat. The cabinet already has a significant amount of power (Delegate, Vice Delegate, Prime Minister). The Chief Justice should remain impartial. If the justice get's involved at security council, it damages the impartiallity of his view if/when the player affected by a security council action wishes to appeal the decision.
 
Perhaps the Delegate should be in there... although I'm not sure. Personally I'd rather that people holding other government positions cannot be in the Security Council.
 
Ok, understood. I still do think that the Delegate and Vice Delegate at least should have permanent seats, however, because they are not members of the Cabinet, or at least don't get a vote in the Cabinet. Most of what the SC has to deal with concerns them anyway.

@ Haor: No, no, no. We haven't even filled in all the positions from the last election yet - requiring that every office hold a different person would make that problem ten times worse.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
The entire idea behind the security council was to serve as a independent committee of what is now the membership of the regional assembly to review and act on behalf of the regional assembly on security issues. (And that is why the Speaker is the chair of the security council.
Click to expand...
I agree with this.

Personally, it would feel awkward if I was at an SC meeting, and almost every other member there was a Cabinet Minister who might have their opinions colored by their position.

I agree with AH that the Justices should be left out of it. That is a separate and I believe, somewhat all-consuming job when things happen.


However, I'm wondering whether we could psosibly work in the Delegate or VD suggestion. If they don't have permanent seats, what would a temporary seat entail?

If we did add in something like this, we would have to specify that the Delegate or VD should be bound under the same terms as other SC members, ie. they would have to swear to be present within a certain time of any emergency. And anyone running for these two positions would have to be clear on the fact that they would need to do this.
 
The SC functions in the capacity to authorize the banning of nations. As part of the checks and balances created by the Constitution, I believe it is wise to allow it to operate the way it is.
 
As a matter of practice, the Delegate, the Prime Minister, and-or the Minister of Defense would, of necessity, be involved in the non-public discussion of the security council as sources of information, and as the government officials who would recieve the authorization to act (depending on the circumstances a particular situation presents.

If a circumstance arose where the Vice Delegate's participation in a matter was appropriate on the same basis, I'm certain that would not be an issue.

As to the election of justices, there is a very narrow interface between the role of a justice, and the role as a member of the security council, and that would be in a court proceeding that might be coommenced under Article VI. Normally, there are three justices, so a single justice participating as a member of the security council would not prevent a uninvolved justice from participating. And the Court has a rule already in place permitting the appointment of a hearing officer if a percieved conflict existed.

In sum, the question of who should be elected as members of the security council is one where the expression "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," applies.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
As a matter of practice, the Delegate, the Prime Minister, and-or the Minister of Defense would, of necessity, be involved in the non-public discussion of the security council as sources of information, and as the government officials who would recieve the authorization to act (depending on the circumstances a particular situation presents.
Click to expand...
:ermm: Erm... they don't actually have access to the SC forum unless they're SC members anyway... (except Flem, but that's obvious)

Why are we dragging the MoD into this, anyway? I never mentioned him...
 
I think the idea behind the Security Council was an excellent one. If anything, members of the Security Council should be required not to hold any other government posts.

In regions that can support large governments, I think it is essential to keep the bueraucracy flowing. It increases activity, sense of belonging, ambition, gives goals to new nations, increases conflict amongst government brances which in turn increases activity, etc.
 
Hers, yes, you mentioned the Chief Justice in your original post, but in terms of responsibility for regional security, the Minister of Defense plays a role.
 
Grenval:
I think the idea behind the Security Council was an excellent one. If anything, members of the Security Council should be required not to hold any other government posts.
Click to expand...
I proposed this but to the best of my recollection it did not pass.
 
If the role of the delegate is not to protect the region and if they are really nothing more than a piece of decoration at the top of the page, why do we even elect them? Why not have them appointed or have their name pulled out of a hat containing names of trusted people?

The job of the delegate, whether you try to take that job away from them or not, is to protect the region. They are the chief guardian of The Nort Pacific. That said, I think it makes sense that they be included in the security council.
 
Grenval:
I think the idea behind the Security Council was an excellent one.  If anything, members of the Security Council should be required not to hold any other government posts.

In regions that can support large governments, I think it is essential to keep the bueraucracy flowing.  It increases activity, sense of belonging, ambition, gives goals to new nations, increases conflict amongst government brances which in turn increases activity, etc.
Click to expand...
As I said before, though, we're not able to fill all the government seats as it is. Not enough newbies stay around to get active in government. It's maybe one out of every 10 that hangs around for at least a month, half that for a full government term. Requiring the SC to hold no other offices would complicate this problem so badly the region wouldn't be able to function. Edit: That's why I'm trying to "smush" everything together a bit more, to prevent this from happening.

@ Schnauzer: Ok, I thought that was it. Just wondering. ;)
 
Fedele:
If the role of the delegate is not to protect the region and if they are really nothing more than a piece of decoration at the top of the page, why do we even elect them? Why not have them appointed or have their name pulled out of a hat containing names of trusted people?

The job of the delegate, whether you try to take that job away from them or not, is to protect the region. They are the chief guardian of The Nort Pacific. That said, I think it makes sense that they be included in the security council.
Click to expand...
Does the Delegate have access to the Security Council forum or does does the Delegate at least receive intelligence updates?

I would assume so, but I ask because I think Fedele is right that the Delegate should stay informed, although we may not agree on the methods to accomplish that goal.
 
In the past, either the Delegate or the Prime Minister have referred issues to the Security Council.

(and to amplify my earlier references to the Minister of Defense: Under Section 3 of TNP Law 9, as amended by TNP Law 12, the Minister of Defense plays a role on questions concerning military agreements and treaties that can be reviewed by the security council.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
In the past, either the Delegate or the Prime Minister have referred issues to the Security Council.

(and to amplify my earlier references to the Minister of Defense: Under Section 3 of TNP Law 9, as amended by TNP Law 12, the Minister of Defense plays a role on questions concerning military agreements and treaties that can be reviewed by the security council.
Click to expand...
Good to know.
 
Grenval:
Does the Delegate have access to the Security Council forum or does does the Delegate at least receive intelligence updates?
Click to expand...
As stated a few posts above, only SC members have access to the secured SC forum. And Admins and Global Mods, of course.
 
I'm with Gross on this one - cabinet members are already members of the executive branch and the SC is essentially a part of the legislative branch. Overlapping branches of government tend to muddle things up a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top