Romanoffia for Delegate

And once again, it's yet another special election for Delegate time! And, as usual, I am running again.

Let me start by saying that I am not going to run on any grandiose programs or promises as such things usually (and always do) run into a brick wall and end up all pair shaped at best. My goal as Delegate is to keep things simple, efficient and simplify and streamline things as much as possible in terms of how we run the government. To this end, I will require of all government ministers, justices, RA members, etc.,,, to provide me with information and advice so that I can make their jobs easier. That would require me, as Delegate, to always consider and take advice from everyone in order to make my job as easy as possible.

I'll make no glorified claims concerning what I can accomplish in a two month term, because, frankly, history shows that such partial term delegacies can at best hope to keep things running smoothly until either one get's re-elected to a full term or can had over everything intact to the next elected delegate.

For the most part, I would like to continue along the current lines in general as to general government policy. But there are a couple of things I would like to see 'tweaked' for the sake of efficiency and simplicity. This would mainly require more delegation of executive authority by encouraging the various ministries to actually 'hire' more staff so that all of the work doesn't fall on two people in that ministry (mainly the Ministers and Deputy Ministers). That means that when a project is engaged by a ministry, each minister would, under his or her discretion, appoint a 'project manager' to handle specific tasks or projects. Ministers would set policy for their respective ministries and be encouraged to enlist as much help as possible.

Delegation of authority would also apply to the Delegate. This would require a more active role for the Vice Delegate in terms of acting on behalf of the Delegate when and where needed, mostly in the capacity of keeping the Delegate informed of anything the Delegate might miss.

As Delegate I will work to have more coordination between the different ministries. We need coordination between all ministries so that everyone is working towards the same goals, and each ministry supporting the effects of the other ministries and by extension, supporting the common goals of the government and region in general. The ultimate goal here is to assure that every action by every ministry support the general welfare of the region and to advance the region's interests.

All actions by the government in terms of Defense, WA Policies, efficiency in government operation, Foreign Affairs, etc., should be aimed at advancing the region and promoting the region's interests at home and abroad. This requires a strong overt information gathering capacity as well as covert information gathering on the part of the NPIA, and conducted under strict rules of ethics.

One of the major on-going discussions is the Court System in general. Not being an executive function, it is nearly impossible for a Delegate to actually do anything about that other than to promote legislation that would make the judicial system more efficient. That is up to the RA and the Delegate can only sign passed bills or advise on such legislation.

Which brings us back to avoiding grandiose and sweeping programs. The Delegate is an Executive and as such, the Delegate's purvey is executive authority and only executive authority. My policy as Delegate will be execute the laws and constitutional duties with all due diligence and to create policies that affect those duties. That's what separation of powers is all about.

There's a whole list of items I could run through, but since this would be a partial term as Delegate, there is no reason to bite off more than one can chew.

So, rather than bore everyone with mundane minutiae, feel free to ask me more specific questions.

Would you replace the flag with something more cheesy?

What do you feel about the fact that you were not elected for a cabinet position?

If elected, what do you wish to do with the cabinet, appointed one or elected? If elected, would you accept the results ?

What do you think are your worst traits? What do you think are your best traits?

What would you do to counterbalance any bad traits that may negatively affect your time as Delegate?

mcmasterdonia:

Would you replace the flag with something more cheesy?

Click to expand...

Of course, you know, replacing the flag is not really the purvey of the Delegate in strictly constitutional and legal terms. I have no intention of replacing the flag, not even with a wedge of Stilton or Stinking Bishop.

However, I may consider creating a non-voting member of the Cabinet, sort of a Court Jester, and call that position the "Minister of Cheese". Remember, court jesters can perform a very valuable service by pointing out the absurdities of our system in general. Picture the position as a sort of an opposition mouth piece to point out to the Delegate certain things that no one else might have the cajones to point out. Which fits in with the next questions posed by Govindia.


Govindia:

What do you feel about the fact that you were not elected for a cabinet position?

If elected, what do you wish to do with the cabinet, appointed one or elected? If elected, would you accept the results ?

Click to expand...

On your first question - The means of attaining a cabinet are entirely at the discretion of the Delegate, constitutionally and legally. The means of appointing a cabinet, in other words, is entirely at the discretion of the Delegate. That means, under the Constitution and Law, the Delegate can use any means however arbitrary to appoint his Cabinet. The Cabinet, is, of course, the Delegate's Cabinet. As such, a Delegate is entirely entitled to choose those cabinet members whom the Delegate feels would best suit his purposes. A Delegate can also choose to totally ignore the advise of his Cabinet. That is the Delegate's prerogative. That is the way the Constitution and Law is written.

That said, I feel absolutely fine with serving in the Cabinet as an appointed member beyond the arbitrary election methods chosen by the Delegate. In fact, I feel quite flattered to have been appointed despite the election results and quite happy that the remainder of the elected Cabinet had enough confidence to appoint me to that position.

You do bring up a very good point. Frankly, I think the current means of electing a Cabinet stink, mainly because it relies upon 'low information' voters, mainly being nations who don't take the time to participate on this forum and largely haven't any idea who they are voting for beyond random choices and name recognition. I would rather have a Cabinet that consists of people who know what they are doing rather than what is tantamount to randomly chosen individuals.

Currently, I see no reason to change the current cabinet and if elected as Delegate, the only Cabinet position I would change would be the one I presently occupy because the Delegate has enough on his plate already. The Delegate not occupying a ministry position is a good thing in my book mainly because it reduces the possibility of a delegate using a particular ministry to unfair advantage.

What I would rather see is a cabinet in which people are trained ahead of time to fill various functions including Ministry positions as per the "Mentor Program" that Alvino Castillon is designing.

I think that 'civil service' system in which people who exhibit a knack for certain tasks and fields is more in order. Some of us are better at delegating authority and making policy decisions and some of us are much better at actually following through with a given task. As such, Ministry positions in general would be treated more in terms of executive action - that is, a Minister of the government should be treated more as an administrator who follows an over-all general policy and then sets policies according to how he or she thinks their ministry would best be served.

To be honest, I am fairly split on the issue of having an appointed or elected Cabinet. I have faith in everyone here that if we elected a cabinet that everyone who was elected could do the job. Of that I have very little doubt. But what I see is more of a scramble for power rather than a desire to serve the region. In the upcoming short-term before the regular election for Delegate, there is not much I could do to change things that would be lasting as that is the purvey of the RA. If I managed to get re-elected, then I could push for more definition in the whole process. But as the chief executive officer of the Region, all I can do exert influence; I cannot act independently. And this is the root of democratic republic systems - you have to get people to act on their own behalf rather than to simply act and hope for the best and hope no one notices.

Given the executive authority afforded the Delegate by the Constitution and legal code, I would be more predisposed to gather my Cabinet based upon the recommendations of the RA and the talents of those vying for the various positions. At this point, I would simply keep the current members of the Cabinet, replace my current position with someone who can devote enough time and has a talent for communications (and there are several people who have more talent for it than me). If elected to a full term later on, then I would be disposed to ask the RA to create binding legislation involving a constitutional amendment concerning this matter if the RA so desires.

And I would like to thank you for your seriously constructed questions which I think are about the best questions ever asked of me in running for an office.



Alvino Castillon:

What do you think are your worst traits? What do you think are your best traits?

What would you do to counterbalance any bad traits that may negatively affect your time as Delegate?

Click to expand...

My worst and best traits are the same thing: I have a very low tolerance for BS (Bovine Scatology). I am a curmudgeon. I have been around for a long time which means that I have had the opportunity to observe human behavior and motivations. This also means that I have a very low tolerance for behavior or motivations that are so common that they bore me.

I tend to look at things with a jaundiced eye. I try to look at the motives of people and suss out whether or not they are sincere or are just power-sucking dweebs out for no one but themselves.

Another bad trait I have is my total and primary loyalty to The North Pacific. I have always been here and always be and my only interest is in the region. If the rest of the world went to Hell, The North Pacific would be the only thing that mattered.

My loyalty to the regions sometimes puts me at odds with the powers-that-be du jure. I'm not sure if I would want to mollify or counter balance that.

Are you willing to convert to the state religion of The Most Holy Flemingovian Empire of The North Pacific?

If you're elected delegate will you unban me from #TNP?

Belschaft:

Are you willing to convert to the state religion of The Most Holy Flemingovian Empire of The North Pacific?

Click to expand...

Being a believer in freedom of religion, I have no intent of promoting the enforcement of a state religion for TNP.

However, I might consider promoting the election of an unofficial regional deity who serves a 30 second term before being displaced by another.





Tyler Kazakov:

If you're elected delegate will you unban me from #TNP?

Click to expand...

You are such an evil threat to TNP. Of course I would unban you.

Actually, I'm not big on the idea of banning individual nations who don't pose any real threat and the banning of whole has no effect either way in terms of regional security.

But the issue of banning nations is one that hasn't been really asked of any candidate for Delegate as far as I recall. It is a good question. Here are the nations that I would ban out of hand:

1.) Nations that present a clear and present danger so as to garner the attention and recommendation of the SC.

2.) Jackasses that try to invade us or otherwise try to infiltrate us to upset the apple cart.

3.) Jackasses who spam the RMB with spam that isn't the least bit entertaining.

4.) Nations deemed ban-able as a penalty of law and as a penalty of law.

In other words, as Delegate, pissing me off personally is not a reason to ban someone. In fact, I enjoy and encourage political opposition and being pissed off from time to time. Just don't try to overthrow the region or spam the RMB with nasty stuff about the legitimacy of anyone's birth or their mother's bedfellows. :p

Oh, come on folks. Substance, substance is what you want in a Delegate.

Oh, and I promise everyone an autographed cheese!