RA Designate Act

[Wonderess]

The Rules of the Regional Assembly are amended as follows:

Section 1. Proposals

1. Any citizen may bring a proposal for discussion before the Regional Assembly.

2. The Speaker may schedule a vote on any proposal being discussed by the Regional Assembly as permitted by law.

3. If, before a vote on a proposal begins, at least three citizens object to the decision of the Speaker to schedule it, the Speaker must cancel the scheduled vote.

4. If a number of citizens equal to or exceeding one third of the number of votes required to achieve quorum for any legislative vote, including the citizen that introduced the proposal to the Regional Assembly, motion that a vote should be held on a proposal before the Regional Assembly, then the Speaker must schedule a vote on that proposal to begin as soon as permitted by law.

Section 2. Voting

1. No more than two legislative votes may take place simultaneously at any time.

2. Unless otherwise required by law, votes of the Regional Assembly will last for a minimum of three and a maximum of seven days.

3. The Speaker will, at the beginning of a vote of the Regional Assembly, decide its duration as permitted by law.

4. If a number of citizens equal to or exceeding one third of the number of votes required to achieve quorum for any legislative vote object to the duration of a vote of the Regional Assembly decided by the Speaker before the conclusion of the vote, then that vote will last for the maximum duration permitted by law.

5. If at the conclusion of a vote quorum has not been achieved, then the Speaker may extend the duration of the vote to the maximum permitted by law.

Section 3. Deputy Speaker and Vacancies

1. The Speaker may, at their discretion, appoint a citizen as Deputy Speaker. The Speaker may, at their discretion, remove an existing Deputy Speaker.

2. Unless otherwise specified by law, the Speaker may delegate any of their powers and duties to the Deputy Speaker. Delegation under this section does not relieve the Speaker of any of their powers and duties. Any provisions of law related to the powers and duties of the Speaker, when exercised by the Deputy Speaker under the provisions of this clause, shall apply to the Deputy Speaker.

3. When there is a vacancy or absence in the position of Speaker, the Deputy Speaker will assume the powers and duties of the office of the Speaker for the duration of the vacancy or absence, respectively. When there is simultaneously a vacancy or absence in the positions of Speaker and Deputy Speaker is simultaneously vacant, the citizen who is available, has the longest period of citizenship, does not decline the position, and is not otherwise prohibited by law will assume the powers and duties of the office of the Speaker for the duration of the simultaneous vacancy or absence.

4. A citizen's period of citizenship is defined as the amount of elapsed time since that citizen's most recent approved citizenship application without an interruption.

Section 4. Executive Designates

1. The Speaker will at the beginning of their elected term and at any point there is a vacancy appoint one citizen per executive ministry as Designate to act as liaison and representative of the citizenry in that specific ministry.

2. Designates may be recalled at the leisure of the Speaker or by a recall of the Regional Assembly as mandated by law.

3. Designates shall keep the Regional Assembly regularly updated on the whereabouts of the Executive Ministries while ensuring that the ministries are held accountable for their actions through inquiries, reports to the Regional Assembly, and regular dialogue with both the executive and legislative.

Hi all! So there has been many proposals now to make sure there is dialogue and accountability between the Legislative and Executive branches. After much thought, I settled on this sort of model as the most efficient. The committees failed because they were bodies that remained mainly inactive with no way to fix that issue. That sort of structure has been replaced with a one for one sort of system. Think of a sort of structure that is based VER VERY loosely on a shadow cabinet but nowhere near has contentious.

Shortly put, the Speaker will have the responsibility to appoint Designates for every ministry. The Designate will be the eyes and ears of the RA in that ministry and will keep the body informed on what is going on. Since it is only one per ministry there is a pressure on them to be active as if there are no reports, that is on them and not a body such as the committees. This also takes inspiration from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Just as ambassadors are active in other regions and inform the region on what goes on in the form of reports, the designate would emulate this sort of activity but on behalf of the Regional Assembly towards the ministries. The Designate of Radio for instance may see what sort of shows are being run or take notice of how long one interview takes to be published to the youtube channel. The Designate would state this in their reports to the RA and also post the links to the videos to encourage citizens to appreciate and take part in the Ministry of Radio. Not only is this about accountability, but about encouraging further participation in regional happenings as well!

This is a work in progress, but I think it is a promising model that could be very helpful in bridging that Executive / Legislative conversation evermore! I am excited to hear yall's input.

 

[Pallaith]

Why would we do this if all the info that gets reported would be in the ministers' reports every month? If it's accountability you're concerned with then mandate the report, but given your opposition to the delegate report act, I'm going to assume you wouldn't support such a mandate. If a mandate is too strong, make a request for a report if one is not immediately provided. But I have to ask, why is a single person picked by the Speaker to gather information about a ministry more desirable than an official report made by the minister?

 

[Wonderess]

Why would we do this if all the info that gets reported would be in the ministers' reports every month? If it's accountability you're concerned with then mandate the report, but given your opposition to the delegate report act, I'm going to assume you wouldn't support such a mandate. If a mandate is too strong, make a request for a report if one is not immediately provided. But I have to ask, why is a single person picked by the Speaker to gather information about a ministry more desirable than an official report made by the minister?

Well if you remember, I am not in favor of the reports as of now. I think you know well the difference between self regulation and external regulation. There is an efficiency in external accountability. If a minister writes a report, I think it is more likely that they will highlight the successes and those things they would find the RA would like. I do not mean that they are directly attempting to be unforthcoming, but natural human bias does play a factor. A Designate is literally in the trenches watching the ministry function and reporting what they see back to the Regional Assembly without the burden of being the manager of that ministry. Even a mandated report is a form of self regulation, and that is not always most efficient or best. I think a designate system is first more engaging as they can report weekly and more frequently since it is their specific job to do so and leave the managing and ministering to the professionals in the executive.

It is known that something that I prioritize is relationship. I want the citizens who may not take part in the executive staff of one ministry or another to still have a relationship with that ministry through this designate system, to appreciate all that they do even if everything may not be going perfectly at one moment or another. This isnt about forcing the Executive under a microscope. It is about allowing the RA to be regularly informed about all that is going on in the region because it can be easy to lose sight of it all as we all hone in on our specific areas.

 

[Pallaith]

Snitches get stitches. Against.

 

[Wonderess]

Your opposition is well noted, Minister.

 

[Praetor]

I see nothing that would compel the Executive to grant access to these "designates".

 

[Wonderess]

I see nothing that would compel the Executive to grant access to these "designates".

Well, it is definitely possible that the Executive can obstruct the Designate from obtaining information to report, I feel that it in itself would be "biting the hand that feeds you." I do not actually believe that Prydania would instruct or allow his ministers to oppose the Designates from entering ministry areas. However, in the off chance that would to occur, it is well known that the RA holds the recall card. Once again, I would never even consider that it would come to that with Pry as Delegate.

 

[Praetor]

Well, it is definitely possible that the Executive can obstruct the Designate from obtaining information to report, I feel that it in itself would be "biting the hand that feeds you." I do not actually believe that Prydania would instruct or allow his ministers to oppose the Designates from entering ministry areas. However, in the off chance that would to occur, it is well known that the RA holds the recall card. Once again, I would never even consider that it would come to that with Pry as Delegate.

Prydania will not be Delegate forever. Why would we write legislation that may only be relevant for up to eight months?

 

[St George]

Whilst I certainly would not hesitate to promote the interests of the RA and protect the rights of members in the face of an overbearing executive, I do not believe this would have the required bite to be useful. I would rather see this as part of the Legal Code to be honest.

 

[Wonderess]

Prydania will not be Delegate forever. Why would we write legislation that may only be relevant for up to eight months?

Well by then a tradition and norm of how the Designates report and act will have been established. I would love to see a Delegate either in their campaign or after being elected act or state they will not cooperate with the Regional Assembly's attempts to provide oversight. Might I add that this is even a benefit to the Executive. The projects and initiatives of the Executive get distributed to the RA in full and that encourages further participation and cooperation. We want people to join the NPA or to join staff, I dont see how yet another avenue promoting it while also acting as an organ of information and accountability can be a negative for them.

Ultimately the RA has the last say in these things. We are the people after all, and the Delegate's first duty is to the people who elected them. It is arguable that it is their duty to cooperate with the RA or face the consequences of not doing so.

 

[Wonderess]

Whilst I certainly would not hesitate to promote the interests of the RA and protect the rights of members in the face of an overbearing executive, I do not believe this would have the required bite to be useful. I would rather see this as part of the Legal Code to be honest.

Thank you for your comments, Mr. Speaker. I have heard it said time and time again that the "Regional Assembly has the means to do many things within its power, but it never does." I honestly think this falls into that area. I think this is more about a relationship between the Executive and the RA rather than it being about political mechanism. The Rules of the RA allow us as the legislative to extend our hand in that partnership. The Executive in this framework does have the capacity to reject as an act of its freedom, but I dont see how its rejection of this action would spell any good for it. The Executive knows well what power we have as an assembly including the recall, and I assure you that we as a body of the people have all the power and bite we need to see this through, no legal code necessary.

 

[Praetor]

Well by then a tradition and norm of how the Designates report and act will have been established. I would love to see a Delegate either in their campaign or after being elected act or state they will not cooperate with the Regional Assembly's attempts to provide oversight. Might I add that this is even a benefit to the Executive. The projects and initiatives of the Executive get distributed to the RA in full and that encourages further participation and cooperation. We want people to join the NPA or to join staff, I dont see how yet another avenue promoting it while also acting as an organ of information and accountability can be a negative for them.

Ultimately the RA has the last say in these things. We are the people after all, and the Delegate's first duty is to the people who elected them. It is arguable that it is their duty to cooperate with the RA or face the consequences of not doing so.

I would hardly call the behaviour of one individual in a position as establishing a tradition or a norm. Additionally, pretty much all Delegate candidates work on being transparent and/or being open.

 

[Fendlium]

These "Designates" seem like they'd just be Speaker-appointed Inspector Generals. Most every member of the Executive Staff is also apart of the Regional Assembly which makes me wonder why would we need designated individuals to scour for and report discrepancy when any person that has access to the Ministries can already do that? I understand wanting formal reports made but wouldn't a formal report be better made by a Minister themselves who is likely leading most of the operations in their Ministry? To me this just seems like an added layer of bureaucracy, and while I'm not necessarily opposed to bureaucracy itself, I don't see this being a beneficial addition to the bureaucracy.

 

[Wonderess]

I would hardly call the behaviour of one individual in a position as establishing a tradition or a norm. Additionally, pretty much all Delegate candidates work on being transparent and/or being open.

I agree that there is indeed a push from inside the Executive to be open. However as I said earlier I think you know very well, Praetor, the differences between self oversight and external oversight. Furthermore, does a regional ambassador not build at least in part the relationship between regions? To me this is not very different from an ambassadorial relationship. It is my hope that a Designate of Culture for instance would be able to have a working and friendly relationship with the Minister and Deputy Ministers of Culture such as yourself, to appreciate the work you do while also being a witness to all that is being done by yall for the good of the region. That is a relationship that builds overtime, and I think it can only bring the Executive and RA even closer.

 

[Wonderess]

These "Designates" seem like they'd just be Speaker-appointed Inspector Generals. Most every member of the Executive Staff is also apart of the Regional Assembly which makes me wonder why would we need designated individuals to scour for and report discrepancy when any person that has access to the Ministries can already do that? I understand wanting formal reports made but wouldn't a formal report be better made by a Minister themselves who is likely leading most of the operations in their Ministry? To me this just seems like an added layer of bureaucracy, and while I'm not necessarily opposed to bureaucracy itself, I don't see this being a beneficial addition to the bureaucracy.

I understand your point. I dont know about you, but there are ministries that I really have little experience with. Home Affairs would be an excellent example. Now I could in fact join HA and find out for myself, that is certainly possible. The issue is, that we as citizens have limited time and capacity to take part in and see everything that happens in the Executive. It is in fact a big place with a lot going on. Even I who love culture and take part there misses things that are planned and discussed in the Culture Ministry. The Designate has the job and duty of seeing it all and then doing their best on a frequent basis to let us know. Imagine being able to see in one place the happenings and updates of every single ministry laid out for everyone to see. Each of us right now has a piece of the Executive Puzzle in our experiences but not the whole. I think the members of the RA deserve being able to see it all, to grow in appreciation of what goes on, and to know for the sake of voting and speaking as informed voters and citizens.

 

[Janus]

I won't get into reasons, but I won't support this.

 

[BMWSurfer]

If a minister writes a report, I think it is more likely that they will highlight the successes and those things they would find the RA would like. I do not mean that they are directly attempting to be unforthcoming, but natural human bias does play a factor.

Do you believe that the executive is hiding something of note from the RA, intentionally or otherwise? Maybe I’m missing the majority of executive staff happenings, but it doesn’t seem to me like a ton happens that isnt talked about already.

 

[Robespierre]

This doesn’t strike me as something that would be of any particular use to the Regional Assembly in modern times. Against.

 

[Wonderess]

Do you believe that the executive is hiding something of note from the RA, intentionally or otherwise? Maybe I’m missing the majority of executive staff happenings, but it doesn’t seem to me like a ton happens that isnt talked about already.

That's a good question, BMW. I for one am not suspicious of the Executive Branch. I do not think that anyone is actively hiding anything from us or being deceitful. I think that as a principle, being more informed as a citizen and as the RA is a good thing because we can see things like performance or trends overtime that maybe we wouldn't have noticed otherwise. I will use the Ministry of Communications for my example. Let's say that every month The Northern Star is being published and the Designate reports this in the designated thread here in the RA. If we see that the next issue wasn't published until a month and a half later, then we can ask questions of the Minister or send them to the Designate to ask on the RA's behalf. I think there is great benefit of having regular lets say weekly reports from Designates to give a very up to date report on what is happening and then we can take that information and then draw informed conclusions and make informed decisions.

I think it is more about the RA having the information that it needs in order to function efficiently. Things are talked about in DMs and in passing on Discord, but this provides the ability to all see the same thing and draw the same conclusions from it which is different from other modes of information we may use.

 

[Wonderess]

This doesn’t strike me as something that would be of any particular use to the Regional Assembly in modern times. Against.

Im sorry to hear that. Would you mind telling me what your specific issue is with the model?

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Firstly, the executive posts reports regularly, if you want to engage with the executive it is open to anyone who wishes to join the executive staff, or you could ask the Ministers/appointees questions. Which some people do, but I know the author of this proposal does not do that.

Asking said questions is more likely to render comprehensive reports than having someone essentially digging for dirt on the executive. The RA could already motion to request a report from the executive if they feel it is required and the executive is hostile to the idea. Though I imagine simply asking the question would usually get you the same result. Usually what tends to happen is one or two citizens get in a huff about something, then once a report is provided that demonstrates what the government has been doing, they are soothed (see TEP situation). Also, might I add, there is nothing at present that prevents anyone from the executive staff to report on issues they see to the Regional Assembly directly. That is government accountability 101 and does happen as we are not afraid of causing "drama" if it is in the interests of our region.

The other concerned I can see is related to the separation of powers. This is giving a fair bit of authority to the Speaker to appoint people to investigate the administration without just cause. The Delegate could respond in kind and appoint people to investigate the Speaker's office, or the Court, or the Security Council. I really don't think that is a wise can of worms to be opening unnecessarily. That doesn't require law reform, it could simply be done, but it would create hostility and obstruction on the part of various arms of the government.

I would also add Wonderess that while you do say you want accountability and transparency, you never seem to engage with the reports, or to ask any probing questions. You are right that the reports are more likely to report on success, but the failures of a Minister are often quite clear to the executive staff they serve and to the community at large. It would be absolutely right for the report providers to be held accountable, for further questions to be asked, and for greater clarity to be gained. But I think the proven experience of providing the reports is that this rarely happens because people do not read or do not engage with them. I highly doubt that appointing a spy is going to make this any different.

 

[Robespierre]

Im sorry to hear that. Would you mind telling me what your specific issue is with the model?

I find the model to be unnecessary and not suitable for its intended purpose. Unnecessary in the sense that a model such as this doesn’t even need to be created when citizens, including yourself, are free to reach out to Ministers or their Deputy Ministers at any point in time and ask questions that you may have. If you desire increased transparency and you’re wanting answers, appointing a designeee doesn’t guarantee you either.

Meanwhile, if you take the initiative yourself and approach a Minister or someone who is the Executive Staff for the area of focus you’re seeking information on, the conversation you have with them is likely to yield more amicable results then going through a middleman. Our government is democratically-elected and it’s embedded in our region’s culture that we’re proud of these institutions having democratic roots. In saying that it’s not suitable in modern times, I mean that administrations already make an explicit effort to offer reports from each ministry (to the point where end of term reports in particular are required to be submitted upon the conclusion of a term) and on the off chance that an administration or a Minister doesn’t offer a report you would still have other avenues available to you as far as obtaining the information you were wanting is concerned.

 

[Wonderess]

Firstly, the executive posts reports regularly, if you want to engage with the executive it is open to anyone who wishes to join the executive staff, or you could ask the Ministers/appointees questions. Which some people do, but I know the author of this proposal does not do that.

I think the reports are a great thing, but I still think it is not to the full extent of what is most efficient in acquiring information. To get information I am going to read a report from the person or body that I am supposed to be monitoring? As I said the reporter is going to have some bias that favors the Ministry just by the very fact that it is their job to run and protect that Ministry. This isn't because they are being deceitful, it is a matter of subconscious involuntary bias. I was found in the VC this evening asking the very Delegate himself why he made a specific staffing decision, so I don't know how you come to these judgements about me as a citizen or what eveidence you are looking at if any in regards to me whereabouts.

Asking said questions is more likely to render comprehensive reports than having someone essentially digging for dirt on the executive. The RA could already motion to request a report from the executive if they feel it is required and the executive is hostile to the idea. Though I imagine simply asking the question would usually get you the same result. Usually what tends to happen is one or two citizens get in a huff about something, then once a report is provided that demonstrates what the government has been doing, they are soothed (see TEP situation). Also, might I add, there is nothing at present that prevents anyone from the executive staff to report on issues they see to the Regional Assembly directly. That is government accountability 101 and does happen as we are not afraid of causing "drama" if it is in the interests of our region.

I think the first issue with this point is that you think the Designate's job is to "dig for dirt." The Designate's job is to report without editorializing what it is they see happen in a ministry. They simply spectate and report and ask question on behalf of the RA. The Designate is less biased than the minister, deputy minister, or staffer since they are not to be directly invested in the Ministry they oversee. They would have no reason to dig for problems or to idealize the ministry.

The other concerned I can see is related to the separation of powers. This is giving a fair bit of authority to the Speaker to appoint people to investigate the administration without just cause. The Delegate could respond in kind and appoint people to investigate the Speaker's office, or the Court, or the Security Council. I really don't think that is a wise can of worms to be opening unnecessarily. That doesn't require law reform, it could simply be done, but it would create hostility and obstruction on the part of various arms of the government.

The RA's job is to elect and hold accountable the Executive. I believe in a government that has a strong Legislative branch and a moderate Executive branch. I think trying to bring the SC or Court as counter examples for that reason are an unfair parallel.

I would also add Wonderess that while you do say you want accountability and transparency, you never seem to engage with the reports, or to ask any probing questions. You are right that the reports are more likely to report on success, but the failures of a Minister are often quite clear to the executive staff they serve and to the community at large. It would be absolutely right for the report providers to be held accountable, for further questions to be asked, and for greater clarity to be gained. But I think the proven experience of providing the reports is that this rarely happens because people do not read or do not engage with them. I highly doubt that appointing a spy is going to make this any different.

A "spy" is once again not a charitable characterization of what a Designate would be. I am not as public in my specific misgivings with people because I dont want to start a big fiasco over it, to be completely honest. In your term, I saw a member of the Executive often absent from channels relating to their job and I told the Chief of Staff of the issue. I did it discreetly as to not bring chaos.

I understand your concerns, McM, but I do think that some of your ideas about this proposal are mistaken and really miss the spirit of what I hope is to be accomplished.

 

[Wonderess]

@Robespierre I have answered the collection of your points in past posts, but I think a good distinction to consider is the difference between internal auditing and external auditing. One must consider the perspective of the information holder. I want to make sure that there is the smallest possibility of bias when it comes to gathering information. This would require a neutral surveyor of the thing we wish to gain information upon. Members of any ministry regardless of role or rank are not neutral surveyors. That is a fact of the matter. It is within the RA's right to use neutral surveyors to obtain information more from a perspective lacking in any unforeseeable biases, and that is the strength of the Designate model over other models that require the ministries to report on themselves.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

To be clear, I am not saying you don't ever ask questions. What I am saying, is that you do not engage with the reports that Minister's provide. Read pretty well any of the reports offered in the last term or more and you'd be lucky to find any posts from you seeking further accountability or asking any questions. That's fine, you don't have to ask questions, but surely that is a first step before appointing designates. The reports are written from the perspective of the Minister or the Delegate, but the citizens and by extension the regional assembly have an absolute right to ask those questions and to say "this report is wrong: here is the real situation". This does not happen. What this proposal suggests to me, is that you want that to happen and my point is that there is nothing to stop you or anyone else from doing that.

I would also add that the committees that were appointed were chronically inactive. They had the inside scoop of the Ministries and the ability to provide reports, but they just didn't do so. They also had the ability to appoint additional members if they wanted to do so - but that didn't happen. Can you explain why the designate would be different?

I do appreciate the mansplaining of what the RA's job is though . I do find it fascinating however that you do not also find that the RA elects the Court, or that the RA appoints the Security Council, only that the RA elects the Delegate. It also did not address my point about separation of powers, the Delegate could right now appoint people to be a designate to the other branches of government. The RA could do the same, the Court could do it, the SC could do it. But what would happen is obstruction and that would be damaging.

 

[Wonderess]

I said before that since individuals would be responsible for a specific ministry, they would be pressured to do their job because the RA is waiting on a report or question to be answered. That is what is different from the committees and will spur functionality and activity of the Designates. The Executive cant recall the executive and neither can the Court or SC. You know that the RA is the body given the responsibility of oversight. The Executive is arguably the most active and influential organ of TNP so of course it warrants oversight as compared to other organs.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

So are you in favour of expanding the proposal to include Designates for the Court and the Security Council? Will there be a Designate to report on activities of the Speaker's office?

 

[Wonderess]

I did not say that I would have some for the Court or SC.

 

[St George]

Will there be a Designate to report on activities of the Speaker's office?

The Speakers Cabal will never accept such an imposition.

 

[Oracle]

In short I do not support this.

 

[Vivanco]

The Designate of Radio for instance may see what sort of shows are being run or take notice of how long one interview takes to be published to the youtube channel.

The members and deputies of said ministries do that already, and to add more pressure in an already under-pressure ministries with their actual organization, would create a burnout on the members too fast.

Against.

 

[Dreadton]

Well, it is definitely possible that the Executive can obstruct the Designate from obtaining information to report, I feel that it in itself would be "biting the hand that feeds you." I do not actually believe that Prydania would instruct or allow his ministers to oppose the Designates from entering ministry areas. However, in the off chance that would to occur, it is well known that the RA holds the recall card. Once again, I would never even consider that it would come to that with Pry as Delegate.

One of the main reasons I would oppose this move. You basically want to create a set of babysitters that are meant to generate political fodder for use against those some may want to oppose, under the guise of oversight.

Lets use the Ministry of Radio again as an example. Last term, I conducted an interview with @Vivanco . Vivancos interview was not announced, nor did I invite people to participate in the interview. I wanted a private one on one interview with them to ensure that we had a frank and open discussion and so that they did not feel the pressure of being under everyone's eyes. It led to what was a great interview. Since this interview was not announced, your Designate would have been left out. I just, as you put it, "Bit the hand that feeds me." I did announce the interview once it was ready and published, plus mentioned it in several of my reports. But if your Designate was cut out in the early process, I now have to deal with political fallout for doing what was best for my interviewee and the Ministry.

There is also no room for Regional Security in this course of action as it is written. Foriegn Affairs and Defense has to allow acess to the Designate and they are free to report everything to the RA without worring about pesky things such as operational security. IF FA and Defense does not let them in, well they must be hiding something and good luck ever being elected.

 

[Pallaith]

Having read additional posts from the author and others, I am now actually rather offended. We put thought into these reports and seek an accounting of what we’ve done and have yet to do. They are intended to be comprehensive and if anything is missed, we take pains to update them or welcome feedback. The idea that we are trying to look good, or hide something, or just plain leave stuff out, is insulting. Name a minister who did a report who didn’t do a good job and meet these criteria. You can’t.

Furthermore, we’re all part of the RA. Anyone in the executive is also in the RA. Our ministers, our deputies, our staff. The RA has dozens of eyes in every ministry. Are we supposed to pretend we’re someone else taking notes and scrutinizing the executive when we act as members of the RA? Should we take our executive hat off and put the RA one on? We’re one and the same. Why are we pretending that we’re talking about two different groups of people? This is not to say that the executive can’t be held accountable, that even people in the executive can’t scrutinize or use the RA to investigate and challenge. But I feel like some sort of us vs. them thing is being set up here and it’s just weird.

 

[Dreadton]

I said before that since individuals would be responsible for a specific ministry, they would be pressured to do their job because the RA is waiting on a report or question to be answered. That is what is different from the committees and will spur functionality and activity of the Designates. The Executive cant recall the executive and neither can the Court or SC. You know that the RA is the body given the responsibility of oversight. The Executive is arguably the most active and influential organ of TNP so of course it warrants oversight as compared to other organs.

...
...
If they need to be pressured to do their job, then the Delegate needs to remove them.
If the RA wants to ask a question about a ministry, There is a thread I would like to introduce you to : https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/6984623/
Then there is the whole RA can recall thing.

 

[El Fiji Grande]

I don't think this is needed. I will be voting against.

 

[Antonius Kaizuniviel]

After reading all that has been said, I’m afraid that this bill will not have my support.

 

[Wonderess]

Seeing once again universal opposition I will drop it. I hope that it one day starts to be considered just like my delegate report bill became popular after I dropped it.

 

[Comfed]

Can’t the speaker just ask what the ministry is doing?