Obviously I am the author of the bill the RA just passed on this subject, so I am opposed to Wolf's proposal to further restrict this act of the delegate. My arguments are hardly changed from before, and I am not surprised to see the same people who opposed that bill are on board with this one. I do need to address some of the things that have been said, though, because they either do not seem to recognize the reality of the law as it is now, or they have suddenly begun singing a different tune than before, and I want to examine that.
I support the draft as stated. Having a delegate appoint themselves to a mandatory ministry slot goes against the spirit of the law, so having the RA confirm it is practical to get everyone on board while also leaving the flexibility to try this option. It shouldn't be so easy to skirt the law like this.
The law, has been pointed out, was changed. The law contemplates the scenario Wolf is concerned with, a delegate appointing themselves to a single mandatory ministry, and the law as decided by the RA is that a single mandatory ministry appointment is fine without a vote. So what spirit is being violated, other than the old archaic spirit from years ago that we decided to move past when we passed this law barely 3 months ago? How is the law being skirted, when the law literally allows the delegate to do this? You may disagree with the law, you voted against the bill back then, but that does not mean that something nefarious or tricky is being done here. Not even the bill's author thinks that a law is being skirted, he recognizes that this was a legal occurrence.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with having more oversight and accountability, especially when self-appoints had been exceptionally rare in the past but are now being used with increasing frequency.
Self appointments are going from "in a pinch", very rare events to increasingly the standard, and that absolutely wasn't the intent.
Your sense of statistics is off. This is the first self-appointment made since we passed the law 3 months ago. It is the third time in the region's history that it's happened. And as I have said many times when arguing about this topic, we live in very different times compared to past years. If it was difficult finding a MoD three months ago to the point the delegate appointed himself, it is hardly a stretch to think that it is still difficult now.
Well, considering I was not a fan of that "handy" act, this is certainly an improvement. "In a pinch" is a nebulous concept, subject to interpretation. As it lacks codification, the intent will eventually be forgotten and eventually misused.
This change expands RA oversight, and puts a certain amount of pressure on the Delegate to appoint someone else.
In a pinch is a nebulous concept. But in a pinch was the fun little name of the bill, not a legal term, and not a proposed limitation on the practice. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the permission is an absolute one. The RA just voted on this and decided a single mandatory ministry could be assumed by the delegate. As that bill's author, I added the stipulation for RA confirmation of more than one mandatory ministry because I recognized the legitimate concern that a more despotically-minded delegate could take advantage of assuming multiple mandatory ministries. If it were truly an in the pinch situation, I reasoned that it would only ever be a single ministry that was assumed, so it would require extraordinary circumstances, and a very good case, to get more than one. That is when the RA needs to step in and carefully evaluate. Everything I did with the prior bill was to make it possible for the delegate to have a release valve and take this unusual and non-preferred action when the circumstances demanded it.
I made changes to that bill based on your feedback even though you ultimately opposed the final version. I am curious why more wasn't said about this provision being insufficient, or allowing us to argue on those grounds? I would have happily had that debate then, because otherwise it certainly seems like there was tacit acceptance of the logic of the RA confirmation process. Yes, you can always add more oversight and more conditional language, but you have to weigh the value of that against the nature of the thing. If we're struggling to find a MoD, and you vote down the delegate's self-appointment of a single ministry, wouldn't we just end up back with the empty suit problem I was concerned with in Wolf's bill to forbid self-appointments? The current law recognizes that the delegate may need to self-appoint in tough times, and such a vote will drag out the period where no mandatory minister is in place and may force the delegate to pick a lackey who isn't suitable for the role to satisfy requirements. And if you want to avoid the empty suit problem you may be inclined to support the delegate's choice, in which case we just spent short of two weeks rubber stamping the decision that, if we're lucky, would not have even lasted that long, if a suitable replacement could be arranged within that time frame.
Extraordinary moments call for extraordinary measures, and the measure of appointing oneself as a minister while delegate is one such extraordinary moment. Such an extraordinary measure should come with a check, though. Having the RA confirm the Delegate serving as a mandatory minister seems eminently reasonable, if only to have more of the region involved in the goings on of the executive and thus more life and debate within the halls of the Regional Assembly.
I'm also of the mind that there should be pressure to give opportunity to new people, or at least not the usual people, to tackle a new project. I use myself as an example of this - I had no experience being Speaker, but the RA trusted me with the position, and with the help of some fantastic experienced and new deputy speakers I've been able to handle the office of Speaker. Such chances should be taken with our Minister positions.
On a final note, any Delegate that feels they can handle being Delegate and a Minister, and feels they have the popular mandate to do so, should have no worries presenting their case to the RA for a confirmation vote.
Did you just come to this conclusion now or have you always felt that way? You supported the bill that made this the current law, and at no point were you concerned with a lack of a check on the delegate's choice.
I am not sure why people keep insisting that this law contradicts our long-standing culture of seeking out new talent or leaving the talent up to the people and taking risks on them. This delegate is in fact in the midst of an open call for a new MoD, a process that takes more than a few days. The self-appointment is intended to ensure the office is filled until that process completes. All of this is public knowledge.
As to your last point, as I said, you're contemplating a rubber stamp scenario, the drawback of which is that it wastes a lot of time, time where we would not be filling our mandatory ministry. I am not so sure I subscribe to the virtue of a performative confirmation vote for the sake of good governance when it actually harms our ability to do what must be done in tough times. I have seen the idea of recall be dismissed, but I do have to remind you that the RA always has a check, on any official in the government, and it is in fact the recall. The concept of pressure has been brought up a lot in this discussion, this can also be applied without confirmation votes or red tape. The RA can pass resolutions or temporary restrictions - for instance, what Ambis threw out below, which I will get to shortly. The RA seems to think the only options available to it are recall or tying the government in knots at the start of whatever they wish to do. Use your imaginations people.
I'll admit that I am torn on this bill. I think both sides present decent arguments. At this point, I'm swayed a bit more towards against, due to a good point brought up by Vara of "if we have to confirm this controversial choice, why not every controversial choice."
Another potential option would be to institute a confirmation after a period of time - say two weeks. This would ensure that temporary appointments truly are "temporary" as the RA would kick the delegate out of the minister position if not.
Regarding this notion of a confirmation after a period of time: this is the sort of thing the RA can do now, without a legal change. If Ruben says this is temporary, the RA can, if it so chooses, pass a resolution declaring that it will expect a name of a new MoD in two weeks, and if it does not get one by that point in time, it will initiate recall of Ruben as MoD, or it can declare it will make that temporary provision a requirement of the existing law. Again, use your imaginations. If you want to put a clock on the delegate, then do it, you have always had that power. Or maybe hold a confirmation vote on his appointment anyway, see where the chips fall, and if the RA is majority against, Ruben has a chance to alter course or, if he insists on it, the RA can use the knowledge it now has about where it stands and take a firmer action that forces Ruben's hand. The RA seems to prefer to just make things extra hard automatically with one-size-fits-all provisions and red tape that cannot be adjusted instead of being more dynamic. That is hardly the delegate's fault, that is on you all.
