Amendment to Article 5 of the Charter

[Sandaoguo]

In consultation with the Delegate, I've put together a technical amendment to Article 5 of the Charter. This amendment would simply put into statute the Cabinet changes that we've already made. The Cabinet would be split into two sub-parts: the senior levels members and the junior level members. The goal here is to give Deputies the opportunity to be involved in policy discussions, and to give SPINN and the head of the judicial system opportunities to look into Cabinet meetings and be part of the discussion process.

 

We are not creating a new government positions, but merely shuffling things around a bit. As such, there isn't much substantive change in this amendment. It's more technical, so I'm hoping we can bring this to vote by next Friday.

 

Here's the draft:

 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:Ubuntu, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;">Amendment to Article 5 of The Charter of The Coalition of The South Pacific


The Assembly of the South Pacific, having discussed and debated the composition of the Cabinet, and having determined that changes must be made to increase participation among Deputies and other important members of the Coalition community, hereby adopts the following amendment to Article 5 of The Charter of The Coalition of The South Pacific.

<p style="margin-left:40px;color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:Ubuntu, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"> 

<p style="margin-left:40px;color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:Ubuntu, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;">"Article 5: Executive

<p style="margin-left:40px;color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:Ubuntu, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;">Section 1 - Cabinet and Powers of the Cabinet

1. The Cabinet shall consist of senior and junior members.
   
2. The senior Cabinet members shall be the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minster of Regional Affairs, Minister of the Army, and Chair of the Assembly.
   
3. The junior Cabinet members shall be all appointed Deputies, the head of the judicial system, and the Editor in Chief of the South Pacific Independent News Network.
   
4. The Cabinet shall strive to promote activity in the region and shall remain cognizant of the well-being of all nations in the Coalition of the South Pacific.
   
5. The Cabinet may adopt Executive Policy in cases where no law exists; Executive Policy may not conflict with the Charter, Bill of Rights, or Code of Law.
   
6. The Cabinet will serve a term lasting four months, excepting appointed Cabinet Deputies, who serve at the discretion of their respective Senior Cabinet member. 
   
7. Procedures for the election of the senior Cabinet must be defined in the Code of Laws."
   

[Awesomiasa]

I can't help but notice, the Dean of TSPU is conspicuously missing from this list. Any thoughts on that?

[Sandaoguo]

You'll have to ask Bel for an "official" answer, but I would say that the Dean isn't included probably because it's not a position relevant to regional management or governance. TSPU is basically our general discussion section. The Dean is basically the moderator of those forums. We aren't including administrators in the Cabinet, even though they serve important functions to these forums. In my view, it's more about bringing in more voices from people are who already helping execute Cabinet policy, and bringing in the voices of those highly relevant to the Cabinet's governing responsibilities.

[Hileville]

I don't like placing the CJ and EIC in this Junior Cabinet.  We separated the branches of Government for a reason and this would somewhat combine them again by placing the CJ in the junior cabinet.  As for SPINN (South Pacific INDEPENDENT News Network), it has always been independent of the government to keep it away from cabinet moderation of articles.  I don't want SPINN to turn into the state news network.

 

I am fine with having Deputy ministers make up the junior cabinet.

[Belschaft]

My intention with including the CJ and SPINN EiC was more so that they would have access to cabinet discussions officially (as Admin's both you and SB can already see that area) so as to make it easier for them to do their jobs.

[Southern Bellz]

I don't think SPINN belongs with the government.  I think CJ should just be part of the cabinet.

 

I like the ideas of civic organizations outside of the government.  I think SPINN and TSPU are great examples of them and I think we should encourage more.

[Awesomiasa]

Civic organisations outside the government, that's a feasible idea I hope the Cabinet and/or fellow members of the TSP Community can start something.

[Kris Kringle]

I'm not sure about making the EiC a part of the Cabinet, but I have no problem with giving them access to Cabinet discussions. Like was said during the discussions we had about this, the point is to give SPINN, officially, more access to the Government (save for its more sensitive discussions) thus increasing transparency. Thus I don't feel this amendment would integrate SPINN into the Government, but rather giving them access to the Government. Perhaps the solution then would be not to name the EiC as a junior Cabinet member, but rather giving them legal access to Cabinet discussions.

[Sandaoguo]

I don't think SPINN belongs with the government.  I think CJ should just be part of the cabinet.

 

I like the ideas of civic organizations outside of the government.  I think SPINN and TSPU are great examples of them and I think we should encourage more.

 

I would think SPINN having access to the Cabinet meetings would be a boon for their reporting. Otherwise, SPINN would be relying on only what the Cabinet puts out there. And if SPINN editors already have access to the Cabinet forum by virtue of being forum admins, I would personally rather they have the legal means to write about what goes on in there, instead of possibly taking advantage of access they have unrelated to their SPINN role.

 

In real life, members of the media have close access to government officials, and various media organizations have direct access to government meetings. So that's the parallel I think we're trying to draw here, in my view. If SPINN objects to being labeled as a junior Cabinet position, though, I don't see a problem with removing the label. But if there's no legal means for SPINN to view Cabinet meetings, and yet any information not released by the Cabinet is printed, then I would have a serious problem with that going forward. This isn't any kind of accusation, but just a hypothetical.

[Rebel-topia]

IMHO, I dont support the CJ or SPINN EiC being jr cabinet members. I think they should both have legal access to the cabinet discussions, though, for clarity sake. The CJ can give the cabinet some "legal advice", and the SPINN EiC can report on the goings on in the cabinet.

 

But they really dont need to be A PART of the cabinet to do those things...

[Sandaoguo]

As far as I understand, only senior Cabinet members will be creating policy. Junior Cabinet members will have access to the forum and will be able to participate in the discussions. There will be a separate forum for only senior Cabinet members. So I think you guys are worried about a simple semantic distinction. If the SPINN editor and the head of the judicial system have access to the Cabinet forums and discuss Cabinet-level issues, they are in effect Cabinet members.

 

In my opinion, calling it what it is will help ensure that any possible conflict of interest is readily apparent. I wouldn't want a system where people are influencing Cabinet discussion and policy, while ostensibly being able to say they aren't really part of the Cabinet. If it's a good idea to give these people access to the Cabinet forums, then we should be calling them Cabinet members. Otherwise, we should exclude these people from the Cabinet forums altogether. The difficulty with that is when these people are also admins who can see and use the Cabinet forums anyways.

[Rebel-topia]

More to my point... I dont think the EiC should really add to the discussions. Thats not their job. They are there to report on the cabinets activity. Just because a media outlet has access to government areas doesnt mean they are part of that portion of the government... The CJ, imo, should only be there to offer legal advice upon such advice being needed. THAT is their job.  Nothing more, nothing less.

[Sandaoguo]

If SPINN doesn't want access, then they'll be excluded from this. But if SPINN does have access and does participate in discussions, then the EiC should be called a Cabinet member. If the EiC only has read permissions, then I'm fine with them having access but not having the label. The point, in my mind, of attaching the "junior Cabinet" label to these people is to ensure a certain level of accountability and transparency.

 

As for the Chief Justice, the inclusion in the junior Cabinet reflects, I believe, the reforms we'll be discussing in the future. The Cabinet would like to move away from the adversarial justice system to a more inquisitorial one. The new head of the judicial system wouldn't be creating policy, but would be able to discuss relevant information with the Cabinet. Until then, adding the CJ to the Cabinet would give them an oversight role, and would mean the Cabinet is able to discuss judicial reforms, legal questions, and other things that might not be appropriate for public consumption.

 

Remember, we're not expanding the policy-makers here. We're trying to do two things: bring in the grunt workers (deputies), and bring in people who have relevant needs/interests in Cabinet discussions. Deputies will be involved in Cabinet discussions. SPINN and the CJ will have access to them, and I'm simply recognizing the reality that they'll probably talk about them (if not in the Cabinet forums, then elsewhere) and have some type of influence over the Cabinet. We can grant access without labeling them Cabinet members, but in my opinion that is contrary to my goals of increased transparency.

[Kris Kringle]

I don't think that the EiC or the Chief Justice should be members of the Cabinet. The is a reason for having separation of powers, and having the head of an independent news service and the head of the judicial branch be part of the executive violates that principle. That being said, I do believe that it will be positive for the EiC to have read permission and for the Chief Justice to be able to read and participate in discussions, insofar as the CJ's advice is needed on legal matters, but all this should be done without labeling them as members of the Cabinet for the aforementioned reasons.

[Southern Bellz]

Giving EiC cabinet access compromises the point of 'behind closed doors'.

 

I think it might be a good idea to make the CJ a non-voting cabinet member.

[Sandaoguo]

So I would like to get this finished soon. It seems that, despite my attempts to convince you guys otherwise , there's a consensus that the EIC of SPINN shouldn't be a junior Cabinet member. But it doesn't seem like there's a clear opinion on the head of the judicial system. So, should they be a non-voting Cabinet member; have access to the forum, but no label; or remain the same as they are right now?

[Kris Kringle]

I will support giving the CJ access to the Cabinet Office but I can't support naming him or her a "Cabinet member", even as non voting. I can't support having the head of the judicial branch as a member of the executive. That would defeat the purpose of separation of powers.

[QuietDad]

SPINN should have access to Cabinet proceed for honest reporting access and the Justice arm should have access to what is supplied as evidence when charges are brought up. Unless the Chief Justice has "police" authorities, but I don't think it does.

[Sandaoguo]

I will support giving the CJ access to the Cabinet Office but I can't support naming him or her a "Cabinet member", even as non voting. I can't support having the head of the judicial branch as a member of the executive. That would defeat the purpose of separation of powers.

 

Bear in mind that Bel and I have proposed this as part of a broader reform, which includes getting rid of the Chief Justice system altogether. In the next week, I hope to have some more concrete plan to present to the Assembly.

[Kris Kringle]

Then I don't see the point of this particular reform at all. If the CJ position will be eventually abolished then this proposed amendment is unnecessary business for the Assembly.

[Awesomiasa]

I'd rather see the series of reforms before putting this to vote. What's the rationale for eliminating the CJ though?

[Sandaoguo]

The two don't really have anything to do with one another. I mention the judicial reforms because under the imagined system, the head won't be all powerful. I think knowing that would change the perspective on them being in the cabinet.


The judicial reform that'll be proposed to the Assembly can be seen in Belschaft's campaign platform.

[Kris Kringle]

That is what I mean. Is the Chief Justice still going to exist along with Bel's proposed Senate or is the position being abolished? If it is then I don't see the point in this amendment. Perhaps that could be clarified?

[Sandaoguo]

That is what I mean. Is the Chief Justice still going to exist along with Bel's proposed Senate or is the position being abolished? If it is then I don't see the point in this amendment. Perhaps that could be clarified?

 

There's probably going to be a position called the Chief Justice, because Southern Bellz requested that the name not be changed. But the judicial system isn't going to be run by this person. They aren't going to have any greater substantive power than other members of the Senate (or whatever we end up calling it). The Chief Justice is going to lead the Senate, much the same way I imagine that the Chair leads the Assembly, and he/she is going to represent the Senate in in the Cabinet.

[Hileville]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Kris Kringle" data-cid="105871" data-time="1380231770">
<div>
That is what I mean. Is the Chief Justice still going to exist along with Bel's proposed Senate or is the position being abolished? If it is then I don't see the point in this amendment. Perhaps that could be clarified?

 

There's probably going to be a position called the Chief Justice, because Southern Bellz requested that the name not be changed. But the judicial system isn't going to be run by this person. They aren't going to have any greater substantive power than other members of the Senate (or whatever we end up calling it). The Chief Justice is going to lead the Senate, much the same way I imagine that the Chair leads the Assembly, and he/she is going to represent the Senate in in the Cabinet.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

I think it would be better to hold off until we pass that legislation before moving forward with this then.