The South Pacific Security Council

[Hileville]

Well I just had a chance to finally read GE's comments.I have to say, well said indeed sir. The command structure is total shit. I mean the most active members of the SPA are basically all the lower ranking members (or what's left of them). Sheepa is inactive at best, Rebel and Pen are busy with RL and running their own region, and Bels is too busy with RL as well. We have a tattered SPA, hell we don't even really have an SPA anymore. The whole SPA needs to be overhauled, scrapped IMO but will leave that for another discussion.GE's idea for the structure of the RSC is pretty much the best one I've heard so far. That being said, I think if the MoS were to take the position of chairman we would need to change our election calendar. By that I mean make the term for MoS longer, maybe 4 months? Or something like that so we don't end up getting a new MoS and chairman every three months and having to clue them in on the whole process over and over.Maybe change the whole election calendar for every cabinet position. So that we don't end up with empty ballots all the time, staggering the elections a bit might help bring stability to cabinet roles as well as create more interest and a broader range of candidates as well.I know I may have rambled a bit but this is the first chance I've had in a few days to empty my thoughts about TSP and issues I've noticed.P.S. Region Security Council sounds great. Simple, straight to the point and we don't end up with some stupid acronym like SPA or TSPCSS

 
All cabinet terms are now 4 months.

[Drugged Monkeys]

My mistake. I knew thatWhat I mean still is that maybe we should stagger some of the cabinet elections

[Belschaft]

GE has, independently, essentially come up with the same concept that Milo and myself did, though with a few differences. In our model membership is the following;
 
The Delegate (Presiding, but not a voting member)
The Vice-Delegates (voting members); One of which acts as chair having been nominated as such and confirmed by the assembly (this is double confirmation  once as VD, once as Chairman)
The SPA Commander/renamed MoS (Cabinet role, co-opted as voting member)
The MoFA (Cabinet role, co-opted as voting member)
Other individuals as required and at the chairs discretion (non-voting members)
 
Just as GE identified, the issue of democratic accountability is key, with all voting members being either elected or assembly confirmed, and open to recall. Continuity is assured by the fact the Committee is led by, and contains, Vice-Delegates who serve much longer, open ended, terms. They are also our primary security asset, in that their large pools of influence and endo-counts act as a bulwark and in case of an invasion or rogue delegate they are the nations we will endo off in our response. It also ensures the de-politicization of security matters, as instead of an elected official the CSS is led by a highly trusted individual with a long history in the region who has been confirmed twice, first as a VD and then as CSS Chairman. The presence of the other members of the committee is designed with specific elements in mind; The MoFA organizes our relations with the outside world and our allies, and will be integral in any support we need from them or in releasing statements. The SPA Commander/renamed MoS (in the new model where the MoS's current duties are split down the middle, with internal ones going to the CSS and external ones the SPA) is responsible for our own military forces, and well as intelligence operations outside the region. The Delegate, 99.9% of the time, will be the one actually enacted security decisions - ie; ejecting and banning nations, etc - and is the head of government, and as such their inclusion is key but for very simple reasons of separation of powers they would neither chair nor vote in the CSS. Beyond these set roles, other individuals would be added as needed when they have particular skills needed, be the technical, military, or so on.
 
Broadly speaking, I think there is a consensus that there should be a demarcation between external and internal security/military matters; The SPA needs a dedicated officer to give it the tender love and care it needs (a commander actually able to make update is a must); Internal Security also needs emphasizing. The debate seems to be what form the division should take.
 
I will put up a poll to try and get a gauge on community feeling. And I promise not to rig this one.

[Belschaft]

<a class='bbc_url' href='http://forums.thesouthpacific.org/index.php?/topic/4382-mos-division-poll-preferred-demarcation/'>http://forums.thesouthpacific.org/index.php?/topic/4382-mos-division-poll-preferred-demarcation/</a>

[God-Emperor]

It's the differences, like I said before, that will be the difference between whether or not I actually vote for or against the proposal that eventually goes to a vote. I think the delegate should either be the chair, which I would not prefer, or not a member of the council at all. The delegate is already the "chair" of the region, as it were, and to make him or her a member of an organization he or she does not chair is not only somewhat degradin' to the office, but it would potentially put the chairman of the position of one day sayin' "shut up, Sir, and do what we voted for" to a disagreeable delegate. Now, the delegate is a servant of the region, but he should only be called to serve so far as the region ask for it. However, that isn't to say he shouldn't be a party to the discussion, which he should, but the fifth member should be a full votin' member. I don't think a Vice Delegate should be the Chairman 'cause, lets face it, our vice delegates aren't all that active, and I think the Chair, if anything, should be the most active position. Furthermore, I think the double confirmation would be onerous and unnecessary, especially if our choices are almost always between either B&N or Fudgie, and, just for the record, I'm against the old Minister Of Security becomin' the new SPA Commander for the aforementioned reasons. Finally, I don't think the Minister Of Foreign Affairs should be a member, particularly if the delegate is a member, 'cause, at that point, half of the cabinet would be a member of the council, and it would pose the serious problem of formin' a 'shadow council' where internal affairs, arguably more important, become far less important than their peers on the council. Other individuals required by the chair, whomever that may be, must be citizens. Anyway, I would argue that the MoS as chairman would be a highly trusted individual with a long history in the region and elected by the citizenty, unless Bel doesn't think he fills those criteria. The newly empowered MoS should be able to communicate with his counterparts in other regions, as the MoFA does, and, if the council is limited to strictly security matters, as it should be, this shouldn't be a problem. Again, as with the delegate, the MoFA should be happy to assist, as needed, but, just as none of use believe the MoS should no longer be burdened with the day to day activities of the SPA, the MoFA's attention should not be split between his constitutional duties and his council duties. Once again, to reiterate, I do not think the MoS should just become the new SPA commander 'cause, like the MoFA, the MoS has constitutionally delegated powers, and to amend the Charter to exercise those powers is more trouble than I think this proposal is worth, considerin' I agree with the spirit of those who wrote the Charter. My proposal maintains that very spirit, if not the letter, and, if nothin' else, it'll bring a level of transparency to The South Pacific's intelligence agency that it has not seen since its creation, mostly by namin' a director that may be accountable to the region in some way, even to the point of makin' the appointee the de facto Deputy Minister Of Security. In conclusion, I'd like to go back the role of the delegate on the council once again.Not that this is the counterproposal, but, were the delegate to have a vote on the council, noting that without one there would be an even number, four, members on the council constantly susceptible to gridlock, his vote would only matter if there was a tie 'cause, when there isn't a tie, either see the scenario I laid out before, or the majority of the council already agrees with him. When there is a tie, the delegate, as the swing vote, virtually gets to do whatever he wants so what's the point of puttin' him on the council? There isn't one, if ya ask me, 'cause either the delegate's will is one with the council or it isn't. If separation of powers is a principle of this region,which it is, ya shouldn't have the MoS and MoFA, much less all three, a member of the same secondary organization. Both of their wealths of experience will be highly valued by whatever form this organization eventually takes, institutionalizin' their participation would be almost as much of a mistake as allowin' non-citizens onto the council.I encourage everyone to vote in the above poll.TL;DR?Minister Of Security (Chairman)Vice Delegates (Members)The South Pacific Army Commander (Member)Deputy Minister Of Security/Director Of The South Pacific Intelligence Agency (Member)

[Antariel]

Will post thoughts in more detail over the w/e.

[Topid]

When you say "voting member" what exactly do you invision voting on? I like the concept of all of our policies being decided by the Assembly. And I don't think the Assembly granting power to the Regional Security Organization (RSO, floating another name. ) would infringe on that, so long as the authority for the RSO/SC/Security Committee originates with the assembly. If we go back to the charter and say these positions are in charge of this, and the rest is to be decided by the Assembly, that is far less ideal.
 
My vision of the 2beNamedBody was more a group of people who the Assembly gives special priviliages, mainly to have a higher endorsement cap. Possibly to decide the number/percent value of the cap that applies to everyone else because the Assembly frequently loses focus on that all-important job and is slow at bringing about change. No further power. And even then, all power would originate from the Assembly and could be removed thereby.
 
And the goals, I thought, was to encourage our older players to keep a WA nation here and hopefully increase our high-influence natives who we truly know or trust. The South Pacific has a shockingly low number of high-influence natives that are involved on the forums. Most of the top 20 in high-influence nations as far as I know have had little or no interaction with the forum. I'm not saying that they are threats, but more that it would be more ideal that we have more than SB and Fudgie and B&N who we know and trust very well whom have too much influence to be ejected easily. If so shouldn't this not be a group of the VDs plus MoFA and MoS? If that's what we're doing, we should just say that cabinet members may exceed the cap if they have a WA in the region. That doesn't really seem to me to work toward the goal of getting more of us to move our WA here. Plus it doesn't seem to encourage us to keep them here permanently, since the MoFA will eventually not be the MoFA and thus not a member of teh 2beNamedBody.
 
I'm overall confused at how this is shaping up.

[God-Emperor]

See Hileville's Charter proposal.

[Topid]

See Hileville's Charter proposal.

Having trouble figuring out what you mean, I can't see anything?

[Milograd]

Check the "Discussion Hall" forum, Top.

[God-Emperor]

Yes, indeedy.

[Karpathos]

Has this progressed? I for one agree that something must be done and support Bel and Milo's proposal. I'm indifferent on what we call it, so long as the security loop-hole is covered.

[Milograd]

The Committee for State Security would be established by the new charter that we have drafted. It remains to be seen if it'll pass.

[God-Emperor]

If not, it was all for naught.  

[Belschaft]

If not we'll vote again, and again, and again, to people vote the <em class='bbc'>right</em> way.

[Milograd]

If not we'll vote again, and again, and again, to people vote the right way.

Precisely. You will eventually have to vote the right way.

[God-Emperor]

Just like the European constitution.  Keep proposin' it to the French 'til they say wee.