Chair of Assembly: Role, Duties, Powers Need Definition

[Escade]

Recent events have shown that the Chair of Assembly is not a clearly defined member of the government in terms of role, duties and powers. I'd like to discuss this position and bring up some key questions that will help clarify for all of us.

 

First, the charter states:

 

"Section 2 - Chair of the Assembly and Duties of the Chair.

1. The Assembly will elect a Chair which will be responsible for the administration of all aspects of the drafting, debate, and passage of legislation.
   
2. The Chair of the Assembly will serve on the Cabinet and act as the Legislative Liaison between the Cabinet and Assembly.
   
3. The Chair will serve a term lasting four months.
   
4. Procedures for the election of the Chair must be defined in Code of Laws.​"
   

The Code of Laws states that the CoA is a member of the cabinet. The Chief Justice, however, is not.

 

The above describes the position as "administrative" and as a "legislative liaison."  However, the recent spate of events shows that their is come conflict between CoA and for example MoFA in terms of authority that needs to be straightened out.

 

From the charter

 

"Section 3 - Ministry of Foreign Affairs

1. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs will be led by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
   
2. The Ministry is responsible for all interactions with foreign regions.
   
3. The Ministry has the power to negotiate treaties, alliances, and other agreements with a foreign entity. Enactment of a treaty or alliance requires a vote of the Assembly in accordance with the provisions for General Laws.
   
4. The Ministry is responsible for the drafting and distribution of a regional update.
   
5. The Ministry is responsible for approving, denying, constructing, and requesting the removal of embassies and consulates."
   

 

Therefore, I would like to have it clarified legally that the CoA may not use their title or position to, for example, represent foreign affairs or regional affairs. No member of the government may use their title or position to counter the authority of another.

 

 

Finally, the powers of the assembly which the CoA serves in an administrative and representative capacity:

 

"Section 1 - Assembly and Powers of the Assembly

1. The Assembly is comprised of all Citizens of The Coalition.
   
2. The Assembly shall constitute the sole legislative body in The Coalition.
   
3. The Assembly is responsible for the drafting and discussion of General Laws, and Amendments to the Charter and Code of Laws.
   
4. The Assembly may pass and amend a Law with a vote resulting in 50% + 1 in favor.
   
5. The Assembly may amend the Charter with a vote resulting in a 75% majority in favor.
   
6. The Assembly has the sole power to declare a state of war exists with another region or organization.
   
7. The Assembly has the sole power to pass a treaty with another region or organization.
   
8. Declarations of War and Treaties require a 60% majority in favor.
   
9. Proposed legislation may be moved to a vote by the CoA after a Motion and a Second to vote is lodged.
   
10. The voting period will last three days for all General Laws and five days for Amendments to the Charter."
    

 

 

1. Should the CoA be a cabinet member?

 

I don't think so. They can liase with the cabinet without needing to be on the cabinet. For any treaties etc. they have ample opportunity to make their case known within the assembly. This way the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are truly separate. Finally, executive policy is determined by the executive branch as they were elected to do so.

 

2. How can the language in Section 2 of the Charter be clarified? What are the CoA's role,duties, and powers clearly?

 

 

In addition, I'd like to avoid one elected official from using their title\position to usurp the authority of another. It's just bad form. Any government official may state their opinion on the assembly and we all do sometimes quite heatedly but to bring the title\position up to trash another official's jurisdiction is really mind boggling.

[Sandaoguo]

This stuff about titles is just completely misguided, and I don't know why you guys are still caught up on it. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is the Minister of Foreign Affairs no matter what signature they append to their posts. No person can be two completely separable people: the mere citizen and the minister. I oppose any kind of legislative effort to ban Cabinet members from "using their title" without the permission of the Cabinet, which is effectively what you're asking for.

 

Furthermore, removing the Chair from the Cabinet is also a no-go for me. That would simply consolidate more power in an elite group, which is contrary to TSP's open and democratic culture.

[Escade]

Then if we are being that open the Chief Justice should be on the cabinet as well since there is no clear separation of the three branches.

 

Titles are important and they can be misused.  I'm not sure why dissent as a citizen isn't good enough for someone who wishes to dissent with a executive policy.

[Sandaoguo]

Then if we are being that open the Chief Justice should be on the cabinet as well since there is no clear separation of the three branches.

The Chief Justice isn't a policy-making position. Literally all the other positions are. There is a clear delineation of branches. The Cabinet is elected to run the day-to-day necessities of the region. It is subservient to the Assembly. The problem with the position of the Chair isn't that the branches of government aren't clearly defined -- it's that the role of the Chair isn't clearly defined.

Is the Chair a Cabinet member first, or does it represent the Assembly? If it's the latter, then there needs to be effective communication between the Assembly and the Cabinet through the Chair. The Chair needs to be a real liaison, which means the Chair should be speaking to the Assembly on everything the Cabinet does.

If the Chair is a Cabinet member first, then the whole thing about shutting up and falling in line makes more sense. The Chair would protect the integrity of the Cabinet, and the Cabinet would be a more centralized body in TSP.

Defining that relationship is what we should be doing. We shouldn't just abandon the dual role of the Chair.
 

Titles are important and they can be misused.  I'm not sure why dissent as a citizen isn't good enough for someone who wishes to dissent with a executive policy.

Titles are not important whatsoever. If Hileville goes on to write a screed against defenders, but doesn't append "MOFA" at the end, nobody is going to be tricked into thinking Hileville doesn't hold those opinions when he's acting as a Cabinet member. You're trying to have it both ways -- you want to allow dissent, but you don't want to allow Cabinet members to dissent as Cabinet members. It doesn't make any sense at all. Sure, feel free to recall people for using their titles in ways you personally view inappropriate. But nobody is under the illusion that Cabinet members have two completely separate sets of beliefs, opinions, brains, personalities, and characters.

[Rebel-topia]

Does that mean that, if the Assembly has a discussion and approves some wording for Hile to take on to XKI/TITO for a treaty, that Hile has the right to say no and throw a temper tantrum? Absolutely not. He does what the assembly tells him to do. Thats his job. He may use his bias, not go out of his way to write treaties with Defenders, but if thats what the Assembly wants, thats what the Assembly gets.

 

All Cabinet positions are servants of the Assembly. I think thats what is escaping some people.

[Escade]

Exactly, by beginning a statement with "As Delegate" or "As Chair of the Assembly" you are bringing to bear the authority of the position. As a servant or facilitator you cannot speak as "CoA" or "Delegate" in direct opposition to what the cabinet, as elected representatives who are responsible for executive policy as they best see fit, without abusing the title and trying to give your personal opinions the backing of the assembly or region.

 

It's as if after the statement on Osiris, I now write a public message to Venico stating, "As delegate of the South Pacific I declare your actions illegal and challenge you to a duel in the field of honor."  I am relying on my title then to bolster a personal opinion\sentiment.

 

Yes, if I make such a statement without beginning with "as a delegate" I am still the delegate but in the second instance I am not trying to bring the authority of my position as condoning my actions and words.

 

If the CoA is merely a spokesperson for the assembly then he need not be in the cabinet in the first place.  This idea of the assembly running the cabinet is a dangerous one because it is easy for one lone deranged voice to overwhelm the assembly with circular and terribly flawed arguments.

 

I also have never seen the CoA actually go to the RMB or IRC and advertise or promote people to come on the forums for discussion. Therefore, the assembly itself is a sample of TSP not TSP itself. Until further work is done to be more inclusive of all TSPers in the assembly and not just a handful of regulars I detest the idea of thinking that the assembly is the lone voice of TSP.

 

 

Cabinet members are not like members of the supreme court who are in equal standing and authority. TSP cabinet members are elected for knowledge, expertise or a campaign that asserts a direction they will take in a particular sphere of government. They are meant to speak with authority or represent TSP with their title\position when it is appropriate and required of them.

[Cormac]

I'm going to have to agree with Sandaoguo here on a couple things. First, it doesn't matter whether a government official uses his or her title or not. If that government official expresses an opinion, reasonable and informed people are going to know who he is and what his office is and are going to take that into consideration. If Hileville were to write a post arguing that [Insert Allied Region Here] is worse than Nazis, for example, it's not going to matter whether or not he signs that post as "Minister of Foreign Affairs." People know he's Minister of Foreign Affairs and his opinion is going to have consequences for The South Pacific's foreign affairs regardless. Similarly, reasonable and informed people knew that Sandaoguo was Chair of the Assembly and a member of the Cabinet of The South Pacific. When he issued a statement disagreeing with the Cabinet's course of action, even if he hadn't signed it as Chair people knew he was Chair and knew that indicated there was disagreement within the Cabinet.

 

I also agree with Sandaoguo that it doesn't make sense to remove the Chair from the Cabinet. It might make sense in other regions, but in a parliamentary democracy like The South Pacific it doesn't. The Cabinet is accountable to the Assembly, here, in ways that aren't necessarily true in other regions, and in order to preserve that accountability there needs to be someone on the Cabinet who is there to act both as a representative of the Assembly to the Cabinet and as a representative of the Cabinet to the Assembly. Trying to decide whether the Chair represents one or the other is an exercise in futility. He represents both to the other.

 

As Rebeltopia says, all Cabinet officials are accountable to the Assembly. But the Chair is there in part, in my view, to ensure that they are remaining accountable to the Assembly. At the same time, the Chair is also a Cabinet official and as a Cabinet official he's expected not to run off and go rogue. He might represent the Assembly on the Cabinet, but that doesn't mean he represents the Assembly in any other capacity or speaks for it. Had Sandaoguo opened a discussion in the Assembly on the Cabinet statement and insisted that such a discussion needed to take place because this could have a major impact on The South Pacific, I think that would have been a different matter. That would have been appropriate for his office. Instead, he issued his own statement as Chair of the Assembly -- which doesn't actually mean anything, because the Chair has no power to speak for the Assembly, which can and should speak for itself when it feels the need to do so but otherwise should speak through collective decisions of the Cabinet it entrusted to do so on important matters or through individual ministers on less important matters. Speaking as an individual Cabinet official on a matter of this importance, completely outside the purview of his office, was not appropriate for his office.

 

In the end, sure, we can make changes to the law to clarify the role and powers of the Chair. Those changes shouldn't remove a meaningful liaison between the Assembly and the Cabinet, nor should they focus on the importance of titles and their use (which really isn't that important a matter at all). They should instead focus on when it is and isn't appropriate for an individual official to speak and act and when it is and isn't appropriate for the Cabinet to act collectively. But to be frank, no change to the law is going to prevent a Chair from going rogue and disrespecting the importance of collective Cabinet decisionmaking or making up his own power to speak for the Assembly when he should have instead, at most, been asking the Assembly what it thought. That's a personality issue and it's one we can only do anything about when we're electing a Chair, and something citizens need to be vigilant about when they're deciding on who their Chair should be.

 

For that reason, I don't personally see any need to make changes to the law at this time. I think it would be far better to make sure we're asking questions of our candidates for Chair to ensure they understand what are already fairly clear responsibilities to the Assembly and its Cabinet. It seems to me Sandaoguo didn't, and perhaps still doesn't. Hopefully the next Chair will.

[QuietDad]

    I, as Chief Justice, don't think it should be a Cabinet Position and I don't think the CoA should be either. The CoA IS the voice of the Assembly and can get laws/Charter Amendments passed based on the will of the Region and by removing ties to the Cabinet,  it removes the issues we just had. Have an issue with the Cabinet? Then get a bill up that makes the CoA's stance a law or Charter provision. Cabinet wants a policy that is not in the Charter or Laws? Then make it. Treaties should be made by the MoFA, PENDING APPROVAL of the Assembly. The CoA needs not to be a secand "avenue" of approaching TSP for treaties with foreign elements. Either side cross the line? That;s what the courts are supposed to be for.

By tying the Chief Justice or CoA to the Cabinet, you handcuff both positions. I know as Chief Justice that if I was involved in a secret Cabinet session and had issues that a new policy coming out crossed the line, as Chief Justice I can't bring up charges and my only recourse would be to speak "as a citizen" and since it's a "private" discussion, I can't even do that.

    I can see the need for "private" discussions in the cabinet, however decisions should be reported at least as "By a 5-1 vote, the Cabinet decided..." OR "After consoling with the Cabinet, the Delegate has enacted/decided.....". That would be transparency. We don't need to know WHO, but by knowing how strong the feeling of the Cabinet is, it would give a better feel where things are at.

[Sandaoguo]

I don't feel like rehashing, yet again, my motives and my actions. I'm just to point out one flaw in an otherwise agreeable post by Cormac. The Chair of the Assembly's purview is everything. The Chair of the Assembly has a general portfolio that encompasses any and all policies, foreign and domestic. That's a fundamental aspect of the position, since the Assembly itself has plenary legislative authority. In other words, there are no areas the Chair is unable to comment on, because there are no areas on which the Assembly cannot legislate. The extent to which a Chair can comment on any particular Cabinet policy is the extent to which other Cabinet members won't freak out when the Chair comments on any particular Cabinet policy.

[Hileville]

At this point I would support removing the CoA from the Cabinet. I think we need to move in the direction of better separation of the branches and powers. When I get a chance I will read through the Charter again and propose a wider reform package.

[Hileville]

Also as to Cabinet statements I am fine with letting everyone know the vote after the statement is posted. I don't believe that should be included in the statement itself though.

[Sandaoguo]

At this point I would support removing the CoA from the Cabinet. I think we need to move in the direction of better separation of the branches and powers. When I get a chance I will read through the Charter again and propose a wider reform package.

 

How does this separate powers? Removing the Chair would simply allow the Cabinet to go unchecked, because there's literally no watchdog that will tell the Assembly when something's up. The only way to remove the Chair from the Cabinet would be to open up the Cabinet entirely and completely change what we consider security-sensitive discussions. The Cabinet doesn't want that, either.

[Escade]

As a liaison the CoA is in an administrative capacity, not an executive one. Their job isn't to make decisions but to moderate assembly discussions and collate them for the cabinet who will then make executive policies. They may draft legislation but again it is based on the policies outlined by the assembly and cabinet not by the CoA themselves.

 

GR, the way you're describing the CoA is extremely broad and vague and basically we have no need for a delegate and cabinet in that case the CoA runs authority in all fields. In fact, we need to make sure that the position is balanced with other roles in the government. The other government roles all have clear jurisdiction in law but CoA is open to wildly different interpretations. It shouldn't be that way.

 

I know that the "secret" cabinet meetings are driving some people up the wall but considering how a farce was made of TSP in recent days with our personal disagreements becoming a spectacle across the board, I'm more firmly in the stance that the cabinet discussions remain private and any release be in line with sunshine laws.

 

As for the policy on statements, we can open up the discussion in the assembly as well. That is a separate point.

[Hileville]

I can't post huge arguments as I am on my phone. I agree with Escade on everything she said. We have seen where people have pointed out the Chairs endless powers. It is time to start adding checks to this position and reducing the power this one position holds.

[Sandaoguo]

GR, the way you're describing the CoA is extremely broad and vague and basically we have no need for a delegate and cabinet in that case is the CoA runs authority in all fields. In fact, we need to make sure that the position is balanced with other roles in the government. The other government roles all have clear jurisdiction in law but CoA is open to wildly different interpretations. It shouldn't be that way.

No, you're misreading what I said. The Chair of the Assembly does not have authority over anything but the procedural aspects of the Assembly. As a Cabinet member, however, if the Chair represents the Assembly, or even acts merely as a liaison, then its portfolio encompasses everything. That is a necessity, as the Assembly itself has plenary legislative authority. The Chair has to be able to talk about everything, otherwise it's a pretty useless liaison.

 

Furthermore, I think you guys have this really strange notion of what is a liaison. I'm getting the sense that you guys think the Chair should simply tell the Assembly what the Cabinet is doing. That's not a liaison. That's a newsletter. Maybe we need to stop using that term altogether. The Chair wasn't added to the Cabinet just to deliver regular updates to the Assembly. It's a senior Cabinet position for a reason, and I believe that reason is to serve as an adviser of sorts. Not just a middle-man for Cabinet-Assembly communication, but somebody who represents the Assembly to the Cabinet. In that way, the Chair is not some mindless robot, but a political officer with opinions, beliefs, etc., and with a mandate to serve as the point-person for the Assembly to have its interests represented in the Cabinet itself.

 

You guys want to cut off the last remaining link between the Assembly and the Cabinet. That's just not going to work. It will turn TSP into all the other GCRs, where government is an elite and all-powerful group. The Assembly must be represented in the Cabinet, and in order for that to work, the representative must be able to talk to the Assembly about what the Cabinet is doing while it is doing it. There is no other way for this position to exist.

 

The current Cabinet has this troubling tendency to consolidate in an anti-democratic manner. Let's not do it yet again.

[Escade]

 

You guys want to cut off the last remaining link between the Assembly and the Cabinet. That's just not going to work. It will turn TSP into all the other GCRs, where government is an elite and all-powerful group. The Assembly must be represented in the Cabinet, and in order for that to work, the representative must be able to talk to the Assembly about what the Cabinet is doing while it is doing it. There is no other way for this position to exist.

 

The current Cabinet has this troubling tendency to consolidate in an anti-democratic manner. Let's not do it yet again.

 

 

1. "Consolidate in an anti-democratic manner" - or otherwise know as agree on a point that you disagree on.  Democracy is not the tyranny of the minority voice, it is a consensus of the majority.

 

2. Then, "the representative must be able to talk to the Assembly about what the Cabinet is doing while it is doing it."  I'm not sure if I follow this point. Cabinet discussions are private. Usually either a discussion begins in the assembly and then moves into the cabinet after a certain point or a discussion moves from the cabinet into the assembly such as the discussion of the Kantrias agreement.  Therefore, in either case the assembly is part of the process and in fact no legislation can go through without the assembly discussing or voting.

 

There can't be two CEOs in one company is what I'm trying to state. There can't be two heads of household. There needs to be a clear demarcation of role, powers, and expectations for CoA as there are for the Delegate, MoFA, MoRA, et al.

 

I'm not trying to consolidate power in the cabinet, what I'm trying to do is figure out who is responsible for what so that no one can overstep their boundaries.  One cabinet member trashing the work of another is a problem and needs to be addressed.

 

I think if we ran a discussion right now asking the assembly what exactly the CoA is responsible for we would get much of the same confusion we've had in other threads that have brushed on the topic.  If it's the citizens of TSP that are important here then they should easily be able to understand the position so that all of us know who we're voting for and in what capacity.

[Kris Kringle]

Haven't read this thread fully (the Disney Christmas party is crazy!), but I'm really confused here. Didn't you say Glen that the Chair was merely an administrative officer? Now it turns out the CoA is this all powerful auditor from the Assembly. What is it then? (Will continue posting later tonight)

[Cormac]

I'm opposed to the Chair being removed from the Cabinet. The Cabinet is accountable to the Assembly because this is a parliamentary democracy; in order for the Cabinet to remain accountable to the Assembly, the Assembly can't be entirely excluded from the Cabinet's business. If the Chair is removed from the Cabinet, the Assembly will in fact be entirely excluded from Cabinet business.

 

I also disagree with Glen's interpretation of the role of the Chair. He's assuming that the all-encompassing purview of the Assembly extends to the Chair. It doesn't. Yes, as a Cabinet official the Chair can comment on any matter before the Cabinet -- as can any other Cabinet official. But just because the Assembly can make foreign policy doesn't mean the Chair should be making statements on foreign policy. The Chair is not the Assembly, nor does he necessarily represent the views of the Assembly. Again, it would have been appropriate for Glen to move for an Assembly discussion of the recent Cabinet statement. It wasn't appropriate for him to make his own statement.

 

Anyway, I could support a more clearly defined role for the Chair if others feel it's needed but I personally can't support the Chair's removal from the Cabinet. At least not without further transparency requirements for the Cabinet. If there isn't someone on the Cabinet watching out for the Assembly's interests, the Assembly needs to be able to more closely and directly monitor Cabinet activity.

[Sierra Lobo]

I'm opposed to the Chair being removed from the Cabinet. The Cabinet is accountable to the Assembly because this is a parliamentary democracy; in order for the Cabinet to remain accountable to the Assembly, the Assembly can't be entirely excluded from the Cabinet's business. If the Chair is removed from the Cabinet, the Assembly will in fact be entirely excluded from Cabinet business.

 

I also disagree with Glen's interpretation of the role of the Chair. He's assuming that the all-encompassing purview of the Assembly extends to the Chair. It doesn't. Yes, as a Cabinet official the Chair can comment on any matter before the Cabinet -- as can any other Cabinet official. But just because the Assembly can make foreign policy doesn't mean the Chair should be making statements on foreign policy. The Chair is not the Assembly, nor does he necessarily represent the views of the Assembly. Again, it would have been appropriate for Glen to move for an Assembly discussion of the recent Cabinet statement. It wasn't appropriate for him to make his own statement.

 

Anyway, I could support a more clearly defined role for the Chair if others feel it's needed but I personally can't support the Chair's removal from the Cabinet. At least not without further transparency requirements for the Cabinet. If there isn't someone on the Cabinet watching out for the Assembly's interests, the Assembly needs to be able to more closely and directly monitor Cabinet activity.

This I think is the heart of the matter. The CoA is the assembly's representative to the executive. The assembly is not the executive and we do have members in the assembly that do not have the pertinent facts that the executive branch members have which is discussed in close door sessions. It is the CoA's job to enlighten us "blind members" of these facts; unless, it is the intent of the executive to make the assembly just a simple rubber stamp for the region and facts that do come out to light within the debate halls are just sanitized versions of pre-approved statements made by the executive.

[LadyElysium]

I'm chiming in on this more fully when I'm not using my phone later today or tomorrow. But I agree with Cormac and Sierra's last posts here. Will elaborate when actually at a computer.

[Belschaft]

The issue that people seem to be forgetting is that the Executive is itself dependent on and subservient to the Assembly. The various ministers are all members of the Assembly; they were elected to the Cabinet by the Assembly. Should they lose the confidence of the Assembly they can be recalled from office. Any decision made by the Executive can be overturned by the Assembly, which can in turn make policy if it wishes to. The regions stance on Osiris was determined by the Assembly, when it chose to end the alliance we had with them and to insist on non-recognition of the post KRO regime.

[Sandaoguo]

Haven't read this thread fully (the Disney Christmas party is crazy!), but I'm really confused here. Didn't you say Glen that the Chair was merely an administrative officer? Now it turns out the CoA is this all powerful auditor from the Assembly. What is it then? (Will continue posting later tonight)

 

The Chair of the Assembly is an administrator, but it is also a senior Cabinet position. I've always said that the power of the Chair comes solely from its inclusion in the Cabinet, because its role in the Assembly is only about procedure. That's how it's been working, because I don't think previous Chairs really embraced the idea of being the link between the Assembly and the Cabinet, or representing a checking factor against the centralization of authority within the Cabinet.

 

@Cormac: Please just stop drudging it up, because you're being very inaccurate. Not once did I claim to be representing the position of the Assembly. No Chair has ever spoken for the entire Assembly, and I certainly didn't break that practice.

[Rebel-topia]

Ive read most of this... not everything, but most... And this is how I see it...

 

The Chair IS a Cabinet member, and should remain a Cabinet member. I dont think that they are the "all powerful", but I dont think they are (or should be) reduced to what most think the Chair is all about. IMO, the Chair is the admin of the Assembly, but has Cabinet powers. Essentially... The Cabinet needs the CoA to provide the checks and balances within the Assembly. The Assembly needs the CoA to provide checks and balances within the Cabinet.

[Escade]

Right, so what does this mean specifically?

 

If you see the description of the MoFa above or any other position, a list of what each position should do is in the legislation. Can we come up with something similar for CoA?

[Sandaoguo]

The difficulty with coming up with a list like that, Escade, is that the Chair wasn't made with a specific portfolio in mind. The responsibilities of the Minister of Foreign Affairs are easy to list because that ministry has a specific purpose. There is no specific purpose of the Chair, because there's no specific purpose of the Assembly. I know I'm basically repeating myself, but I think the the root of the problem here is that people don't see the position as a representative.