Statement from the Chair on the Events in Osiris

[HEM]

Glen-Rhodes did nothing legally wrong by writing this statement. That's where people like Unibot are getting confused. Of course GR has the right to say whatever he wants on this issue (as far as I know). However, something can simultaneously be legal and deplorable.

 

Our government must hold solidarity as our government. By making this statement, GR has divided our government and created himself -- on this incredibly important foreign policy position -- as the "opposition". In making this statement GR has acted in contrary to the interests of the South Pacific's government. He broke no law in making this statement, but he did -- however -- stick a knife firmly in the back of the government he is apart of. 

 

 

It makes no sense to say The Chairman can vote on these issues and be political in those regards, but The Chairman cannot publicly "say" what he thinks from his position. Under that logic, it's fine for the Chairman to political opinions behind closed doors, but it's not okay for him to voice them outside of the secret Cabinet meetings. That's a disturbing depiction of our democracy.

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;"> 

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;">HE'S VOTING AS CHAIRMAN ON THESE MATTERS?? -- why is he allowed to SPEAK AS CHAIRMAN ON THESE MATTERS???

 

This cannot be generalized. On matters of vital policy the Executive of this region (i.e. the Cabinet) must confer and make a collective decision -- as our government. The government then announces that decision. You can't have a faction of the government working against itself. A house divided cannot stand.

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with free speech, and absolutely everything to do with the unity of our region.

 

I voted for Glen twice, and I'm sorry to say I regret my votes.

[Auralia]

Glen-Rhodes did nothing legally wrong by writing this statement.

Indeed, and I think we all would do well to remember that.
 

Our government must hold solidarity as our government. By making this statement, GR has divided our government and created himself -- on this incredibly important foreign policy position -- as the "opposition". In making this statement GR has acted in contrary to the interests of the South Pacific's government. He broke no law in making this statement, but he did -- however -- stick a knife firmly in the back of the government he is apart of.

Except for the fact that Glen-Rhodes isn't really a member of the Escade administration. As Chair of the Assembly, his first duty is to the legislature, not the executive. Yes, he is a member of the Cabinet, but his role is that of a "legislative liaison".
 

You can't have a faction of the government working against itself. A house divided cannot stand.

 
This incorrect assertion is the root of the problem here. In fact, you should have factions of the government working against one another, in order to limit governmental power and safeguard the rights of the people. Ever heard of separation of powers or checks and balances?

[Kris Kringle]

 

Indeed, and I think we all would do well to remember that. 

 

Please read HEM's full answer. Things don't need to be illegal to be wrong.

 

<div>
 

Except for the fact that Glen-Rhodes isn't really a member of the Escade administration. As Chair of the Assembly, his first duty is to the legislature, not the executive. Yes, he is a member of the Cabinet, but his role is that of a "legislative liaison".

</div>
 

 

 

You are missing the point here. Glen may be the head of the Assembly, but like you said he is also a member of the Cabinet, and therefore he participates in the Cabinet's discussions and votes when we adopt any measure. He is bound by the executive policy and the agreements we have, and we agreed during the discussions on Osiris that none of us should publicly undermine the statement once published.

 

<div>
 

This incorrect assertion is the root of the problem here. In fact, you should have factions of the government working against one another, in order to limit governmental power and safeguard the rights of the people. Ever heard of separation of powers or checks and balances?

</div>
 

 

Yes we have. Separation of powers applies to the relationship between each of the three powers of government, not to relations within the executive branch. Further, there should not be factions working against each other. That isn't healthy opposition, that is undermining the government.

 

Also, please remember what the issue here is. The Chair of the Assembly released a statement on foreign policy from his office. His duties do not include publicly dissenting from a statement which we agreed to not oppose. The Delegate has already made clear that we all have a right to our opinions, but when speaking with our government titles, different standards apply.

[Unibot]

Further, there should not be factions working against each other. That isn't healthy opposition, that is undermining the government.

 

*chuckles*

 

He published a dissenting statement, that is the only kind of healthy opposition once the deed is done. If this is what we call "undermining the government" these days, I don't know why we even both calling ourselves a democracy, when a "one-party-state elected dictatorship" would probably be more appropriate in your sick view of how a democracy with checks and balances works. 

 

If my elected official isn't happy with something being done, I don't want him intimidated into silence by the "party". I want him to speak up, because there's no point in voting for a representative if that representative is choking on a gag-rule. 

[Rebel-topia]

He had already made his opposition perfectly clear in the thread regarding Osiris. Therefore, we already knew what his position was. He's against it. Fine. Perfectly allowed. The fact that he released a statement AS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CHAIR OF ASSEMBLY saying what he said is the part that's the problem. He can be against it all he wants, but can't release a statement as CoA saying he doesn't and will not support a statement released by the cabinet.

[Escade]

I've opened a new thread regarding some policy I would like to implement regarding this:

 

http://forums.thesouthpacific.org/topic/...-opinions/

[Auralia]

Please read HEM's full answer. Things don't need to be illegal to be wrong.

I'm well aware of that.
 

You are missing the point here. Glen may be the head of the Assembly, but like you said he is also a member of the Cabinet, and therefore he participates in the Cabinet's discussions and votes when we adopt any measure. He is bound by the executive policy and the agreements we have, and we agreed during the discussions on Osiris that none of us should publicly undermine the statement once published.

Again, though, Glen-Rhodes's membership in the Cabinet does not imply that he is bound by executive policy. Glen-Rhodes's first duty is to the legislature, not the executive. The Charter explicitly states that the Chair of the Assembly is to serve as a "legislative liaison" between the Cabinet and the Assembly, highlighting his unique responsibility to the legislature.

Since the Assembly is a separate branch of government from the Cabinet, the Assembly - and Glen-Rhodes, in his capacity as Chair of the Assembly - has the right to question the Cabinet's actions.
 

Yes we have. Separation of powers applies to the relationship between each of the three powers of government, not to relations within the executive branch.

But that's the whole point: Glen-Rhodes is first and foremost a member of the legislature, not the executive.
 

Further, there should not be factions working against each other. That isn't healthy opposition, that is undermining the government.

It's not possible to oppose something without working against it to some degree. I'm curious about what your definition of "healthy opposition" is.
 

Also, please remember what the issue here is. The Chair of the Assembly released a statement on foreign policy from his office.

...which he has every right to do, since the legislature is not limited to certain policy areas.
 

His duties do not include publicly dissenting from a statement which we agreed to not oppose.

Yes, they do, as I've explained above.
 

The Delegate has already made clear that we all have a right to our opinions, but when speaking with our government titles, different standards apply.

Indeed, and if Glen-Rhodes was a Minister or the Vice Delegate, the situation would be completely different. But that isn't the case: Glen-Rhodes is Chair of the Assembly, and his first duty is to the legislature, not the executive.

[Farengeto]

I suggest you look up the definition of legislative liaison:

 

"A person who represents an executive department before the Legislature and who assists the Legislature with technical expertise and information about the department."

 

He is supposed to represent the cabinet to the assembly, not the other way around.

[Belschaft]

The Chairman is responsible for the administration of The Assembly as well as being a Cabinet member, and as such has a dual responsibility. However, all Ministers are also members of the Assembly and responsible to it; there is nothing unique about the Chair in this.

 

As I have said elsewhere, ours is a parliamentary democracy. I would suggest you spend some time familiarizing yourself with the regions system of government Auralia, so that you don't say things that are simply wrong.

[Auralia]

I suggest you look up the definition of legislative liaison:
 
"[background=#ffffff]A person who represents an executive department before the Legislature and who assists the Legislature with technical expertise and information about the department."[/size][/background]

 
He is supposed to represent the cabinet to the assembly, not the other way around.

That's one definition of legislative liaison (from the New Jersey government, in case anyone was wondering about the source), but it's not the only one. Take this definition from the National Conference of State Legislatures:
 

Person appointed to communicate between legislators and other departments.

Notice that the definition does not state that the person is responsible to an executive department.

In addition, the definition of "legislative liaison" we use has to reflect the fact that the Chair of the Assembly is the elected head of the legislature, not someone appointed by the executive.
 

The Chairman is responsible for the administration of The Assembly as well as being a Cabinet member, and as such has a dual responsibility. However, all Ministers are also members of the Assembly and responsible to it; there is nothing unique about the Chair in this.
 
As I have said elsewhere, ours is a parliamentary democracy. I would suggest you spend some time familiarizing yourself with the regions system of government Auralia, so that you don't say things that are simply wrong.

How you can be responsible to two branches of government? What happens when the legislature has a different political alignment than the executive?

[Belschaft]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Belschaft" data-cid="111401" data-time="1387076789">
The Chairman is responsible for the administration of The Assembly as well as being a Cabinet member, and as such has a dual responsibility. However, all Ministers are also members of the Assembly and responsible to it; there is nothing unique about the Chair in this.

 

As I have said elsewhere, ours is a parliamentary democracy. I would suggest you spend some time familiarizing yourself with the regions system of government Auralia, so that you don't say things that are simply wrong.

How you can be responsible to two branches of government? What happens when the legislature has a different political alignment than the executive?
 


</blockquote>
The entire executive is responsible to the legislature. The executive is chosen from and elected by the legislature.

 

How are you not getting this?

[Auralia]

The entire executive is responsible to the legislature. The executive is chosen from and elected by the legislature.
 
How are you not getting this?

See this post for my response.