On the Minister Hard Cap

Monkey

we want YOU to be a dee gee too
Citizen
On the Minister Hard Cap
Written by Monkey with poll input and advice from Calvin Coolidge
Published 5 May 2020

The Republic of Europeia was dramatically changed when former President Sopo signed the Executive Split Omnibus on February 3rd, 2019. Since then, Europeia has been ruled under a dual-executive: a First Minister responsible for internal affairs, and a Chief of State responsible for foreign affairs. Now, the region is seeking to roll back this change and return to our former single executive, Presidential system. The official Senate discussion thread was opened on March 22nd by Senator Deepest House, almost 2 months ago. The Senate has not wasted time in tackling this issue. The 73rd Senate, led by Speaker Lloenflys, boasts a 9 member roster, with a mixture of both old hands and newer legislators. The Senate immediately identified cabinet structure as a key issue in the executive split. After the dust settled, it seems that the majority of Europeia is divided into three main camps. One that argues for a hard cap, or instituting a clear limit on the number of Ministers that an Executive is able to appoint. This is seen as the most rigid or firm approach presented so far. The moderate option is proposing a soft cap, or essentially instituting an advisory limit, and nominees past that limit would undergo further Senate scrutiny in order to be confirmed. The last approach is not instituting any change at all, and leaving the elected executive with the power to nominate Ministers at their discretion. There also have been debates over other possible compromises, such as altogether raising the confirmation requirement, or even combining Ministries, or giving select groups more autonomy and terms, similar to how the EIA or the WAD operate currently in Europeia.

The Argument for a Hard Cap
After getting the ball rolling, Senator Deepest House was the first to propose the idea of a mandatory limit on nominees, arguing that it would “allow a presidential candidate to present a vision to the electorate that is more than a simple “paint by numbers”. In a later post, Senator Deepest House followed up by arguing that this hard cap on Minister would “allows us to confront executive bloat, streamline the cabinet to our active player base, restore prestige to these positions, and encourage political gameplay to earn them”. The Senator also emphasized the flexibility that this plan affords to the executive, but also highlighted the fact that it would force the Executive to prioritize where they want to assign resources. Senator Darcness also came out in support of the mandatory limit, going as far as to state “The Executive has been drastically incapable of understanding it's own capacity.” and noting that the hard cap would “provide some (very basic) constraints to rein the Executive in a bit”. Senator Darcness went on to rebutt the option of a soft cap, asking “When was the last time this body was unable to pass a Constitutional Amendment with the required 2/3rds majority (but would have with a 50%+1 majority)?... Creating majority metrics aren't significant barriers. In fact, according to the data, they're not barriers at all.” Senator Darcness doubled down on the soft cap plan further: “When was the last time a Minister was approved with 50% of the vote, but not 2/3rds? Or even 3/4ths? Pretty much never. So, historically the Senate has never been one to put a stop to a particular nomination”. Here, Senator Darcness also argues against the usefulness of Senate oversight, stating that if a Senate were to reject hypothetical nominees, then, “This President simply points at their electoral mandate, wherein the people supported this much stuff (whether it made sense or not).” Senator Rotasu and Senator Deepest House also echoed their support of Senator Darcness’ logic, and Senator Deepest House went on to say that “not every project has to be a Ministry-level position, and there is nothing wrong with being a deputy minister.” and that the region should focus on “a system that allows for meaningful growth from junior minister through deputy minister to minister.”, and summarizing his view that the hard cap would allow the region to “restore prestige to the positions, promote competition for appointed leadership positions, and establish meaningful career advancement by promoting the establishment of meaningful deputy minister roles.”.

The Moderate Proposal
Senator Calvin Coolidge first suggested the moderate option, where any nominees above a soft threshold would allow higher approval, which he suggested would “keeps things pretty flexible for the Executive” while it “also reinforces to the Executive that the goal is to keep things small”. Senator Peeps pointed out that this option might have issues that the Senators needed to work out if it were to be used however, for even Senator Calvin Coolidge noted that “there is room for the President to bend the rules and somehow have a new Ministry only need a majority, while a Ministry like Comms needs the 2/3.” Once the debate pivoted more intensely to the topic of Minister caps, Senator Prim came out in support of the plan, putting forth the idea that “An ambitious and confident Executive, I think, would be bold enough to create a new one and risk the higher confirmation requirements...I think that's the kind of person I'd feel more comfortable with, managing an additional Ministry with a bigger vision.”Senator Prim also noted that this option would be a moderate compromise, which would “bolster the Senate's oversight power, but still allowable enough for new Ministries”. The Senator also noted that “when I'm not in a minister position, I tend to get active in several different Ministries...But when I'm running a Ministry, I tend to cut back on participation in other Ministries and focus on my own.”, pointing out a “drain on our inter-Ministry participation and junior staffing”. The addition of Senator McEntire after the by-election to replace Senator Sopo’s seat lead to another increase in the ranks of Senators supporting a moderate option.

Stay the Course
Senator Sopo then jumped in to provide his thoughts on the matter, arguing that “the executive is elected based on their platform and their vision...The Senate can certainly exercise caution when approving seemingly superfluous positions”, but seemed to argue against for a cap of any kind. It is important to note that Speaker Lloenflys had earlier come out generally against an cap on Ministers, arguing that “Removing the power of the Executive to structure their cabinet as they see fit does not necessarily strike me a good idea“ but later reinforced his view, saying that “would not limit the executive in determining a structure”, but emphasized the role of the Senate in ensuring that the Executive cabinet is realistic and capable to be staffed. After pivoting to debate specifically focusing on the Minister Cap, speaker Lloenflys ultimately issues the statement that “that any attempt to cap ministers is in my opinion antithetical to the spirit of the region and I will not support it”. Senator Sopo doubled down and finalized his view against the Minister hard cap, arguing, “our role there is one of oversight, not imposing hard numbers”, and advocating for flexibility among the executive, which Senator Olde Delware expressed his assent with.

To the Data:
“I would like to note here that it's very likely that any reform bill that comes out of the Senate will be subject to a referendum -- a hard cap with no ability to increase is very unlikely to fare well in a public referendum, I don't think.”. - Senator Prim

The following are the results from the poll that I conducted regarding the Minister Cap debate. The poll was released on May 4th, and was open for more than 36 hours. During that time period, I received 23 responses.



Interestingly, a majority of the respondents marked that they actually preferred no cap on Ministries. While I was conducting my background research, it seemed to me that for the most part, the debate in the Senate mostly focused between those advocating a hard cap versus those arguing for a soft cap, with a small minority pressing for no cap at all. This poll however, shows a drastically different mindset within the region. It seems that a hard cap is the least popular option, receiving only 4.3%. The option for a soft cap received over a quarter of the vote, but looking at the results still suggest that instituting no cap at all fares better than all the other options combined. Something important to note that the current plan suggested tentatively by the Senate was not included in this poll, and it would be interesting to measure how that option might lead to a different result. The second and third option (red and gold respectively) would have been the most similar to the current suggested proposal, however even those added together do not beat not instituting any cap at all.




Interestingly enough, Senator Calvin Coolidge even remarked that “the Senate has just given extreme deference to the President/FM/CoS.”, despite its duty to perform oversight on nominees. Senator Olde Deleware noted the same sentiment, “if the Senate is passing 97% of nominees that is presented to it from the Executive, its essentially just a formality.” Both of these Senators ended up agreeing that stronger oversight on confirmations is needed going forward. Senator Rotasu however, gave a different outlook on the issue, arguing that “The Senate passing nominees is a "formality" is because rarely there is nominee that isn't qualified for the position...they are confident that their picks are qualified citizens who they have confidence in”. Speaker Lloenflys also chimed in on the issue, presenting a different reason: “The Senate has every right to reject an unsuitable nominee, but that by no means should be the norm. The executive should generally have the freedom to choose their team, and barring significant concerns the Senate should not serve as a roadblock to that.”
While some Senators may argue that confirmations are just a formality in allowing the executive to execute their vision, it is clear that the majority electorate does not believe the same thing. A little below 40% of respondents indicated that they were satisfied with the level of questioning, while nearly 60% of the respondents marked that they were unsatisfied with the level of questioning for confirmations. A majority indicated that they would like to see Senators question nominees more, while a smaller group seemed to believe that the questions were not good. Comments to this question seemed to reflect some of the current Senator’s beliefs, pointing to qualified nominees or advocating for the use of oversight rather than confirmation to check the executive. It will be interesting to see if this has any impact on future Senate elections, knowing that a majority of citizens believe that the senate should be doing more questioning, while some prominent Senators have remarked that they believe it is not their job to stall or be a roadblock to the executive.
  • I mean none of the nominees are ever likely to be unsuitable. Most of the time the questions are just a formality because we expect Senators to question the nominees.
  • This Senate has been a bit better, though.
  • I'm opposed to a veto on a hard cap; if the Senate decides to pass that, then it is the will of the people.
  • Confirmation has fluctuated wildly over time, but I'd like to see Senators inquire about goals and then use the metrics obtained to conduct oversight. The cap is a bad idea.


The data shows that almost a majority of respondents picked 7 as the ideal size of the cabinet. Interestingly enough, looking at the current Government header, it seems that there are 9 appointed positions within the government. This may mean that while citizens don’t support a hard cap, they do support shrinking the size of the government down. About 17% of respondents picked that they would prefer bigger sizes, while 28% marked that they would want smaller sizes. Interestingly, 9+ received 13% of the vote. I’m not sure if the people who marked these are really interested in pushing for a larger cabinet, or if some even marked it to protest any sort of cap whatsoever.


I wanted to ask this question to measure if the number of ministers changed if it was a hard cap vs a soft cap. I believed that voters would be in favor of a higher hard cap number, and a lower soft cap number. This would allow more flexibility if a hard cap were imposed, while the low cap was less of an obstacle since Ministers could still be confirmed. My thinking was partially correct - 43.5% of voters marked that option. Interestingly, 47.8% of voters marked that this distinction did not change their opinion at all.


To me, this was the most interesting and divisive question. Let’s breakdown the numbers.
  • 13% of respondents said Executive bloat is a significant issue that needs to be addressed in this region as it can lead to large and inefficient governments
  • 34.8% of respondents said Executive bloat is a significant issue that needs to be addressed in this region as it leads to a strain on available talent and can take away resources from other places
  • 13% of respondents said Executive bloat is a significant issue but not for the reasons listed above
  • 13% of respondents said Executive bloat is not significant -- the elected executive should have the leeway to appoint whomever they desire
  • 21.7% of respondents said Executive bloat is not significant -- it allows the government to accomplish more goals and delegate as they wish
  • 4.3% of respondents said Executive bloat is not a significant issue, but not for the reasons listed above
Overall, it looks like a majority of respondents (60.8) identified executive bloat as a significant issue, while 39% of the region identified it as not a significant issue, all for varying reasons. The most marked answers seemed to generally align with the thinking of the Senate: with those marking it is an issue listing reasons such as large and inefficient governments, or a strain on available manpower, and those against marking reasons such as leaving the power to the executive, or making it more capable for the executive to execute their platform. I think the comments for this question were especially interesting, and represented a broad swath of responses. One recognized the issues with involvement, but argued that cutting Ministries was not the answer. Another comment seemed harshly against executive bloat, and even pointed to it as a buzzword, which I might even agree with. The last comment points to the new influx of nations to help with involvement.

  • We have an issue with involvement but I don't think caping Ministries is the way to deal with it. What Ministry or Ministries would we get rid of right now?
  • Executive bloat is a made up term that doesn't describe any reality of the system, it's just a buzz-phrase for people who want to impose their desired version of a smaller cabinet on other administrations, when it should be to any given executive to determine what structure they want to use.
  • Executive bloat hurts the region in a number of ways. I’m glad the Senate is taking this on.
  • I think with the new influx of nations, executive bloat really shouldn't be an issue going forward

The next two questions are grouped together because of a high similarity in responses.



My goal in asking these questions were to evaluate whether an executive might have an easier time expanding the size of their cabinet or choosing their nominees if they had a large margin of victory, and had a perceived ‘mandate’. Unfortunately, the question seemed to be phrased in a way that was difficult to understand or unclear, so take these results with a grain of salt. Overall, it seemed as if the vast majority of respondents believed that the margin of victory for an executive had little to no bearing on their cabinet setup. Most of the comments regarding the candidate choices seemed to match the responses, a large majority of responses said that the nominee and the executive should be separately considered. The number of nominees received a similar answer, although there was a slight increase in the number of responses that marked yes. However, they generally agreed that the executive’s margin of victory had no impact on how they considered cabinet nominations. Personally, it seems to me that most of these responses hint towards the fact that perhaps the electorate should be more proactive in criticizing the executive if they see broad problems with the structure of their candidate, rather than counting on the Senate to make big changes with the overall direction of the executive’s cabinet.

  • Cabinet nominees are usually influenced by prior cabinet members. When I left the Ministry and my FM was re-elected I helped to choose who would replace me.
  • The margin of victory is as much about the quality of the other candidates as it is about the quality of the winner.
  • The strengths of a nominee and their ability to do the job effectively are independent of the candidate's margin of victory
  • Generally my opinion is on the individual given the role, and how they have previously performed.
  • Why would it matter?
  • A win is a win, and it means that a candidate gets to have their nominees fairly considered
  • We’re questioning the nominee, not the campaign.
  • I don't know think the two even correlate.
  • With a nominee, I'm evaluating the person, not the position (assuming the position was part of the platform and voted on in the election)
  • It's the prospective nominee that should be evaluated, not how impressive the margin of victory was.
  • Why would it? Just cuz you won with 90% of the vote doesn’t mean I shouldn’t take you over the coals for a Ministry of boondoggling
  • A nominee is either capable of serving in the role they are nominated for or not, the margin of victory for their nominator is irrelevant.
  • Nominees should be judged based on their own merits, not the popularity of the executive.
  • Why would who they are matter? If they were elected, they are competent enough to determine who to appoint.
  • N/A
  • If you win, you win.
  • Each cabinet candidate should be judged on their own merits and not rubber stamped because of the leader's victory margin.
  • I support the nominee on their own merits, not by who nominated them.
  • I don't understand the question
  • I don't like required these bits.
  • No
  • Required
  • There are not a lot of bad candidates for election usually. I usually support many candidates and have faith they will do a good job and have to pick my favorite.
  • I still think winning margin is irrelevant.
  • The number of cabinet nominees, and what cabinet positions they are, might affect how I vote, but not the other way around
  • You should already have a clear idea of what the nominee's intentions or goals are, so assuming they are the victor, then the public would have voted with these in mind.
  • Why would it matter?
  • Possibly, if the number of Cabinet positions they were proposing was a major issue in the campaign, but in general no.
  • We’re questioning the nominees, not the campaign.
  • I'm not sure how these correlate.
  • With a nominee, I'm evaluating the person, not the position (assuming the position was part of the platform and voted on in the election)
  • Same as before
  • Same as above
  • Winning by a large margin doesn't somehow "win" you the right to have more nominees - an executive should put forward a management structure that they like. That may be more or fewer than is the case in previous administrations but it has nothing to do with whether they win by a lot or a little.
  • No amount of popularity should allow for leniency in cabinet restrictions, same rules should apply to everyone.
  • Why would who they are matter? If they were elected, they are competent enough to determine how much to appoint.
  • N/A
  • Same
  • Again, each cabinet candidate should be judged on their own merits and not rubber stamped because of the leader's victory margin.
  • I will give the benefit of the doubt to someone who has just won a big election, yes.
  • I don't think margin of victory has anything to do with number of cabinet nominees
  • I don't like required these bits.
  • No
  • Required



Senator McEntire seemed to be the first to champion another alternative: restructuring some of the Ministry's to function with more independence and autonomy, similar to the EIA or the WAD. This would allow for certain organizations to “operate outside of political considerations, and should perhaps be spun off to an independent entity. These independent agencies would be managed by directors...who would technically report to the FM... need to be re-confirmed after a longer period (for instance, 180 days).”. McEntire suggested that this system would alleviate strain on the Executive, as well as allow these leaders to “follow a vision for an organization whose mission is fundamentally not tied to political considerations.”. Senator Calvin Coolidge was quick to rebut this idea, arguing that the EBC “does very well when run by a different person every term” and “needs to have more fluidity in its management”. Senator McEntire countered by stating that for the EBC, “one of its primary responsibilities is running our state-run media outlet.” and pointed to “activity in the EBC can vary from administration to administration”. McEntire furthered his argument by expressing the value that a single EBC executive would have, in executing the vision and strategy of our regional Communication department. Senator Darcness however, expressed concern with the plan, due to the fact that it “unnecessarily pins down the Executive”, and also the lack of available manpower.
Interestingly, the leader in the results seem to be radio, with nearly half of the responses marking it as a Ministry that could be re-delegated. This could be perhaps to the more independent nature of radio, as well as the lack of Ministers that have traditionally lead radio. The Ministry of Radio seems to go in different directions based on leadership, similar to McEntire’s stance. Other areas that were selected involved EBC/Communication, and World Assembly Affairs.

  • Any privatisation of WAA would still require it to be tied to the CoS - SC vote recommendations are an extension of foreign policy so WAA cannot be "doing its own thing" separately of our FA branch
  • I don't think anyone is suggesting "privatizing", just giving them greater independence
  • Certainly don’t need to privatize EBC.
  • Maybe a gameside position with some interior duties. Radio is a good potential options for this. Most other things are not.
  • Any privatization, in my opinion, would work well as an auxiliary, perhaps, but not as a standalone organization.
  • Required

It’s clear that this Senate has been ambitious in passing its goals and working towards reform. Recently, the Senate passed the controversial Chief of State Direct Election Amendment, which is unlikely to see usage now that Executive Reform seems to be on the horizon. Senator Prim released an initial draft of what the merge bill could look like just today, with a lengthy list of law corrections, but even he noted that there were still issues that were unresolved. The Senate is clearly intent on pursuing this to the very end, and the question of Ministers is only one of the many issues they will have to sort out. It currently appears that a tentative compromise has been reached, where a soft cap will be instituted, and if an executive nominates a number beyond that cap, then all Ministers are subject to a higher confirmation threshold. It will be interesting to see how this fares among the citizenry when it comes time to pass the reform via referendum, which is rumored to happen.
 
This is a fantastic write up monkey and serves as a summary of the discussions so far.

Also while 23 isn't a fantastic sample size these numbers are TERRIBLE for a hard cap and beyond that the numbers for a soft cap are not good either. That was a bit surprising to me.

I’m not sure if the people who marked these are really interested in pushing for a larger cabinet, or if some even marked it to protest any sort of cap whatsoever.
That is what I did for the record.
 
This is a fantastic write up monkey and serves as a summary of the discussions so far.

Also while 23 isn't a fantastic sample size these numbers are TERRIBLE for a hard cap and beyond that the numbers for a soft cap are not good either. That was a bit surprising to me.

I’m not sure if the people who marked these are really interested in pushing for a larger cabinet, or if some even marked it to protest any sort of cap whatsoever.
That is what I did for the record.
Thank you GraV! I saw the issue with the sample size as well, if anyone has any tips on how to increase that, let me know! :p
 
Incredibly thorough article. This was a very useful summary of how we ended up where we are in this discussion. The overwhelming majority being against the hard cap (and the soft one, too!) is pretty surprising, and will definitely factor into my discussions on the Senate floor.

I'd also like to note that I was one of the people who said we could privatize Radio. Honestly, Radio has been "privately run" for a good portion of its history when Sopo and I would just decide to do a show, we had no barriers. Same with what Pichto and Kuramia have done with Euro After Dark and the like. I think there needs to be some sort of gatekeeper with the password for mixlr, as it is a paid resource, but I don't think it has to be a Minister.
 
Incredibly thorough article. This was a very useful summary of how we ended up where we are in this discussion. The overwhelming majority being against the hard cap (and the soft one, too!) is pretty surprising, and will definitely factor into my discussions on the Senate floor.

I'd also like to note that I was one of the people who said we could privatize Radio. Honestly, Radio has been "privately run" for a good portion of its history when Sopo and I would just decide to do a show, we had no barriers. Same with what Pichto and Kuramia have done with Euro After Dark and the like. I think there needs to be some sort of gatekeeper with the password for mixlr, as it is a paid resource, but I don't think it has to be a Minister.
Thanks Calvin! And thank you for the help on the poll :p

I'll have to admit, when I saw radio with such a high % I was a little surprised. After thinking about it a little more, I see why though. I think typically the President has very little involvement in what goes on with radio, and I think the Ministry and what it does really varies from Minister to Minister. I think part of it is due to not a ton of people in the region having interest/capability for radio, but it's something to think about it. A lot of people have been thinking about offloading EBC or the World Assembly, but I think radio is a pick that makes sense to me, at least for now, and usually isn't thought of.
 
Incredibly thorough article. This was a very useful summary of how we ended up where we are in this discussion. The overwhelming majority being against the hard cap (and the soft one, too!) is pretty surprising, and will definitely factor into my discussions on the Senate floor.

I'd also like to note that I was one of the people who said we could privatize Radio. Honestly, Radio has been "privately run" for a good portion of its history when Sopo and I would just decide to do a show, we had no barriers. Same with what Pichto and Kuramia have done with Euro After Dark and the like. I think there needs to be some sort of gatekeeper with the password for mixlr, as it is a paid resource, but I don't think it has to be a Minister.
I said the same. You could basically have an "organization" to run Radio with some oversight from the executive but where members can more or less do as they please.
 
I've been against a cap for the reason of not hamstringing the executive, seeing the people largely agree has only proven to me that my stance is correct and I believe Lloen feels the same as I do.
 
I've been against a cap for the reason of not hamstringing the executive, seeing the people largely agree has only proven to me that my stance is correct and I believe Lloen feels the same as I do.
I was a little surprised at the results actually OD! I knew you and Lloen were a few senators who opposed the cap completely, but to me, it seemed like the Senate was certainly debating between a hard and soft cap and that looked like the direction the debate it was going. But it looks like most people oppose any cap at all!
 
I've been against a cap for the reason of not hamstringing the executive, seeing the people largely agree has only proven to me that my stance is correct and I believe Lloen feels the same as I do.
I was a little surprised at the results actually OD! I knew you and Lloen were a few senators who opposed the cap completely, but to me, it seemed like the Senate was certainly debating between a hard and soft cap and that looked like the direction the debate it was going. But it looks like most people oppose any cap at all!

I think its for the same reason as I laid out. I get it though from DH's side that there is too much glut. I mean, do we really need a niche Ministry? You could argue yes or no but in the end we usually defer to the FM/CoS to ensure that they can carry out their platform and their ideas to the best of their ability. I'd also agree with DH or the argument that we haven't ever seen much from these niche ministries, that their mandate has never really been fulfilled like GraV's R and D Ministry, the Ministry of Employment, etc. Still, I just don't think its wise or reasonable to say it will never worked because two or three past incarnations haven't and we shouldn't hamstring a future President/VP/CoS/FM because of past failures.
 
I do think that Radio is a prime example of a position that could have a longer term appointment -- I've seen no instance of term-by-term changes in vision for radio, the platforms mostly talk about promising X number of shows, but sometimes that has just resulted in forced fluff. Honestly, I think we should set up Radio for 90 or 120 day terms and make it as apolitical as possible.
 
I do think that Radio is a prime example of a position that could have a longer term appointment -- I've seen no instance of term-by-term changes in vision for radio, the platforms mostly talk about promising X number of shows, but sometimes that has just resulted in forced fluff. Honestly, I think we should set up Radio for 90 or 120 day terms and make it as apolitical as possible.
I think the limited 'innovation' between terms is what makes it the best candidate for it to be more long term, at least on a trial basis. I also think that with the limited pool of candidates that actually do radio, it's not like a ton of people are eager to fill the role and I think the same person or pool of people are renominated anyway.
 
I don't really have a strong opinion on this. I, personally, wouldn't really support a cap, hard or soft, on the number of Cabinet spots to be enshrined in law. That said, I would support raising the threshold for confirmation approval to at least 66% rounded up to the nearest Senator to make it easier for the Senate to deny a nomination, which would effectively be a form of a "soft cap"

On longer term appointments I am vehemently opposed to making the World Assembly Affairs be a longer term appointment. I think keeping the structure as it is, to be defined and replaced with each Administration, allows both flexibility in political agenda through the Ministry/Council itself while also having the Delegate provide a useful counterbalance as a long-term apolitical grounding influence. It's already the best of both worlds with what we have, imo.
 
I think these results are interesting. Certainly not what I expected, and I think an interesting dynamic of this term is that this Senate was elected at a very specific time, with a specific mandate to carry out a particular kind of reform. And since then, many new citizens have joined the region, or old citizens have returned. So the opinions of the public and the Senate haven't been quite lining up...

With that said, I don't think we can make any decisions based on one poll, but certainly a Senate that was debating between hard and soft cap should look at this and re-examine its stance. In this poll, a comfortable majority prefer no cap.... It's very interesting.

I am also interested that there seems to be some openness to the idea of more independent agencies and sort of a different Executive structure altogether. I have to admit, I proposed it sort of on a lark, but I've been warming to the idea the more that it's been percolating in my little noggin. Maybe I'll write a longer EBC piece about it, when I get the time. In my opinion, it solves a lot of the problems that we're trying to solve with reform.

One last thing, just a caution. I feel like the changing attitudes on reform are partially reflective of the fact that people aren't worried about the Executive being stretched too thin. We're in boom times, new citizens haven't ever seen anything but this level of hyper-activity, and maybe citizens new and old are thinking that we could sustain a larger Cabinet over the long-run. I think that's a misconception. Certainly, when 2/3 of people would want a Cabinet of 7 or more, and ~20% want a Cabinet of 8 or 9 plus, I don't know if that's realistic long-term. We can't accomplish reform with boom-colored glasses. We have to be measured and look at what the region can sustain over the long run.
 
It is an interesting poll, but I think it is hard to say that the Senate shouldn't move forward with some kind of cap based solely on this poll. Designating the number of cabinet members is just one part of the overall reform, and having a soft cap with a release valve as part of a larger reform package could still be popular.

In terms of independent agencies within the executive, I could see radio function that way. I do not, and won't ever, support moving the EBC into an independent status, however.
 
As I have been saying for like over a week now, I think that there should be no cap at all and the Senate should just raise the theshold to confirm any nominee to supermajority 2/3rds or evening 3/4ths if the former is not high enough. There seems to be consensus on this as the compromise rather than a soft cap as Aex, Calvin and others are on board. I think given a cap at all seems to be unpopular it’s the best move forward towards less frivolous appointments.

I do agree with DH though on the independent status thing. Radio is really the only place I would even consider that option as it really has been mostly Calvin and Sopo running it for quite awhile. The EBC on the other hand has had a multitude of great newcomers step over the past few years and months even and I fear that spinning it off would greatly remove that opportunity to step up in the region.
 
So, regarding the Radio spin-off idea -- instead of creating a specific bill to spin-off Radio into its own thing -- what if we created a piece of legislation that established Independent Directives and set parameters on those, then added Radio as an "Independent Directive with a Director of Radio".

Then it would be easier to add and remove departments to this system in the future, if we find benefits to it.

The Executive would still be in charge of nominating, the Senate would still be in charge of confirming, but the terms would be much longer than a single Exec term, and there would be some apolitical division from oversight so Executives don't feel responsible for the ongoing work that they do. They would operate fully independently, perhaps with intermittent oversight from the Senate though, but the Director would be autonomous in operation.

This could encompass ideas like Radio -- and just spitballing for the sake of possible expansion here but perhaps something like Integration or RMB coordination, maybe Upvote Squad or Dispatches.
 
Monkey, that's an amazing write-up.

I think a problem with the "independent agencies" proposal is that particularly if they're going to be long-term leadership positions, they'll struggle to attract people when that could get in the way of their political career. I think Radio could work as an independent agency, however, as it has been functionally running like that for a while, and I like Prim's idea for allowing maximum flexibility in the future. I dislike the idea of turning WAA into an independent agency, when its activities depend so much on the Chief of State's and Council of State's political foreign agenda. It's a prominent and externally visible aspect of our foreign policy which needs to be consistent with the rest of our foreign policy. It's possible though that I'm misunderstanding how an independent WAA agency would work in practice, though ...
 
The Executive would still be in charge of nominating, the Senate would still be in charge of confirming, but the terms would be much longer than a single Exec term, and there would be some apolitical division from oversight so Executives don't feel responsible for the ongoing work that they do. They would operate fully independently, perhaps with intermittent oversight from the Senate though, but the Director would be autonomous in operation.
This is where my proposal would, perhaps, differ. I believe that these agencies would ultimately answer to the Executive, and work in close coordination with the Executive, but their day-to-day operations would not be the types of things that people are talking about in their platforms. This means that we wouldn't have a gap in EBC articles between terms, or something like that. They would still work in service of the Executive, but would have a sort of operational independence.

Maowi, to respond a bit to your comment -- I understand that I am likely in over my head describing the operations of the WAA, having not been involved in it. The reason that I suggested it in such a proposal was because I was thinking about portions of the government whose missions are less tied to political concerns and whose day-to-day operations could benefit from more consistency and longer-term planning. WAA drafting, voting, etc etc seemed to me the kind of thing that could continue for administration to administration, with a Director whose term spans between two or three terms. This person could help facilitate the goals of Foreign Affairs, but would be more focused on continual capacity building for the agency itself. That's sort of how I saw it.

Again, I'm happy to be told why I'm wrong, I would not consider my proposal a formal one. These were just my early etchings of a way to re-make the Executive with a lesser burden, because I've seen how hard Istillian works just to keep one side afloat and I started pondering on a President, some time in the next few months, taking up the mantle of both jobs. I don't know that we're really projecting out that far in the current debate, we seem a little more focused on shooting first and asking questions later.
 
I would definitely not suggest making the WAA an independent position in the vein of the DEIA, given that the WAA itself is the political arm of our foreign policy agenda in the World Assembly
 
Back
Top