Opinion: Split Executive Shell Game

Opinion: The Split Executive Shell Game
By Deepest House
​

(Europeia - December 27, 2018) - As proposals for reform have floated about the region in recent months, the Lazarus Project has promoted an image of Europeia whereby a split-executive would oversee regional affairs and improve executive performance. Specifically, Europeia would have a president who oversees foreign affairs and a prime minister who oversees domestic affairs.

As a former president and vice president with a solid grasp of executive functions, roles, and responsibilities, it is my opinion that such a proposal would do nothing to increase executive bandwidth, capabilities, or performance. While it is true that presidency is a time-consuming job, in both a unified and split executive, success will depend on teamwork more than anything else.

An important part of governance is identifying challenges and opportunities for improvement and the best strategy to correct those deficiencies. In this case, the purported challenge is the presidency is so large that one person simply can’t handle both domestic and international affairs alone.

Fortunately, the president doesn’t work alone. The citizens of Europeia concurrently elect a vice president when they elect the president. While the exact role of the vice president is left to the discretion of the president, many administrations have successfully used the vice president to divvy up the functional areas of the executive branch in much the same manner as proposed in the Lazarus Project.

Indeed, if the goal of the Lazarus Project’s split executive proposal is to improve executive performance by making the domestic and international portfolios easier to manage by sharing the workload, one must point out that by splitting the executive and making the vice president a collateral duty as opposed to its own position, the Lazarus Proposal reduces the president’s resources and his or her ability to accomplish administration objectives.

The vice president is indispensable to the president, an agile resource to provide additional support and leadership. Simply put, without the vice president as a standalone position the president will have less flexibility to assign additional resources where needed, potentially resulting in a slower and less responsive government. It is also a position of prestige, and one in which the citizens must also put forth their full faith and confidence to serve as president should the need arise. We should not marginalize this position by demoting it to a collateral duty associated with service in the cabinet.

The president works as part of a large team on behalf of the entire population. That team works together to advance Europeian values and administration objectives. Rather than adding capacity to the executive branch’s overall ability to accomplish priorities, The Lazarus Project’s split executive reduces the resources available to the president, it demotes to the sidelines one of the most important positions of our government, and potentially fosters competition rather than collaboration between the domestic and international leadership. I’m not a smart man, but I don’t see how this will improve executive branch performance. It will, however, diminish the role and prestige of not just the vice president, but also the president.

That isn’t the answer to current challenges facing the executive branch. For the executive to fully succeed, it requires all members of the executive team to work together … as a team. Any inefficiencies within the executive branch usually come down to effort and/or bandwidth. Either the effort on the part of an individual isn’t there, or the effort is there but the bandwidth to get the job done isn’t. Neither of these problems is solved by splitting the executive.

With the president and vice president focusing on their respective priorities in full partnership and collaboration with their trusted and empowered ministers, the unified government can achieve greater results for the republic than a split executive, which has additional weaknesses of its own.

The proposal to split the executive, consolidate positions, and rename it all amounts to a shell game – a sleight of hand in which we move pieces around to distract and confuse, and at the end we have to guess and hope we’ve made the right decision going forward. It provides no new resources for the government and creates additional administrative burdens without the promise of proportional benefit. It is change for change’s sake.

 

[Vinage Vinage]

In quite a bit of agreement here, but held back commenting on it as I'm still digging about to see where the idea to split the Executive seemed to have stemmed from. Truly, allowing the current active citizenry to shape Europeia to amend it to resolve the modern challenges before the region.

I recall from my own two Presidencies having two domestic facing VPs. First Lethen (who also helped give me credibility) and then with Seven Deaths moving into that role with a focus more on Culture plus Intergration. It allowed me, as President, to do the external matters and retain an active face still here domestically, in Europeia.

I guess, for me, in the current form I see it as you do at the end. Change for change's sake that splits the Executive. Does it need splitting, what evidence is there to that. Again - held back commentary on this as it is likely there, and I am yet to find it on my dives into the archives.

(P.s. Someone want to slide links to useful things into my DMs. I'd appreciate.)

If we are going to remodel, let's do something radical.

 

[Prim]

I summarized the reasons for this reform push in this post here -- http://europeians.com/forum/index.php?threads/hem-reform-discussion.10044232/page-6#post-10154103

Repeated below -- Current up to October 11th -- the rest is in the Senate and Constitutional Convention forums.


Here are some relevant threads for the reform push --

RUMBLINGS OF CHANGE:
Aug. 11th: "Things Aren't Good" by HEM
Aug. 11th: "Motion to re-organize [the Constitutional Convention]" by HEM

MAIN REFORM PUSH:
Sep. 3rd: "Looking for Diocletian" by HEM -- probably the main catalyst for the big reform push.
Sep. 4th: "Proposal" by Drecq
Sep. 6th: "Change" by Kari
Sep. 7th: "Comparison of Reform Proposals" by PRIM
Sep. 9th: "ENN Poll: Europeia is Restless" by HEM

Various Dates: Senate Campaign Platforms and Senate Election

POST-SENATE ELECTION REFORM DISCUSSION
Spe. 15th: "HEM's Proposal - The Second Europeian Republic" by HEM -- SENATE READING THREAD
Sep. 15th: "Flash Poll: Reform Programs, Legislature" by KARI
Sep. 19th: "HEM Reform Discussion" by LETHEN (this thread, made to accompany the Senate Thread)

PAUSE IN DISCUSSION TO RE-ENGAGE CITIZENS (Senator Pichtonia also resigned around this time, prompting a Senate by-election)
Oct. 9th: "Role of the Convention" by HEM
Oct. 11th: "Principles of Government: Complexity" by HEM

 

[Vinage Vinage]

Thanks! Makes for great context for me, and newer citizens, who've not been around for last 4 months ?

 

[Prim]

Yeah, I need to update it a bit though, there's been quite a bit of development in the direction of the reforms since that post.

 

[Aexnidaral]

Splitting the executive branch is so monumentally important to the future of the Region. It's almost solely what I'm basing my votes for Senate on, and I'm so glad the vast majority of the candidates agree.

 

[Johnny Costello]

I'm for an executive split but I can and will support a teamwork push. My idea is executive split with no need for Vice President or Vice Prime minister. The executive can function in a good flow with Prez- foreign policy, Prime- Domestic policy, COS- act as the Vice to both and Liaison between Ministers to the Leadership..

 

[Vinage Vinage]

Now that! I can understand and gives a Chief of Staff function... a further function. A more domestic President could even not nominate one should they want to be hands on with it. Perhaps.

 

[Izzy]

While I've been in support of the executive bifurcation, your points are not lost on me. We've not had many modern (which I define as within the past three years) administrations make proper use of the VP position, to the point that the VP is expected to not be seen doing much. Furthermore, upon reflection, the bifurcation seems more and more like a reactionary response to the presidencies of Ervald and Drexlore. Historically, such responses typically end regrettably, and so it would appear that more consideration is needed.

Thank you for sharing your honest thoughts. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to do so these days when one's thoughts have any inkling of questioning the merit of reform due to the strong backlash from those so eager for it. They forget that the future is unknowable and deceive themselves into believing that their comfortable speculations will all prove true, the lack of any objective evidence be damned. They forget that what is popular is not always what's in the region's best interests, despite how many wish to believe otherwise.

 

[Sopo]

While I've been in support of the executive bifurcation, your points are not lost on me. We've not had many modern (which I define as within the past three years) administrations make proper use of the VP position, to the point that the VP is expected to not be seen doing much. Furthermore, upon reflection, the bifurcation seems more and more like a reactionary response to the presidencies of Ervald and Drexlore. Historically, such responses typically end regrettably, and so it would appear that more consideration is needed.

Thank you for sharing your honest thoughts. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to do so these days when one's thoughts have any inkling of questioning the merit of reform due to the strong backlash from those so eager for it. They forget that the future is unknowable and deceive themselves into believing that their comfortable speculations will all prove true, the lack of any objective evidence be damned. They forget that what is popular is not always what's in the region's best interests, despite how many wish to believe otherwise.

Despite your implications, I would prefer that people voice their opinions as Deepest House has rather than pretend to favor reforms to gain electoral support when they really prefer the status quo. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

As to the wider points presented by Deepest House, I agree that the Vice President could and should take on more responsibility, but that's not what we've seen the past year or two. Our system worked when we had an abundance of ambitious and dynamic politicians who threw themselves into Cabinet roles and junior minister positions and generally ensured that all facets of our government were active from the bottom up, sometimes in spite of any given president. What we've seen more recently is a decline in the active player base and a shift to fewer people doing more work across ministries. No more than two or three ministers are ever firing on all cylinders at the same time, requiring more active intervention from the Goldenblock in the day-to-day of ministries. The president has had to adopt a top-down management style and even a degree of micromanagement to ensure that goals are accomplished. I am lucky to have both Pierce and Kuramia working this term to help me in that, but it's easy for me to see why having so much dependent on one active and engaged executive leader is dangerous. We saw the results under Ervald and Drexlore, and to a lesser extent in previous administrations this year. The most successful presidents this past year have been those individuals with a great deal of experience across ministries and a great deal of activity (and even in the case of HEM and myself cannot offer as much as we could when we were younger). We can't expect future presidents to have those same qualifications, otherwise, we'll be shuffling the same small pool of people through the Goldenblock. Not to mention the people that fit in that category are increasingly unwilling to take up the burden of the presidency due to lower activity or burn out

We need a Europeia that is sustainable and not dependent on one individual for overall activity in the region. The executive split ensures two individuals will be accountable to the people and will have the prerogative to implement their own vision, dividing the pressure and labor of the presidency. It also creates a space for people with competencies in either foreign or domestic ministries to feel comfortable seeking higher office. I expect that the split would result in executive leaders better equipped to deal with a smaller portfolio. I also expect individuals in those offices to work together often, and based on the collaborative nature of Europeian government as it is, I do not believe that cooperation will often be hindered by competing visions. If it is, maybe we'll have a more dynamic political environment that will draw more people in. Feels like a win/win to me.

I honestly believe this change is necessary for Europeia to thrive in this new NS climate which has been less kind to us than eras past. We need to play to our strengths and accept our weaknesses. This change allows us to do that.

 

[Izzy]

Despite your implications, I would prefer that people voice their opinions as Deepest House has rather than pretend to favor reforms to gain electoral support when they really prefer the status quo. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I resent your implication that my being open to another perspective and showing willingness to take it into consideration is a sign that my support for executive bifurcation has been a falsehood, and it has no basis in reality. It's a sad day when critical thinking skills are derided for being politically inexpedient.

 

[Sopo]

I resent your implication that my being open to another perspective and showing willingness to take it into consideration is a sign that my support for executive bifurcation has been a falsehood, and it has no basis in reality. It's a sad day when critical thinking skills are derided for being politically inexpedient.

Ok.

 

[Olde Delaware]

Despite your implications, I would prefer that people voice their opinions as Deepest House has rather than pretend to favor reforms to gain electoral support when they really prefer the status quo. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I really, really wish you wouldn't assume that people are supporting reform for political gain. All you are doing with that kind of accusation is further bury an argument because you don't like the subject matter and you're doing it in the most grandstanding way possible Sopo and its not right.

As to the wider points presented by Deepest House, I agree that the Vice President could and should take on more responsibility, but that's not what we've seen the past year or two.

I'd beg to differ, you were an extremely active VP both publicly and from what I've been told privately as well. Since then, the VP has been largely invisible in the public sphere. I especially noted this when Kura was up for I believe Radio, I noted she was inactive as a VP to which she counted (rightly) that she as active in private. Perhaps the VP should have a more public role and take that activity rather than act as a defacto Chief of Staff in a behind the scenes role.

Our system worked when we had an abundance of ambitious and dynamic politicians who threw themselves into Cabinet roles and junior minister positions and generally ensured that all facets of our government were active from the bottom up, sometimes in spite of any given president. What we've seen more recently is a decline in the active player base and a shift to fewer people doing more work across ministries.

I've been working as a JM since I returned late last year, I've seen people join a ministry and be promoted ahead of JMs who have been working in that time. They get burned out, they leave or go inactive, same JMs remain with no advancement. There's no promotion from within, its promotion by addition. JMs are getting burned out because their not being recognized or promoted and they move on due to a lack of care from Ministers. Maybe, just maybe, its the Ministers who should be cycled out. But then we get this diatribe...

No more than two or three ministers are ever firing on all cylinders at the same time, requiring more active intervention from the Goldenblock in the day-to-day of ministries. The president has had to adopt a top-down management style and even a degree of micromanagement to ensure that goals are accomplished.

That sounds like a Minister problem and the President should be replacing Ministers if this is happening but alas, we are back to the same problem as above. There's no advancing JMs to DMs and then from DM onto Ministries. Its the same people doing the same job with no time or inkling to train JMs or DMs.

I am lucky to have both Pierce and Kuramia working this term to help me in that, but it's easy for me to see why having so much dependent on one active and engaged executive leader is dangerous. We saw the results under Ervald and Drexlore, and to a lesser extent in previous administrations this year. The most successful presidents this past year have been those individuals with a great deal of experience across ministries and a great deal of activity (and even in the case of HEM and myself cannot offer as much as we could when we were younger).

Again, this all comes down to a lack of moving up JMs by Ministers. I've seen several people promoted ahead of me as a JM without putting in the work, then they leave or go inactive and this is the face you two have:

We can't expect future presidents to have those same qualifications, otherwise, we'll be shuffling the same small pool of people through the Goldenblock. Not to mention the people that fit in that category are increasingly unwilling to take up the burden of the presidency due to lower activity or burn out

Move up JMs...

We need a Europeia that is sustainable and not dependent on one individual for overall activity in the region.

Right, but you're doing everything short of cheerleading exactly this. Not so much by words but by the action of appointing nearly the same people to the same positions while decrying the lack of JMs and DMs while doing nothing to retain these people.

The executive split ensures two individuals will be accountable to the people and will have the prerogative to implement their own vision, dividing the pressure and labor of the presidency. It also creates a space for people with competencies in either foreign or domestic ministries to feel comfortable seeking higher office. I expect that the split would result in executive leaders better equipped to deal with a smaller portfolio. I also expect individuals in those offices to work together often, and based on the collaborative nature of Europeian government as it is, I do not believe that cooperation will often be hindered by competing visions. If it is, maybe we'll have a more dynamic political environment that will draw more people in. Feels like a win/win to me.

Unlike DH and others, I didn't support the split but after talking to Kari and to a lesser extent Prim I do get it. I think a split might be worth a shot, I even proposed as much in my own proposal. But the thought that you're trying to use the split to create in essence a stepping stone to higher office while ignoring the work of the JMs who have worked through this slide in activity is a tremendous slap in the face to those people and at minimum just reinforces the fact that despite all the rhetoric of join the civil service and move up because X did it once, that we are creating the split to ensure advancement because there is no room for advancement for those that did work and that just is a hard pill to swallow.

 

[Darcness]

I am lucky to have both Pierce and Kuramia working this term to help me in that, but it's easy for me to see why having so much dependent on one active and engaged executive leader is dangerous.

The problem is that this bifurcation requires more active and engaged leaders, not less. You are 'lucky' that there are 3 engaged people (yourself, Pierce, Kuramia) to act as Taskmasters to your 8 Ministers.

In the future world of a split Executive, what would this look like? Sopo is President, Pierce is PM. Sopo can't keep up with the 4 Ministers he would have (If you need 3 to run 8, you definitely can't run 4 on your own), so he needs an assistant (Vice President or CoS, or whatever), so let's slot Kuramia in there. Well, the same goes for Pierce, he needs an assistant as well. Who would that be?

You have a labor shortage, and you want create more jobs? How does that make sense?

The executive split ensures two individuals will be accountable to the people

... except where those two individuals don't agree. Spheres of influence and work requirement overlap today, and this would cause even more strife. Or has everyone forgotten that we removed WAD elections because of this exact same problem? Two elected officials with some overlap in their areas of responsibility come into conflict, and nobody is the obvious winner. The solution there was to put the WAD under the President, and it seems to me that we've been better for it, as we have a clear chain of command.

The three branches of government we have exist because each one acts as a check against the other. Each branch has a sole individual that is in charge, and this is not an accident. If the President and Prime Minister were to somehow act as checks against each other (and other parts of the government), then perhaps they would make sense, but in this particular presentation, the logic doesn't hold.

We can't expect future presidents to have those same qualifications, otherwise, we'll be shuffling the same small pool of people through the Goldenblock.

I must be misunderstanding your point here. To paraphrase: "Being a generalist is hard, so as our pool of generalist shrinks, we have fewer viable Presidents. So instead, let's specialize." The problem is that you now have TWO pools to worry about. Foreign specialists and Domestic specialists. And if either of these pools starts to see a dip in resources, we will be hurting badly. We're having a shortage in skilled participants, and the solution is to make us more vulnerable to dips in skilled participation? It doesn't make sense.

Also, if seeing 'fresh new faces' is your goal, specialization runs completely counter to that as well. By dividing the ambitious into two pools, the likelihood that each chair will see similar people in it increases dramatically.

 

[Salem]

OD that entire post was basically salt over not being a minister. I took nothing from that except salt.

Cuddlebuns is now minister of radio.
Pierce, someone who has been here less then a year (I think) has been our VP twice now.
Bowzin is Culture deputy minister.
Prim has been MinCult and Interior.

People are being promoted, but it comes from work, which Cuddle, Pierce, Prim, and Bowzin all did to get those positions.

 

[Olde Delaware]

OD that entire post was basically salt over not being a minister. I took nothing from that except salt.

Cuddlebuns is now minister of radio.
Pierce, someone who has been here less then a year (I think) has been our VP twice now.
Bowzin is Culture deputy minister.
Prim has been MinCult and Interior.

People are being promoted, but it comes from work, which Cuddle, Prim, and Bowzin all did to get those positions.

Ok.

 

[HEM]

I don’t think this article is necessarily putting forward a new argument, it’s a remix of the most effective argument against reform: “it’s not about the system, it’s about the culture.”

Hyanygo has been a big proponent of this argument as well, and now Deepest House is providing his own unique take on the argument as well. What I’ve pointed out before is that changing institutions doesn’t prohibit changing culture, and indeed makes it even easier in many ways (as instituions change, patterns and dogmas are inherently shaken up).

But what I would add onto Deepest Houses’s specific argument is that we have already seen unprecedeted levels of cooperation between the President and Vice President, and are still seeing these issues of burnout and not enough capacity. Indeed, many Presidents this year have had very strong Chiefs of Staff who have taken on some management, yet capacity problems remain.

It’s been suggested that introducing this new role will actually exacerbate a labor force problem. Yet, by lowering the bar slightly, we are opening these positions to more members. An example: the foreign policies of Presidents Ervald and Drexlore were disasterous and eventually led to the end of both their terms, yet I could see them both thriving in a domestic-focused leadership position.

I don’t know how else to say this: I’m three years into a professional career and have managed employees remotely. If I am struggling to manage a government (which i did during my term) there are ways to do this better.

Ultimately, the region will have to decide if they agree or not. We’ve been litigating and re-litigating these issues for the last four months. The executive split, which is featured in every single reform proposal (this article seems to suggest its only in the Lazarus proposal?), is the idea with the most public consensus, so I hope people can understand why I find it a bit frustrating that there now seems to be a movement to send us back to square one of the reform discussion. This next Senate term we need to get the proposal together, present it to the public, and decide the result of his conversation one way or another.

 

[Olde Delaware]

I don’t think this article is necessarily putting forward a new argument, it’s a remix of the most effective argument against reform: “it’s not about the system, it’s about the culture.”

Hyanygo has been a big proponent of this argument as well, and now Deepest House is providing his own unique take on the argument as well. What I’ve pointed out before is that changing institutions doesn’t prohibit changing culture, and indeed makes it even easier in many ways (as instituions change, patterns and dogmas are inherently shaken up).

But what I would add onto Deepest Houses’s specific argument is that we have already seen unprecedeted levels of cooperation between the President and Vice President, and are still seeing these issues of burnout and not enough capacity. Indeed, many Presidents this year have had very strong Chiefs of Staff who have taken on some management, yet capacity problems remain.

It’s been suggested that introducing this new role will actually exacerbate a labor force problem. Yet, by lowering the bar slightly, we are opening these positions to more members. An example: the foreign policies of Presidents Ervald and Drexlore were disasterous and eventually led to the end of both their terms, yet I could see them both thriving in a domestic-focused leadership position.

I don’t know how else to say this: I’m three years into a professional career and have managed employees remotely. If I am struggling to manage a government (which i did during my term) there are ways to do this better.

Ultimately, the region will have to decide if they agree or not. We’ve been litigating and re-litigating these issues for the last four months. The executive split, which is featured in every single reform proposal (this article seems to suggest its only in the Lazarus proposal?), is the idea with the most public consensus, so I hope people can understand why I find it a bit frustrating that there now seems to be a movement to send us back to square one of the reform discussion. This next Senate term we need to get the proposal together, present it to the public, and decide the result of his conversation one way or another.

How much more lowering of the bar needs to be done though?

When we tell new people to sign up for civil service to work toward becoming President, that should mean something. The fact that its now coming out that it doesn't is certainly news to the people who have done what was asked of them, often times above and beyond what was asked. The labor force problem stems in large part because there is no continued mentoring or acknowledgement of JMs. All of the ministries less than 2 terms ago were crying out for JMs but shocked that no one wanted to do the job because there was no advancement.

Now were lowering the bar in the hopes that there will be more people interested in the glamorous field of doing work and having nothing to show for it?

There is a massive culture problem here, whether the split happens, whether the region votes for reform or not.

This is something that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

 

[HEM]

How much more lowering of the bar needs to be done though?

When we tell new people to sign up for civil service to work toward becoming President, that should mean something. The fact that its now coming out that it doesn't is certainly news to the people who have done what was asked of them, often times above and beyond what was asked. The labor force problem stems in large part because there is no continued mentoring or acknowledgement of JMs. All of the ministries less than 2 terms ago were crying out for JMs but shocked that no one wanted to do the job because there was no advancement.

Now were lowering the bar in the hopes that there will be more people interested in the glamorous field of doing work and having nothing to show for it?

There is a massive culture problem here, whether the split happens, whether the region votes for reform or not.

This is something that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

Give me the sure-fire fix and I’ll not only drop the reform effort, but I’ll immediately endorse you for President.

I feel like there are a lot of people trying to push a cylinder in a square hole. We have the region we have. I’ve spent more time than most shouting at the wind because i didn’t like everything about “modern” Europeia, and it didn’t help much. Now I’ve chosen to love the region we have, for better or for worse.

We all have the ability to change up our culture through our actions and through ourselves as individual members, but ultimately our culture is the collection of people we have here at any given time. Nation states as a whole, and Europeia, has attracted a more social-minded and less political membership. That’s why our culture has changed. To suggest the easier route here is to take a group of people and fundamentally mold their interests and desires seems comical to me. The immediate step, and the necessary step, is to mold the region around the membership we have.

That’s not to say we have to give anyway everything in the store. I think we must retain our political flare. But the bar for government in Europeia has been going up, and up, and up for nearly a decade. Why not lower it a little bit? Why not give something new a chance?

I think the far more hazardous path here is being zealots for the past, if people disagree with me please vote against me in the upcoming election. One way or another, we need to put a bow on this never ending existential crisis.

 

[Sopo]

How much more lowering of the bar needs to be done though?

When we tell new people to sign up for civil service to work toward becoming President, that should mean something. The fact that its now coming out that it doesn't is certainly news to the people who have done what was asked of them, often times above and beyond what was asked. The labor force problem stems in large part because there is no continued mentoring or acknowledgement of JMs. All of the ministries less than 2 terms ago were crying out for JMs but shocked that no one wanted to do the job because there was no advancement.

Now were lowering the bar in the hopes that there will be more people interested in the glamorous field of doing work and having nothing to show for it?

There is a massive culture problem here, whether the split happens, whether the region votes for reform or not.

This is something that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

People who put in a consistent effort become ministers. Rach gave the example of cuddlebuns in Radio. Rach herself is an example in Culture--she was the only active person in the ministry before she was appointed to replace Jay, and Jay is an example before her. Thatcher was an example in the WA (though he had to resign). I would have gladly promoted an Interior JM to minister this term, but the only one who had been active (Wissen Coast) had stepped back. We have at least one JM who could feasibly serve as minister of communications.

I would argue that advancement is actually easier and faster than ever before in our history (excepting perhaps the first couple of years). The one glaring exception being FA, simply because it's a different animal. Even there, HEM has a number of less experienced members serving as deputies (for which there was an opportunity to apply). Perhaps an element of it is being in the right place at the right time, but I can point to the things that each of those people above did to get my attention (or the attention of whoever hired them). It's not enough simply to be a JM.

OD, I don't want you to feel slighted--I think your contributions in Culture this term have been stellar--but before this term, I just haven't seen that much interest from you, and I'm not sure where it is that you feel you've been passed up. I'd be happy to talk to you about it if you want.