SB 2018-153: Dual Officeholding Amendment (Passed)

[PPT Spiral]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Pericles

[fhtagn]

While I don't disagree that we are facing an activity problem, I would like to note that this does nothing to promote more activity, and hurts the game in times where there may not be enough qualified people who are willing to serve in available positions (such as now). There are also some positions where it's not really a huge issue if they hold other offices given the nature of their work, and may actually be a benefit if they are already sitting in a legislative body (such as Secretary of Internal Affairs).

[Pericles]

I support this bill. The status quo risks overloading elected officials and resulting in some or all of their jobs being performed worse than they would if that role had their single focus. There is also a risk of conflicts of interest between the different roles officeholders have(though if this bill doesn't pass a separate bill could attempt to address that issue.)

[cinyc]

I’m on the fence about this bill. At minimum, it needs a grandfather clause for current officeholders to get my support. We shouldn’t be kicking current officeholders out of office.

Even then, I don’t know if I can support it. The game is already facing inactivity issues, and this might make it worse.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

On this, I must concur with the president: the constitutional sanction of pluralism was introduced in response to the Crisis of 2015, when it became clear that a strict adherence to monistic officeholding was crippling the republic by forcing the game to 'drain one pool to fill another.' Had this provision not been in place, we would have lost Peebs' services either as Registrar General or as Secretary of Federal Elections from the start, not to mention several of the most capable to serve in the cabinet proper since its ratification. Prohibiting cabinet officers from serving in Congress or in regional governments would be a historic mistake; in that unhappy event, it would be preferable to simply abolish the cabinet altogether than to allow it to resume the horrid half-life it endured before the Fourth Constitution.

I challenge the supporters of this bill to submit an actual instance when this republic has been demonstrably weakened by the pluralist policy. Has the Southern Chamber of Delegates suffered from Mr. Reactionary's service with the State Department? Did Fremont endure the doldrums of inactivity whilst I was serving jointly as their prime minister and as Attorney General? Is Congress now in shackles because the deputy speaker resides at the Census Bureau? Regular elections and the dismissive power of the executive are more than sufficient safeguards against any theoretical "conflict of interest" that might occur—and while I cannot speak for the senator, I have more faith in our courts and in the honor and good judgement of our officeholders than to consider it necessary to amend the Constitution for fear that some avaricious cabinet officer will try and set themselves up as dictator.

We cannot conjure up activity by creating more vacant offices—that strategy has been employed ad nauseam in the past, with disastrous results. The president and Senator Cinyc are absolutely right to observe that forcing active and qualified citizens from office hurts the game, and to do so now—when we are so starved for active candidates that the second-largest party has no sitting representatives in the House—would be incredibly foolish.

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

I support this bill. The status quo risks overloading elected officials and resulting in some or all of their jobs being performed worse than they would if that role had their single focus. There is also a risk of conflicts of interest between the different roles officeholders have(though if this bill doesn't pass a separate bill could attempt to address that issue.)

[fhtagn]

I would really like to also hear the answers to the questions raised by GM Truman from Senators who are saying that they support this.

I challenge the supporters of this bill to submit an actual instance when this republic has been demonstrably weakened by the pluralist policy. Has the Southern Chamber of Delegates suffered from Mr. Reactionary's service with the State Department? Did Fremont endure the doldrums of inactivity whilst I was serving jointly as their prime minister and as Attorney General? Is Congress now in shackles because the deputy speaker resides at the Census Bureau?

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

I’m actually starting to change my mind on this issue. Y’all have raised some great points. I wish we could strike somewhat of a balance, but it’s sad that inactivity has gotten this bad. I think we may still need to keep this. I would love some kind of reform to this, though.

[PPT Spiral]

With Young Texan resigning from the Senate, this bill is currently without a sponsor? Would anyone like to step up?

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

With Young Texan resigning from the Senate, this bill is currently without a sponsor? Would anyone like to step up?

I would, but I’m going to have to decline because I no longer really agree with the bill. It would be a major conflict of interest if I took sponsorship of this bill.

[Pericles]

I will sponsor this bill.

[Anna Komnene]

I have mixed thoughts here. I agree with Senator cinyc that any amendment would need a grandfather clause. Generally, the ideal would be to have a unique person in each role in Atlasia, but I'm not sure that it necessarily needs to be required for roles like the cabinet. The Senate does still have the power to confirm all of the nominees even if failing to confirm is pretty rare, so theoretically there's already a check against things like this if people care deeply about it. Speaking of Senate confirmation on this issue, I wonder if that makes Senators in particular unfit to serve in both the cabinet and the Senate due to conflict of interest?

[PPT Spiral]

Senator Pericles is now the new sponsor.

[Anna Komnene]

I'm introducing an amendment based on the concern I raised about Senate confirmations. I'd like to know what everyone thinks. I also added the part about the Speaker and the Senate PPT because I feel that a situation where one of those offices was allowed to serve in the cabinet would be just too much.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I can't support this proposal in any form, for reasons given above; but I would point out that a strict reading of the amendment proposed by Senator Siren would bar senators from serving as PPT, which hopefully everyone agrees would be a bad idea.

[wxtransit]

I can't support this proposal in any form, for reasons given above; but I would point out that a strict reading of the amendment proposed by Senator Siren would bar senators from serving as PPT, which hopefully everyone agrees would be a bad idea.

Not a Senator, but maybe the amendment should be changed to read "shall serve in an executive office if they are an elected Senator"? That would get rid of the PPT problem.

[Pericles]

Alternatively if this can't get the votes another bill should require members of Congress be recused from votes relating to their duties in executive offices to avoid a conflict of interest with recusals being judged by an Independent Ethics Officer.

[Anna Komnene]

Alternatively if this can't get the votes another bill should require members of Congress be recused from votes relating to their duties in executive offices to avoid a conflict of interest with recusals being judged by an Independent Ethics Officer.

I'd support something like that.

[Pericles]

Fundamentally though, however the issue is addressed dual office-holding flies in the face if separation of powers in the Constitution and undermines the legitimacy, as well as productivity, of our political system. This needs to change.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Fundamentally though, however the issue is addressed dual office-holding flies in the face if separation of powers in the Constitution and undermines the legitimacy, as well as productivity, of our political system. This needs to change.

Again, any actual examples of this happening?

[Pericles]

Alternatively if this can't get the votes another bill should require members of Congress be recused from votes relating to their duties in executive offices to avoid a conflict of interest with recusals being judged by an Independent Ethics Officer.

I'd support something like that.

Do you want to help draft a bill with me to accomplish that?

[Anna Komnene]

I'm withdrawing my amendment.

Alternatively if this can't get the votes another bill should require members of Congress be recused from votes relating to their duties in executive offices to avoid a conflict of interest with recusals being judged by an Independent Ethics Officer.

I'd support something like that.

Do you want to help draft a bill with me to accomplish that?

Sure. Maybe we could put it into the Senate rules or something.

[fhtagn]

I'd still very much like to see any supporter of this bill respond to what GM Truman posted, as of right now it still seems to be ignored:

I challenge the supporters of this bill to submit an actual instance when this republic has been demonstrably weakened by the pluralist policy. Has the Southern Chamber of Delegates suffered from Mr. Reactionary's service with the State Department? Did Fremont endure the doldrums of inactivity whilst I was serving jointly as their prime minister and as Attorney General? Is Congress now in shackles because the deputy speaker resides at the Census Bureau?

[fhtagn]

Still nothing?

[Anna Komnene]

This is still on the floor. Does anyone want to amend it or debate it further? Or should we bring it to a vote?

Anyway, I don't really support this amendment. I think it's obvious why appointing people to several offices isn't a good thing. Some combinations are more egregious than others, but the Senate confirmation process is supposed to be a safeguard against any bad appointments. So it's hard to argue that someone who was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate shouldn't be holding that office.