SB 2018-316: Dual Officeholding Act (Tabled)

[Terry the Fat Shark]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]
People's House of Representatives:

Passed 5-4 in the Atlasian House assembled on September 25th, 2018,
[/quote]

Sponsor: Canis

[Terry the Fat Shark]

A sponsor is needed for this bill.

[Canis]

I will sponsor!

[Mr. Reactionary]

Gross

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I will sponsor!

24 hours for objections to the Honorable Senator Canis sponsoring this bill.

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

Gross

[Terry the Fat Shark]

The Honorable Senator Canis assumed sponsorship as of yesterday afternoon as 24 hours passed with no objections.

[Mr. Reactionary]

This bill seems unnecessary and ties the hands of the Senate in deciding upon nominees.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would encourage the Senators to read my lengthy post in the House, stating my concerns.

[fhtagn]

I would encourage the Senators to read my lengthy post in the House, stating my concerns.

To save y'all extra clicks:

I would only support this bill with regards to the Attorney General position. For rather obvious reasons, the position of Attorney General could be one that is subject to bias from holding multiple other offices, which is something that we need to avoid. That is why I ultimately went with Dereich, since he did not hold any other position and also has real life law experience as well as in game legal experience. You could make a case for that with the SoFE as well, but we have had that discussion before and it backfired on the basis of people administering their own elections etc.

As for separation of powers, this is a football that gets tossed back and forth. If anything, this legislation is a severe violation of my constitutional rights as Chief executive to create and eliminate the departments at will, which also should mean that I have the right as President, presuming advise and consent is present from the Senate, to appoint who I deem appropriate for the functioning of these offices.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now for the offices themselves. I will point out that I have been in this game long enough to have voted to create the office of SoIA pre-reset (That vote was in late 2009). The ability to appoint members of the then Senate (now Congress) to those positions was not present until either 2011 or 2012. It was called "semi-Presidentialism" or "semi-Parliamentarianism".  This means it was the introduction of a slight deviation from the standard operating procedure of a Presidential system, for the precise reason reason of bringing activity to positions that were inactive.

Second of all, the ability of the SoIA and SoS to serve in Congress means that that said person, can directly represent the administration, offer the administration's agenda and serve as the sponsor for such bills. That is a good thing. I am all for bringing different and diverse people to the table, but over time as the administration progresses you see what works and what don't and adjust with the priority being functionality.

Just as an affirmative note, I took extra time and went beyond my deadline to try and find a suitable person for this position. It was not my goal to "appoint the same old people", when I started out. But I created an open process, for a reason so that it would 1) be transparent and 2) I wasn't just throwing someone in a position but could tell if they truly understood or were open to understanding what the position entailed, and what my expectations were (which I posted clearly in the thread). I did ask people, I asked others about different people even delayed my appointment date to see if someone recommended to me was still interested, and only went ahead with the appointment once it was clear who that option was.

It is difficult to balance multiple values and priorities. Bringing in new people, bringing in competent people and bringing in people through an open and transparent process. I ultimately decided that if this organ of government functioned, the benefits of it for the regions, for congress, for game as a whole would generate far more benefit to new people entering the game then if I prioritized one criteria over the others. You can place a person in this position because of connections or some kind of affirmative action strategy, but that has been done for 9 years almost and most of the time this position is inactivity. Repeating that strategy likely means that this position is probably going to be abolished soon.

I made the selection that I did because 1) Fhtagn actually cared enough to apply, if they cared enough to apply that means that she is likely to care enough to be active in the position. 2) Her application indicated both an understanding of the position and/or a willingness to learn. 3) Her position in Congress was viewed as an asset under our present semi-Parliamentary system, because of the ability to go directly to congress and push for legislation based on interactions with the GM, with the regions with both etc. This is the dynamic interaction that this position most definitely needs to prove its value. I have said this both in private and public, and I said the same thing in several rounds of appointments already. I was certainly not going to either leave the position vacant because the choice presented, was also a a member of congress.

I will also point out that I appointed Razze and I appointed Ninja when they expressed interest in being Archivist.  I made Sestak my legislative affairs director and as it was functioning, it was probably one of the most consequential positions and I created it with the stroke of a pen. I am perfectly fine with appointing new people, regardless of party if they have expressed interest and have showed a reasonable indication that they will be active in the position. I appointed someone older yes for Attorney General, because 1) Independent, 2) Legal experience 3) No conflicts. Above everything, one of the most difficult jobs as President is filling positions, any former President will tell you that, most of the time you get crickets in response to application requests.

Anyway, I will not sign this legislation in its present form.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Anymore debate on this?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would encourage the Senators to read my lengthy post in the House, stating my concerns.

To save y'all extra clicks:

I would only support this bill with regards to the Attorney General position. For rather obvious reasons, the position of Attorney General could be one that is subject to bias from holding multiple other offices, which is something that we need to avoid. That is why I ultimately went with Dereich, since he did not hold any other position and also has real life law experience as well as in game legal experience. You could make a case for that with the SoFE as well, but we have had that discussion before and it backfired on the basis of people administering their own elections etc.

As for separation of powers, this is a football that gets tossed back and forth. If anything, this legislation is a severe violation of my constitutional rights as Chief executive to create and eliminate the departments at will, which also should mean that I have the right as President, presuming advise and consent is present from the Senate, to appoint who I deem appropriate for the functioning of these offices.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now for the offices themselves. I will point out that I have been in this game long enough to have voted to create the office of SoIA pre-reset (That vote was in late 2009). The ability to appoint members of the then Senate (now Congress) to those positions was not present until either 2011 or 2012. It was called "semi-Presidentialism" or "semi-Parliamentarianism".  This means it was the introduction of a slight deviation from the standard operating procedure of a Presidential system, for the precise reason reason of bringing activity to positions that were inactive.

Second of all, the ability of the SoIA and SoS to serve in Congress means that that said person, can directly represent the administration, offer the administration's agenda and serve as the sponsor for such bills. That is a good thing. I am all for bringing different and diverse people to the table, but over time as the administration progresses you see what works and what don't and adjust with the priority being functionality.

Just as an affirmative note, I took extra time and went beyond my deadline to try and find a suitable person for this position. It was not my goal to "appoint the same old people", when I started out. But I created an open process, for a reason so that it would 1) be transparent and 2) I wasn't just throwing someone in a position but could tell if they truly understood or were open to understanding what the position entailed, and what my expectations were (which I posted clearly in the thread). I did ask people, I asked others about different people even delayed my appointment date to see if someone recommended to me was still interested, and only went ahead with the appointment once it was clear who that option was.

It is difficult to balance multiple values and priorities. Bringing in new people, bringing in competent people and bringing in people through an open and transparent process. I ultimately decided that if this organ of government functioned, the benefits of it for the regions, for congress, for game as a whole would generate far more benefit to new people entering the game then if I prioritized one criteria over the others. You can place a person in this position because of connections or some kind of affirmative action strategy, but that has been done for 9 years almost and most of the time this position is inactivity. Repeating that strategy likely means that this position is probably going to be abolished soon.

I made the selection that I did because 1) Fhtagn actually cared enough to apply, if they cared enough to apply that means that she is likely to care enough to be active in the position. 2) Her application indicated both an understanding of the position and/or a willingness to learn. 3) Her position in Congress was viewed as an asset under our present semi-Parliamentary system, because of the ability to go directly to congress and push for legislation based on interactions with the GM, with the regions with both etc. This is the dynamic interaction that this position most definitely needs to prove its value. I have said this both in private and public, and I said the same thing in several rounds of appointments already. I was certainly not going to either leave the position vacant because the choice presented, was also a a member of congress.

I will also point out that I appointed Razze and I appointed Ninja when they expressed interest in being Archivist.  I made Sestak my legislative affairs director and as it was functioning, it was probably one of the most consequential positions and I created it with the stroke of a pen. I am perfectly fine with appointing new people, regardless of party if they have expressed interest and have showed a reasonable indication that they will be active in the position. I appointed someone older yes for Attorney General, because 1) Independent, 2) Legal experience 3) No conflicts. Above everything, one of the most difficult jobs as President is filling positions, any former President will tell you that, most of the time you get crickets in response to application requests.

Anyway, I will not sign this legislation in its present form.

There is actually an error I just noted in the text above, instead of "who that option was", was originally supposed to say "how that option wasn't", meaning they were not interested/available.

[fhtagn]

Anyone gonna say anything, have any responses to Yankee, etc?

[fhtagn]

Obviously not in the Senate, but based on Yankee indicating that he will not sign the bill as currently written, I'm offering this for anyone who is willing to sponsor:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Sestak]

For the sake of moving along debate, I will sponsor fhtagn's amendment. Sponsor?

[fhtagn]

[pokes Canis with a stick]

[fhtagn]

It's been 13 days since Sestak assumed sponsorship of the amendment and asked for the sponsor of the bill's feedback and Senator Canis has still not responded...

[Pragmatic Conservative]

I motion to table this bill due to lack of sponsorship feedback.

[Dr. MB]

Seeing as there has been no sponsorship feedback, I call a vote on the amendment. The vote will run for 72 hours.

[Canis]

Aye

[fhtagn]

Worth noting that the sponsor is required to give feedback on the amendment before this can go forward.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seeing as this amendment was sponsored by a sitting Senator, the final vote can't proceed until Canis provides feedback, and the above conditions have been met regarding this.

[Sestak]

Worth noting that the sponsor is required to give feedback on the amendment before this can go forward.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seeing as this amendment was sponsored by a sitting Senator, the final vote can't proceed until Canis provides feedback, and the above conditions have been met regarding this.

Pretty sure we've just gone to votes before after prolonged periods of nonresponse from sponsors.

Anyway I move to suspend and consider this amendment vote legitimate, 24 hours to object.

[fhtagn]

Worth noting that the sponsor is required to give feedback on the amendment before this can go forward.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seeing as this amendment was sponsored by a sitting Senator, the final vote can't proceed until Canis provides feedback, and the above conditions have been met regarding this.

Pretty sure we've just gone to votes before after prolonged periods of nonresponse from sponsors.

Anyway I move to suspend and consider this amendment vote legitimate, 24 hours to object.

Admittedly misread this as final vote (I blame functioning on 4 hours of sleep )
My bad.

[Dr. MB]

Amendment has failed due to a lack of quorum.

[Sestak]

oof. Reintroducing the amendment. Please PM in future (on Atlas).