|
Post by Vista Major, MP on Dec 13, 2017 14:49:10 GMT -5
The Confederate Parliament
Parliament Bill # 012
A Bill For An Act Entitled: The Secretary Act
13 December 2017
Vista Major
Parliament Proposal
Resolved by the Confederate Parliament of the Confederacy of Free Nations, that the following article is proposed as a law under the jurisdiction of the Confederacy of Free Nations, enforceable by all of its institutions.
Be it enacted by the Confederacy of Free Nations, in Confederate Parliament assembled, that
Section 1 The Chief of Staff ss.1. In order to assist the government of the Confederacy of Free Nations with its recordkeeping and communications, the office of the Chief of Staff is established as the principal secretary of the government (the Cabinet, the Parliament, and the Supreme Court). ss.2. The Chief of Staff will be responsible for codifying and enforcing standard formats for government factbooks and communications to the Confederacy. To that end, the Chief of Staff will be given permission to edit all government factbooks and dispatches to ensure that all documents of the government are up-to-date and follow the standardized formats, so long as such documents are not essential to elections and referenda (election and referenda dispatches shall be the charge of the Election Committee), or are otherwise declared off-limits to the Chief of Staff; the Cabinet shall vote as to which documents are off limits to the Chief of Staff. ss.3. The Chief of Staff will be appointed by the Chancellor and approved of by a 3/4 vote of the Cabinet, though they may be removed by a 3/4 vote of the Cabinet or a simple majority of a vote in Parliament for objectively failing in their duties; removal can be challenged in the Supreme Court by the Chief of Staff in question, as long as they request a hearing within one week of their removal. Any standardized formats proposed by the Chief of Staff must be approved by the President before being set into force. In addition, the Chief of Staff may only update critical information in government factbooks and dispatches with the permission of the government officials responsible for their content. ss.4. The Chief of Staff will be also allowed to exercise any non-essential government duty not delegated to another government official at the pleasure of the Chancellor and the other Ministers and other primary government officials (those who are not deputies or clerks), provided that such duties do not impede the ability of primary government officials to perform their duties. If the government delegates a task to a government official that was previously under the purview of the Chief of Staff, the Chief of Staff will surrender their duties as soon as possible, at the risk of expulsion from office for failing to comply. ss.5. The Chief of Staff is sworn to secrecy; any classified documents that they are allowed access to must not be disclosed in any form to the public without the permission of the Chancellor. To willfully break this vow of secrecy shall be tantamount to treason.
|
|
|
Post by merc on Dec 14, 2017 11:26:24 GMT -5
Violations of House Procedure:
All bills must be submitted to the pending chamber, not the debate chamber.
Also, bills must be sent through the Speaker prior to submitting to the forums, so as to ensure formatting.
Refer to the House Procedures dispatch.
|
|
|
Post by merc on Dec 14, 2017 11:43:13 GMT -5
Four day debate lasting until Monday next, 18 December 2017. One week vote thereafter.
|
|
|
Post by Continental Commonwealths on Dec 14, 2017 15:51:59 GMT -5
*cracks knuckles and settles in*
Actually, I don’t see a lot of issues with this bill at first glance.
I would suggest that it be Cabinet or Parliament that could remove the CoS, not the Chancellor or Parliament. I would also suggest making it clear what the vote threshold for Cabinet confirmation and Parliamentary/Cabinet removal.
I also think the Elections Facebook should be specifically limited to the Elections Committee/Commissions (forgot which terminology we use), and therefore it should be mentioned as an exception from the jurisdiction of the CoS.
|
|
|
Post by awesomeness on Dec 15, 2017 13:57:36 GMT -5
*cracks knuckles and settles in* Actually, I don’t see a lot of issues with this bill at first glance. I would suggest that it be Cabinet or Parliament that could remove the CoS, not the Chancellor or Parliament. I would also suggest making it clear what the vote threshold for Cabinet confirmation and Parliamentary/Cabinet removal. I also think the Elections Factbook should be specifically limited to the Elections Committee/Commissions (forgot which terminology we use), and therefore it should be mentioned as an exception from the jurisdiction of the CoS. Edited for clarity But I agree with the above statements. Let's limit singular power, and create specific protocols to be followed to ensure objectivity in the removal of a person, not a subjective removal.
|
|
|
Post by Jaslandia on Dec 15, 2017 15:21:17 GMT -5
I agree with ContComm's comments. Other than that, I don't have any other concerns, and it looks like a solid bill.
|
|
|
Post by Vista Major, MP on Dec 15, 2017 21:11:06 GMT -5
I've taken the advice and edited the bill. Thank you much.
|
|
|
Post by Unfallious on Dec 16, 2017 11:54:07 GMT -5
Is it prudent to add more positions to the government when the last election we had was barely contested? Even if it is an appointed position, the Chancellor is gonna have to find someone to do it. What'll likely happen is the Chancellor will pick whoever volunteers to do it regardless of what experience they have or what their track record is. This'll result in the position likely going inactive or not working as well as one would hope. Additionally, isn't it the Chancellor who should be doing the duties that this bill proposes the Chief of Staff would do? He's the organiser of Cabinet and the one who keeps everyone in line and on the same page.
Frankly, I believe this is unnecessary and I hope Parliament votes accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by Vista Major, MP on Dec 16, 2017 12:34:25 GMT -5
This bill serves two main functions: to streamline government and create more bureaucratic unity. Absolutely, the Chancellor is responsible for Cabinet unity. This mandate, however, does not specifically cover government records, nor does the Chancellor's responsibilities extend far beyond the Cabinet, leaving the Parliament and Supreme Court uncovered unless they have clerks. To streamline government, I aim for the Chief of Staff to slowly reduce the size of government by removing the absolute need for deputies to assist ministers, or clerks to serve the other branches. This is not to say that deputyships and clerkships should be eliminated (far from, as deputies and clerks will be needed if their superiors resign), but this is to say that considering the state of deputies throughout the history of government, their bureaucratic duties can be better served if they are concentrated in one authority: the Chief of Staff, with all their necessary oversight thereof. The issues of election inactivity won't be solved by this bill, but this bill will help to solve another issue: that so many dispatches are being handled by so many different people, with some considerable lack of standardization or up-to-dateness. Indeed, someone needs the power to keep our documents current if a minister has to step aside, especially if they haven't (or won't) appoint a deputy/clerk. Hence this position. There is nothing wrong with a helper, and a helper for all government officials in all branches can be sorely needed.
As long as this defense is, I hope it clarifies things that were unclear.
|
|
|
Post by Unfallious on Dec 17, 2017 13:26:40 GMT -5
I'd argue that the Chief of Staff doesn't decrease the size of government at all. On the contrary, it objectively increases the size. This position makes no other position obsolete. Yes, it attempts to take responsibilities from the deputies, but not enough to make them truly obsolete as they're still needed to replace their minister. It takes responsibilities from the Chancellor, but it doesn't hold any real responsibilities that would make that position obsolete.
So really, this position will be difficult to fill, it'll increase the size of government and it won't really do much else. It's a functionally useless position and attempts to centralise without actually centralising anything.
|
|
MP Oelesa
Former Members
I'm in retirement but I'll continue to cast my vote.
Posts: 29
|
Post by MP Oelesa on Dec 18, 2017 21:52:41 GMT -5
I echo MP Unfallious
|
|
|
Post by merc on Dec 19, 2017 9:19:30 GMT -5
Order.
Moving toward a one week vote ending Tuesday next, 26 December 2017.
|
|
|
Post by Unfallious on Dec 19, 2017 11:24:06 GMT -5
Denounced
|
|
|
Post by Anglia Imperium, MP on Dec 19, 2017 12:20:38 GMT -5
DENOUNCED
In the last election all seats but one were acclaimed (just because I persuaded Lex to run we had an election). Do we really need that?
|
|
MP Oelesa
Former Members
I'm in retirement but I'll continue to cast my vote.
Posts: 29
|
Post by MP Oelesa on Dec 19, 2017 16:35:49 GMT -5
DENOUNCED
|
|