Should all the elected officials have Deputies? - Discussion

This term was rough for elected officals. One went on disability, one resigned and another tried to resign. Of the departments they affected, my own was the least disturbed. This was because I already had a backup to jump into position. There was nobody to take over Immortal's At-Large Council position or SKILORD's province. Our lack of a dedicated VP caused serious distress in the Domestic Department as well as an emergency Council Vote. Some of this can be addressed.

First, don't make the Domestic Leader the VP automatically. Let the Pres select a VP if nobody ran against him/her (same as other Department heads).

Second, how about Deputy Governors? Or at least one Deputy Governor that can fill in at need for all of the governors.

Third, how about Deputy At-Large Councilmembers? Or, once again, a single Deputy At-Large Councilmember that could fill in for either At-Large seat when needed.

I'm wondering if the President is needed at all. It seems mostly a symbolic position with no real power except to play the game. While we have restored the power to the President to make the minor game decisions, the CoC seems very capable to play the game & probably works better with the turn chats.

Same for my position, the Councilmember. It could be automated by a rule that any cabinet vote must be preceeded by a citizen vote. The result of the vote could just be 2 votes in a cabinet vote, unless at the 48 hour mark, it was tied, then 1-1. It could just be monitored by the citizens' watch group for any violations.

Originally posted by chiefpaco
I'm wondering if the President is needed at all. It seems mostly a symbolic position with no real power except to play the game. While we have restored the power to the President to make the minor game decisions, the CoC seems very capable to play the game & probably works better with the turn chats.

Click to expand...

The President is the person who the majority of people want to play the game. The Pres also has some very potent abilities such as initiating Administrative Council votes. They have all of the standard abilities of any Council Member. GreyFox didn't use these but they're certainly there.

Originally posted by chiefpaco
Same for my position, the Councilmember. It could be automated by a rule that any cabinet vote must be preceeded by a citizen vote. The result of the vote could just be 2 votes in a cabinet vote, unless at the 48 hour mark, it was tied, then 1-1. It could just be monitored by the citizens' watch group for any violations.

Click to expand...

The voting aspect could probably be automated as you described but there are other aspects of the job that need a dedicated individual. Off the top of my head, someone who's job is to look out for the citizens' wishes is paramount. Sometimes it's very difficult to write a fair poll, especially when you feel strongly about the issue. The At-Large councilors can repoll if they think the original poll was unsatisfactorily worded. They can also start polls, initiate Council Votes and are eligible to run for President. It doesn't have to be a passive position, it can be as proactive as you'd like to make it.

To answer your question more directly, I'm not in favour of any of the ideas. I think we could use fewer positions, not more.

Missing governors should be handled by the domestic advisor or in its absence, the President and possibly the chat attendees. I don't think it should be much of a problem or fuss, as the rules for build queues are pretty clear & governors have ample opportunity to set deep queues for each city. If they aren't set, at least it gives the President something to do.

Forcing the VP into the Presidents' role is fine, but the VP should be a Presidential runnerup or at least someone who is willing & able to play the game, not forced on anyone.

Automating the Councilmembers would probably be better than getting another person to fill in. As we've seen, people are not interested in even filling the Junior Position, let alone be a deputy "in case of absence".

The president does have a significant amount of influence if he/she can attend the turn chats. However, he/she has almost no influence if he/she does not or cannot attend turn chats. I have a feeling that the next election may hinge on this issue....

I think all departments except the 'at large' positions do need deputies. Like chiefpaco said, those votes can be decided based on the polls. The domestic department is in charge of posting build queues for governors that are not available, I think, so deputy governors are not really necessary.

If noone runs against the president, then he/she should definately choose the VP instead of making the domestic leader VP. In fact, we could have each presidential candidate choose a vp prior to the election...

I was thinking more along the lines of people to promote when the applicable official retires, as Immortal and GreyFox did or are forced into inaction like SKILORD.

Again, I agree that someone who sticks up for the citizens is beneficial. However, it is also quite a tedious chore for the CM to set up a poll for every cabinet vote. It would be better if the initiator of the cabinet poll set up the citizen poll with a 48 hour voting period, to allow for maximum voting time.

Example:
- a cabinet member posts a cabinet vote at noon on day 0.
- the CM notices the poll at 10 PM and posts a citizen poll (10 hours notice is pretty responsive, I think).

When is it appropriate for the CM to place a vote? While all other Cabinet members can vote any time, the CM should have to wait for the end. By then, it is but a tedious formality and a question of whether or not the CM is online to vote. If the original poster had put a 48 hour lock on the vote, it should be clear as to where the vote(s) should be placed.

If the cabinet poll at least waited for a CM to vote a day after the closing of its poll, that would be a slight improvement.

As for the issue of pro-active, I don't think it was the CM spot that promted me for any addditional action. It ought to be the duty for any citizen (including cabinet members) to speak up on any issue that is not being addressed & I think the forum is right to allow for this.

I didn't know the President was a he/she...

As to Shaitan's original question, I think the answers may all be a matter of appointments. The Prez should appoint his VP. The Governors should appoint their replacements (or note a back-up). And the President or VP should appoint temporary replacements for the people's CM, until the next election. The people need two votes in the Council. And...

posted by chiefpaco:
If the cabinet poll at least waited for a CM to vote a day after the closing of its poll, that would be a slight improvement.

that's one of the most interesting statements in this thread for me. If Council votes hinged on a Public response, I think that would be very appropriate.

I too like chiefpaco's comment regarding delay time in the cabinet votes to correctly include the influence of the council member at large.

To another issue, and not looking to complicate the constitution further, but....

I think that Ministers and the Prez appointing their deputies are fine, what we should add in that case though is a confirmation process much like that used in the US Government.

I would propose that all deputies and chat reps must be approved by cabinet vote. This would be mere formality in the majority of cases, but given the reality of power held by those in live chat, this additional step would provide safeguards against hijacking of our game.

Thoughts?

Hey Bill. You realize that would either be a poll for each individual or a very long process of approval?

Department heads (the pres included) should just name their own deputies and should be able to fire them at will.

(I've thought about the confirmation idea, too.)

Originally posted by Cyc
Hey Bill. You realize that would either be a poll for each individual or a very long process of approval?

Click to expand...

Yes, but in reality, it is a short time frame. I just feel that anyone who may have official duties in the government should be approved, as given the way chats can go, before you know it someone who has never been elected, or participated in the discussion of policy may well be taking game turns for all of us.

Bill

I agee with you there, Bill. Have you come up with a way of doing this? Maybe a blanket statement issued by the VP saying something like "If no Cabinet Member disagrees with the appointments of the people listed below for the assignments next to there name, it will be assumed that the Cabinet has approved the list and blah, blah, blah...". That would be a time and space saver.

Appointed and elected representation will be a much smaller factor in the chat turn now. As soon as the Council ratifies the latest batch of amendments most decisions in the chat turn will be decided by Citizen Polls. Despite that, I think Bill has a very good idea. Having a poll to show citizen support for an appointed official would only cause a 24-48 hour delay (depending on if a 1 day or 2 day poll was used). As he mentioned, it would be a rubber stamp for the most part but it would be an official stamp that showed the populace supported the Leader's decision.

Back to the original question - Should there be Deputies (or Designated Successors?) for provinces and the At-Large offices?

Originally posted by Cyc
I agee with you there, Bill. Have you come up with a way of doing this? Maybe a blanket statement issued by the VP saying something like "If no Cabinet Member disagrees with the appointments of the people listed below for the assignments next to there name, it will be assumed that the Cabinet has approved the list and blah, blah, blah...". That would be a time and space saver.

Click to expand...

I'd put this out to the citizens instead of the cabinet. When a Leader wants to appoint an official (Deputy or Chat Rep) he/she (there's those darned he/she's again) posts a confirmation poll with a simple YES/NO/ABSTAIN. Trying to coordinate all of the appointments into a single shot would be difficult at best.

Originally posted by Shaitan

Back to the original question - Should there be Deputies (or Designated Successors?) for provinces and the At-Large offices?

Click to expand...

I believe there should be designated successors for any position with a cabinet voting responsibility, build queue authority, or other key infrastructure input.

The reason being, if that individual is unable (or unwilling) to carry out their duty, then we are thrown into a limbo situation where troublecausers like me will point out that no one has the constitutional authority to take action in their place.

It's a pain in the butt sometimes, I know, but I am one likes to ensure there is not a precedent set early on that might well cause problems down the road. The best way to deal with that is to forsee and plan contingencies. Something Shaitan has been doing quite well.

Bill
...in PDX

I am torn here, for a couple of reasons. First I agree that currently the president has little power, unless they can attend turn chat, and that needs to be addressed. I definitely think there should be a seperate Vice President, who does not have another cabinet position.

In general, it would be logical to have a deputy for every position, but then the problem is we have a President, VP, 7 cabinet members, 7 deputies, 5 governors, and 5 deputies is 26 officials, and I don't think we even have that many active citizens!!!
The salaries alone from such an enourmous bureaucracy would crush our economy!! Seriously, who would we have left that would not be an official?? We may be getting too ambitious for our small (people-wise) empire. We may have to settle for no deputies, but then say that the President steps in to make decisions in the case of any absences.

Would it be a problem to have virtually every citizen serve in some capacity though? Would it be bad if there were no "regular" citizens?

I don't think Governors really need deputies. A province can run on automatic for 2 or even 3 turns provided the governor has specified long enough build queues (ie: 3 items deep). I think I unintentionally proved this since I hadn't had the time at home to take a serious look at the save-game for about a week until last night. (Note, I did keep an eye on the forums from work so I wasn't being completely derelict in my duty! ) No one posted any complaints about it, or seemed to notice that I wasn't doing any active governing. I think that instead of a deputy, a governor should be able to appoint an "acting-governor" if he or she knows that they will be unable to perform their duties for a week or more. If they believe that they are going to be incapacited for about the length of a term of office then the position should go up for re-election.

I propose to poll on these issues and do it in separate polls as there is different feeling on deputies for governors and the cabinet positions.