The Senate

[Almightyjosh]

I think the problem you are concerned with dis is best tackled by getting more dedicated candidates for governor! I don't know about other provinces, but in Asphinxia we have a Mayor for almost every city and any proposals made by them are considered and usually approoved cos I'd rather have active mayors than a build-que power trip!! I must ask you, why did you not run for Governor, it would solve all your problems!!

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by Almightyjosh
to give the senate juristiction over placement of provincial borders (given congressional approval)
to give the senate the right to request funding for rushes (which currently needs sponsorship from a department)
to allow members of the senate to sponsor polls to change the Constitution, COS and COL (currently only exec)
to give the senate juristiction over worker distribution between provinces (ie to make requests workers be sent from one province to another)
Give the senate the power to remove recalcetrant mayors

I like the idea about provincial borders. However, all our border proposals to date have been maps done by one person and then voted on for approval. Perhaps make the Senate the approval board instead of the general populous?

I totally agree that governors should be able to request funding. There is nothing in the rules that prevents this. It's a decision of the Domestic Deputy how the treasury will be handled.

Senators can sponsor polls to the Constitution and COL. So can any other Legislator. The COS is reserved to the Executive branch.

Senators can already request worker movement and activity.

Removing mayors isn't a bad idea but I don't know if it's a good one either. As mayors are not a critical (or even official) part of the game there's little validation for giving this power. In any case it would need to have checks against abuse of the power.

 

[disorganizer]

The removal of mayors will be a bad move.
Even less citizens will be involved in the game.
The position of mayors should even be improoved. Maybe with a "local election" every month in the city-threads.

 

[Havok]

Mayors could be used for simple little tasks, or something of emergency fill-ins of some sort should any kind of disaster occur. But at worst, Mayor's keep people involved.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Two thoughts -

1) To the issue of what city to base the Senate in, well I would think Fox Nest, as that is the capital. That being said, for more interest within the Senate, how about you propose making one city a District of itself, in control of the Senate as a group. Kind of a altered version of the District of Columbia. This type of thing isn't needed though early in a game, but it is just a thought.

2) To Mayors. For them to have any power, it would need to be put into the laws. However, a simple solution is to afford Governors the right to appoint Mayors, and then write a statement that Governors, in accordance with the constitution which provides for equal reprensentation, should respond to officially appointed Mayor queues, or words to that effect.

I think the concept of mayors is a good one if it encourages more participation. I would not want to see Governors, who have to go and get elected, tied down by the "Mayor de Jure" who thinks they have the power to dictate issues.

Bill
Judge Advocate of Phoenatica

 

[Stuck_as_a_Mac]

*puts on poofy wig*

I see what you mean, Bill. We need to keep the Mayors under control, but give them some power. We need a part added to the Contitution stating that the Mayors have to be apointed by the Governors, voted on by the Cabinet (which may or may not include the senate) and have a limit on power.
Its checks and balances, thats all. They knew it in 1776, we still do it today.

 

[Shaitan]

There's a lag problem with mayors being appointed and confirmed. How many cities do we have now? How many people want a mayorship? That's a lot of confirmations. I'm assuming that it would not be title for life so a new governor would put his own mayors in charge. That makes this a problem for every term.

 

[Stuck_as_a_Mac]

yea, but it stops egos.
Example: when i wuz (AND STILL AM) head of R&D for Almightyjosh, firstly he gave me the job. then when i became a mayor, he gave me the job. i didnt get egoed untill i started cooki...working the books for the RPG.
THEN i ran for governor is this working?

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I see Shaitan's point as well.

I don't think we need Mayoral elections, especially since this would just water down the power of the Senate. However, I am looking for a way to control the process.

I suppose in the bigger picture, one could just hope that citizens would use the existing laws on the books to hold their Governor responsible to the people, should they not be.

 

[disorganizer]

What about adding mayors as they are. The first citizen going to a city is a the mayor. (This way we would sparkle a run for new cities!).
As soon as other citizens move there, any of them can request a mayor election on the next 15th, with 5 days of nomination phase. The election would be open and only for citizens of the city. In case of a tie there, the governor decides.

Having governors decide alone about mayors will start the existance of secret parties (as official ones are disallowed).

 

[Shaitan]

Maybe a mayor thread should be opened? We've strayed completely off of the thread topic.

 

[Almightyjosh]

Originally posted by Stuck_As_a_Mac
*puts on poofy wig*

Good to see you using some Aussie slang!!

I don't see a problem with mayorial positions being discussed here, but the issue HAS gotten big enough to warrant a thread.

A sugesstion,
I think that the workers of Phonatica should be pooled as a collective resource controled by the senate. Currently each governor controls the worker's in thier own province, which is VERY inefficiant sometimes. Furthermore, during a turnchat the pres often has to make unaided judgements about worker activity. I propose that the senate establish a series of guiding rules which always apply and turn-chat specific priority tasks, heres an embryonic idea:

Whenever possible, the President will order workers to complete land improvements in the folloing fashion:
1. Clearing pollution in NP
2. Clearing pollution elsewhere
3. Road links between cities
4. Rail links between cities
5. Irrigation near growing cities
6. Mineing near non-growth cities in non mountains
7. Rail over worked land not directly in links
8. Clearing Jungle
9. Clearing forest where appropriate
10. Mineing mountains
11. Other work, including developing tiles for use in the nera future.

This is very preliminary

In a turn, it may be that tasks further down this list are more pressing, or special issues need to be brought to the president's attention. Like this:

Turn chat instructions for workers:
1. Stop all work in the new national park
2. Clear jungle near Enke as the citizens diseased
3. Irrigate land around Seattle as the citizens are starving
4. Mine hills around Khavotar do it can complete wonder quickly
5. All the deserts of Istar need work

Some are specific, some are general, all are important (note I made these up as examples).

Thoughts?

 

[Octavian X]

Worker control should remain the way it is. I do agree that a worker priortiy list does need to be defiened.

 

[Shaitan]

Right now workers are controlled by the DP. Governors request worker jobs.

 

[donsig]

I think the workers have to remain under the control of the DP. Any other way is unworkable. That does not preclude making a worker priority list and / or requests for special projects.

Mayors should stay. They can remain a volunteer job but governors could appoint mayors as well. I see no need for a homogenous method for selecting mayors. If we ever got to the point where two or more citizens wanted to be mayor of the same city and an informal agreement can't be worked out we could always have a special mayoral election. It wouldn't even have to be a nationwide election - it could be provincial or restricted to citizens of the city in question.

I don't think we should give mayors formal power. As citizens they have politcal power to influence the governors and department leaders as well, especially if they have the backing of their city's citizens!

While the Senate has (seemingly) little power, the individual governors do have tremendous power since they control tile use and build queues in their cities. Also, an effective veto over constitutional changes is a powerful thing. While this issue hasn't arisen lately anyone familiar with Phoenatica's history knows how much trust has been placed in the Senate.

 

[Cyc]

IMO, Donsig has called it correctly.

Also, I think the Governors position is perfect the way it is. Very powerful, with not too much stress. A great position to hold.

 

[Eklektikos]

I totally agree with Cyc & Donsig here. Governors have plenty of power, even without counting their role as constitutional approvers. Add extra responsibilties and it could make the position too much of a burden for those without large amounts of free time.

 

[Octavian X]

Thinking about the senate, in the event a senate vote resultes in a tie, who breaks it?

 

[Eklektikos]

Senate votes are only there to deal with constitutional ammendments and require a 2/3 majority for the ammendment to pass, so ties aren't an issue.

 

[Almightyjosh]

Ladies and gentlemen, your attention please.
There is, finally, a chance for the senate to get engaged in the legislative process. There is a proposed constitutional amendment:

Census taking

Go, vote... it is your one and only chance to BE the senate!!