Political and Non-Political Offices

[Owen Edwards]

I'd like to call honourable MCs and Senators together to discuss certain matters of concern arising from a conversation with Senator Davis, and if necessary, formulate Organic Law amendments.

The conversation - which I hope the dear Senator will forgive me for discussing in public, how vulgar of me - included certain observations on the political or apolitical nature of the offices and ministries of the nation.

He observed that the SoS was a non-political officer, as was the Minister of Immigration (to his mind, to a lesser extent; more on my thoughts later) - whereas, say, MinHome, MinFor, MinDef, MinStuff and MinCul all had a certain obligation to execute the published policies of the mandated elected government.

The OrgLaw reflects some of these practicalities but not others. For instance, OrgLaw XII.8 and XII.9 provide for the King's appointment of the Distain and Túischac'h, on the advice of the Seneschal; the latter an explicitly apolitical office, the former one that can be utilized as such, as the Distain's main responsibilities need not be tied to a party's platform.

Meanwhile, in OrgLaw IX.1:

"The Seneschál shall appoint a Secretary of State to an indefinite term. He may be removed and replaced by law."

Though I personally am hazy on the "law" used to remove or replace an SoS (though I am sure it exists and in plain sight, too), and though I know this issue has been discussed - privately and publicly - it seems a little illogical that the Seneschal may make, alone, the appointment for a necessarily apolitical office that wields enormous power. I, certainly, would be more comfortable if the King were involved too.

Regardless, and moving on:

Article XII, discussed already above, details the various Organically required Ministries, as well as roles such as the Distain and Speaker of the Cosa.

XII.1: The King appoints and dismisses members of the Government (Cabinet), and their subordinates, on the advice of the Seneschál. The Government consists of the Seneschál, the Distáin, the Foreign Minister, Defence Minister, Immigration Minister, and Minister of Stuff. Various other ministries may also be appointed as the Seneschál sees fit.

There are some minor matter of consistency in this article, but hardly important ones.

However - and I speak as someone with a stake in the matter, it should be clear - I am not entirely comfortable with MinImm being lumped in with the other ministries. Even though it is a decision made between the King and Seneschal (lacking with the appointment of the SoS), it still politicizes a department which must be entirely apolitical in nature.

A government may have immigration policy it wishes to push, but it is not MinImm's role to run that; indeed, as demonstrated by Viteu and my involvement in the recent talk of reform, it is but a small part of the job and one which consists of providing the practical experience necessary in debates in which some know but little about the actual subject.

MinImm's job is to administer people's interest in immigrating, and overseeing the first three quarters of the naturalisation process. There is no room for politics in that role. Indeed, bringing politics into it would profoundly damage it.

So what is MinImm doing as a "governmental" position? (Especially with the grey area about what a government consists of and when it is dissolved and so on - perhaps more on that later) It would, I contend, make more sense for MinImm to be seperated from the government, made an apolitical, non-"dissolvable" Office, and perhaps renamed so as not to be confused for a government ministry.

Discussion welcomed!

[Jack Fenton]

I think an apolitical MI would be a good idea.

[Flip Molinar]

I too support this idea. Having a political MI could lead to discrimination on the basis of policy following. For instance, if we say "we are now going to cut back on immigration" it shouldn't be the MI deciding which applicants for citizenship he introduces. This is a gaping hole in the ORGLAW and it must be fixed.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

"The Seneschál shall appoint a Secretary of State to an indefinite term. He may be removed and replaced by law."

Though I personally am hazy on the "law" used to remove or replace an SoS (though I am sure it exists and in plain sight, too), and though I know this issue has been discussed - privately and publicly - it seems a little illogical that the Seneschal may make, alone, the appointment for a necessarily apolitical office that wields enormous power. I, certainly, would be more comfortable if the King were involved too


The King can fire the SoS.

[Owen Edwards]

I know. Where is it stated? Is it simply tradition?

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

It's around here somewhere....

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

The Ziu can remove and replace the Secretary of State. "He shall be removed and replaced by law" (Org V.1) cedes that power to the legislature.

[King John]

Since Prime Dictates have the force of law, the Prime Minister can also dismiss the Secretary of State by PD. (Which being so, if the PM asks the SoS to resign, there'd be pretty much no point to his refusing to go.)

The only wrinkle in here is that the King could veto either a law or a PD, if he thought the SoS should *not* be dismissed; in which case, the Ziu could try to override the veto, but the effort would have to wait until the next Clark. But I can't think why the King would do such a thing, unless he were pretty sure there was some kind of skulduggery going on. Let's hope we never get into a mess like that.

— John R

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Please don't give Hooligan any ideas, Your Kingness.

Y'all would do that, just to antagonize me.

[Hooligan]

Besides the OrgLaw, the other laws at play here are The Royal Household Cleaning Act and The Cabinet Refinishing Act.

As for the topic of this discussion, which seems to be whether the office of Immigration Minister should be removed from the government's control and created as an office of the Royal Household, this would (as has been discussed) require an Organic Law change.

While I see the arguments that administering immigration should be done apolitically, I also see that this same argument can be made for every other ministry. The Minister of Defence, for example, is responsible for defending the entire realm and all its citizens, without party preference considered in defence-readiness or in the granting of military-appointments. The Attorney-General should enforce the laws without regard to the political positions of any defendant or claimant. Does this mean that these two (and the other) ministries should be made apolitical offices, appointed by the King to serve indefinite terms?

I suppose at this point I am resistant to a change. The wise writers of our Organic Law, with nearly twenty years of Talossan history behind them when they created that document, likely debated points like this, and their decision for us was to have immigration be handled by a Minister of the government. In the eleven years since, we have not had any real occasion to seriously question the non-partisan conduct of the Immigration Minister. Sure, there have been accusations, but these have always proven unfounded, and just the fact that these accusations can and sometimes have been leveled is proof of our national vigilance and interest in ensuring the propriety of this important duty.

And another thing, if we move everything out of the government and into the Royal Household, it seems to me we would never have any juicy scandals. And what kind of a nation would that make us?

That said, I look forward to the debate, and will meet it with an open mind.

Hooligan

[Owen Edwards]

But the Minister of Defence necessarily represents the ruling party's stance on defence policy (as, say, he does in the US or the UK or anywhere else). In any other nation, MinImm would be a non-political bureau under the oversight of MinHome. It has no particular tie to driving government policy on Immigration.

Attorney-General is an interesting case, as the AG is, in some aspects, the legal counsel for the government. Practise for the AG varies from nation to nation (and I would say, before someone says "BUT WE'RE NOT THOSE OTHER COUNTRIES!", when establishing a precedent, it is vital, in our situation, to look both at our tradition and at standard practise elsewhere). But we can certainly look at that too, if we so desire.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jun 15, 2008 7:03:02 GMT -6 Owen Edwards said:

But the Minister of Defence necessarily represents the ruling party's stance on defence policy (as, say, he does in the US or the UK or anywhere else). In any other nation, MinImm would be a non-political bureau under the oversight of MinHome. It has no particular tie to driving government policy on Immigration.

Then who is responsible for driving government policy on immigration? In the US, the immigration bureau is part of the Department of Homeland Security, and formerly of the Department of Justice. It's not a non-political agency in the way that, say, the Federal Elections Commission is. The only difference from Talossa is that the US immigration bureau is not cabinet-level, a difference that reflects the greater importance of immigration to Talossa.

[Owen Edwards]

Thanks for the clarification on how the US sets up its system. The point still stands, of course.

Neither Vito nor myself perceive(d) the job as being one of political policy. It's a case of sorting through the variety of emails one receives on the job, producing copy for PIG to use (need to do that, actually - note to self), corresponding with Susadmin and with applicants, and introducing those applicants.

Immigration policy has, rather, been the subject of a national debate. MinImm has taken stances on some of the policy ideas brought up, but not strongly recommended anything.

In my view, MinImm has a functionary role rather than a political role.

[Brad Holmes]

I'm trying to think of a party's immigration policy that any party would oppose. Isn't the policy to attract, screen, and welcome as many new, worthy, immigrants as possible?

Now I now that during the campaign season parties have and will continue to cite any population increase under their watch and try to use it as a good reason to vote that party into power. But as we saw after the last general election and its subsequent loss of citizens, the population number is pretty much an artificial gage of national health.

Sure, a party can name a crummy MinImm and some immigrants might slip through that guy's hands. If that happens any party that doesn't want to get fired is going to replace the MinImm as fast as they can. And they could lose some of that political capital in the next election.

But really, why is it bad for the party in power to run the Immigration Ministry? Look at the current situation. The current party in power confirmed an outsider as MinImm. Was that a political maneuver? Was the party in power trying to suck up to another party? Nah, the outsider was the most qualified and willing individual. And a fine choice. The decision was made quickly and efficiently at a lower level than the monarch.

There is an equal chance of having a lousy MinImm, regardless if he is "political" or not. The Kingdom would still suffer the loss of potential citizens. With the "political" MinImm, there would at least be an avenue of retribution against the party that appointed the knucklehead.

[Cjara B]

(sleepily looking up and nodding sagely, ) Good point Brad you have my vote for .... I don't know something