(WITHDRAWN) Abolishment of the position of the Chancellor

Good evening,

I've been introduced to what has apparently happened here and done my digging around the forum for all related topics, and found such a mess. lol I've come to find that a good chunk of these problems is stemming from the same source. The Chancellor.

Now I'm not pointing fingers, accusing names. I'm being general when I say that the position of the Chancellor is not needed, and is even detrimental to the Union as a whole.

I admit, the Union has gone more than a full year of having a Chancellor with no big problems arising, but recently it's become apparent that, for this Union to remain stable, one individual should not be appointing leader over everything. So I propose to the Assembly, this;

The leadership of the Republic of Follvirkeland hereby wishes to propose to Abolish the position of the Chancellor of the USNW, and Restructure the Executive branch into a Council of Several. This Council would serve as a collective "Chancellor", bringing all opinions to the table, instead of just one.

The method of how this Council is established may be created at a later time.

I appreciate your time and consideration.

MikeS

Although you do have some good points, I believe the USNW can still have a successful Chancellor, and therefore; Acadia does not support this bill.

The Imperial Federal Kingdom does not support this bill, as - according to the Charter - the office of Chancellor is not the true leader of the USNW (except for during the rare ceremonial occasion), but shares equal power with the First Minister and Executive Secretary; no one position is more powerful than the other. Thus, the reason cited for this abolishment is redundant.

If they share the same power, then why the different names? Positions? One "Council" would seem more efficient.

Your position is understandable, but I don't think it is necessary. Alot of what you're talking about is my fault, not the position's fault.

MikeS wrote:If they share the same power, then why the different names? Positions? One "Council" would seem more efficient.

I believe the different names have to do with the "areas of specialization" (i.e. the Chancellor typically specializes in the International Assembly, the First Minister in the ministries, and the Executive Secretary in the national forums); just because they share equal power doesn't nessecarily preclude specialization in certain areas. I could be wrong about the specialization thing, though.

No no, Will, like I said it is not any one person's fault. It's the idea, the position itself. Like a group of kids fighting over an awesome toy in which the winner suddenly has power over the others with the toy.

I came across a post with the following words;

"Your Chancellor has spoken, and you should respect it."

I fear the position is getting a bit too powerful as an idea.

The position was never meant to carry that stigma, it was intended to be coequal with the other two cabinet positions, and as far as I know it always has been. Sure, the Chancellor is expected to be a leader, someone who can speak to the union and provide guidance. In my mind the position of Chancellor has always had more responsibility to be the "voice" of the union, rather than holding any more power.

Also all the positions have always had specific "specialties", such as the First Minister's Foreign Relations responsibilities. I, however, am willing to consider the diffusion of all of these responsibilities, policy related and ceremonial, in order to ensure the integrity and equality of all the positions.

Is it necessary with the current situation? I'm not sure. Is it a reasonable precaution to prevent future problems and ensure fair governance? In my opinion, yes. Therefore I support this proposal, although I would prefer the name be "Executive Cabinet" (the name it currently holds) rather than council just for tradition's sake.

Currently, when making admin decisions, the three cabinet members meet. If this were to pass the executive secretary, first minister, and the entire consul would have to meet at the same time. With this, nothing would get done.

Maybe we can have a council that is similar to a jury in court. There is a judge=Chancellor, and Jury=Council. The only difference is the council can overrule an action made my the chancellor and/or other admins. Just an idea.

I've become more enlightened on those three positions with your explanations of them, so to be fair, if this were ever to be seriously considered to be passed, it should be detail overhauled to better explain what the proposal is aimed at.

I don't want to replace JUST the Chancellor with a council. I was trying to mean replacing the entire Executive branch with a council, in which the council would be replacing the Chancellor, the Minister and the Secretary. I'm a man who likes to think leadership should be shared in a group instead of residing in individual positions. I may be the sole member here thinking this though since most, if not all of you are quite content with how things are already.

Or maybe I'm just reclassifying the three of them into a new name that does the exact same thing...

MikeS wrote:
Or maybe I'm just reclassifying the three of them into a new name that does the exact same thing...

Exactly. Think of how many members there really are in the USNW. If this were to pass, the numbers of executives probably wouldn't increase by much. A council already exists, and it is made up of three elected members. Then there is an international assembly. Passing this would be unnecessary, and somewhat repetitive.

On a technical note, if this were to pass, how many admins would we have? Only Jon, Chip, and Nate?

I actually like this proposal a lot and actually want to take it a step further and remove the entire cabinet. In my 4 years of being part of a union I have never once seen a cabinet do anything accept for maintain the forums. They're a complete waste of time and cause nothing but drama. When we founded AIN 4 years ago we had I believe 3 admins who kept the forums clean and did nothing more than enforce the rules. It was a much simpler time in SC4 unions and in my mind was much more enjoyable because after all if you eliminate the politicians, we would inevitably eliminate the politics. I'd like to propose that we just choose some admins to keep the forums going and eliminate the cabinet that does nothing but cause separation between members.

I totally agree Tyler, a million percent, get rid of Politics you get rid of politicians =l really just have people to clean the forums up, make it spick and span, keep ministries because their fun. Just get rid of the higher lot and problem solved as it is in rl.

Oh yea definitely keep the ministries lol. Without ministries and other activities nobody would do anything except for talk aimlessly on skype like I do.