Is it possible request a cabinet report? Like what kind of wood we decided for the drawers and stuff?

I know more than anyone that those are a bitch to get out every week, but I was kind of curious what was kicking around in the government.

:yes:

Me too, since this is my first week here for one.

As far as I know, there's no set schedule. I had planned on doing them monthly. The April report will be with you soon.


Thank you for your interest.

Aces, thanks Al.

If you ask me I think we should just plain get rid of the cabinet reports and pass all legislative authority to an open parliament of nations. The cabinet and it's ministers could then be focused on their executive duties rather trying to (as Judith Gap once said) keep several plates from spinning out of control.

I like a monthly report so that members not involved in the government know what is going on.

Remember - JG teaches drama! :lol:

:ph43r: :hide:

:P

me too

I don't think it takes much time or focus away from anything else. That's a definite plus to working via a bulletin board - no need to take special minutes at the time.

The benefit of having an open legislative body would be that the report (and disclosure) would become obsolete. As long as the body is closed (behind closed doors sub-forum) there will be nations in the dark and a need for disclosure. Need for disclosure -> need to write reports. Reports -> more bureaucracy and time taken away from other things both NS and RL. In the end all of this adds up to a less appealing job.

On the other hand, I think there will always be things we would want to discuss in confidence. As you yourself will know, there are also discussions which are preparatory in nature (what do we do if..., or is there any interest in...). Having these open to the public is likely to create the occasional "storm in a teacup", where there is a strong reaction to something which was essentially speculative.

Since these situations inevitably arise, the consequence of opening all the government boards would be that ministers resorted to other means of communication, such as private messages. It is far harder to ensure that everyone is kept in the loop when that happens. The public would still not see everything, and government efficiency would decrease.

I am generally in favour of open government, but that does not mean having every single action open to immediate scrutiny. Furthermore, having to wade through a morass of detail to pick out the critical data would not in my view make it easier to understand what is going on. I see the cabinet reports as part of the regular process of open government.

If there is reason to believe that the reports are inaccurate, or the government are conspiring against the members, then there should probably be a means to allow a public inspection of the government areas. There are various ways to accomplish this, and since you clearly feel strongly on the subject, I would suggest that you consider drafting a bill to enable this.

Meanwhile, I think the closed doors are necessary, and thus the reports are necessary. If you do not wish to see the reports, then you are under no obligation to read them.

I agree with canada6. Although I do think there should be private government boards, just they shouldn't be voting on laws there.

Cheesyweesy, you are welcome to comment on any aspect of the government process. However, I would recommend that you take a good look at our Constitution first.

In this case, you would see that...

Thereafter, the laws are indeed passed by cabinet vote. That is (amongst other things) what we are elected for.

Legislation is in fact typically only small part of the government activity. If you take a look at the most recent report here, you will see that we are mostly concerned with the day-to-day business of running the region.

Thank you for your interest, and please continue to make comments or ask questions. An informed electorate is the strongest safeguard of democracy.

I like these ideas. Of course a cabinet must always have privacy in some of it's affairs. I think that if the legislative body is transfered out into the open, cabinet should retain privacy for it's executive affairs and other issues that are non-discloseable.

I have already read the Constitution. I understand that we will be allowed to comment but I think everyone should get a vote on the law. I come from Liberalia, and in Liberalia we have a Parliament, our legislative body, which every nation has representation in, and a Prime Minister and cabinet, our executives. The Cabinet's job is to present bills to parliament for voting, although everyone may submit a bill, enforce the laws, and run the region. This is the type of system I am speaking of.

Every region has a different way of running itself and I'm quite content to let our current system stand, I don't know of a time where it has failed from either side of the 24-hour electric trance dance bubblebath houseparty that is Cabinet.

It might be worth considering that we have 1,300 forum members and a rapidly dimishing 260+ population: less "On more than one occasion," more like "At each and every," we get just 20 member voters at elections, let alone if we were to have draftings and votes of laws. Those who are active, involved in debating such things or just about care how the region is run from the forum will put their view across in the comment thread, be it a simple 'Aye, I agree with this becoming law' or 'Nay, the way I see it is that instead...' This allows laws to be discussed in front of the whole region instead of a single person (who has a very good point to put across which should be implemented) voting against it and it gets passed 19-1.

But if you made the government in the style that I mention you would have a lot more active members which would be voting.

Dude... :hail:.

But participation/involvement and activation are completely different things (ideals and philosophies... (and yes, I am prepared to discuss/argue the finer points of intellectualism on this if you wish ;)).
One may participate, but not be active - whereas one may be active but not participate. One may be involved but not participate, and one may participate and not be involved (here the cycle doest continue ;)).... The 'involve' is the mutual-exclusivity (or 'X' factor), if you wish. And on the converse side, both are neither, and yet mutually exclusive at the same time as being not. Welcome to the dichotomy of a true democracy (that which Canada seeks to achieve by the way).

Umm..... WHAT?!? Can you please speak English. I think my head is going to explode because I'm just trying to imagine what you meant. :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

(Carb kisses my smelly feet! :P)


From what I read of Carb's very 'Carb-like' Government presentation, which he posted at 3AM on a Bank Holiday night:

Canada supports two opposing ideas at the same time so that you have the best of both worlds / be both sides of the coin / spread your butter on either side of the toast (I prefer the less-burnt side ;) ).
Loosely taking his first pairing of participation and activity: if you really want to be involved in the Laws system and know the whole thing off by heart so you can rattle off clauses in your sleep, then you can stand for Minister of Justice at the quarterly Elections and run around trying to shepherd the region to be a better place to spend your day/evening/lunch break.
However, if you just want to peep up when there's something that you think might be beneficial (or not as the case may be...) then you can still make your views known as a regular Member.

It might not be the same as Carb's waffling example, but: you're both doing your own thing yet you are still contributing towards Laws and the region. (not necessarily in equal proportion, that would be paramount to the job description of the MoJ and how much you would be willing to change/create as MoJ)

But the problem is only one elected person can be MoJ.

The reason there is one MoJ is that a single person is good enough; too two many cooks spoil the broth? :ph43r:
You get two people sharing the same position and they don't agree on something... what is the response to the region if we have contradicting ideas amongst each Ministry? Canadians here have a wide range of opinions (except when it comes to the HB Doctrine, which I think I once saw quoted as an "unofficial Bible") and it's one of our strong points.

---

Anyone can run for any position during the elections and anyone can nominate anyone. In Cabinet (where the MoJ is largely responsible for stopping fights over doughnuts and suing the makers of the vending machine after it breaks for the umpteenth time) the Ministries tend to merge slightly and overlap, meaning you have 6 people who overlook the whole shabang.

And you can't get more democratic than elections can you? (Unless it's a one-man election, which furthers my argument that there aren't necessarily people who want to commit themselves to the ways of the MoJ)

Even though I'm just a figment, I liked the idea of some open governmental discussions. Not all topics are appropriate for the entire region to view discussion of because ministers may withhold what they think because they are afraid of saying something unpopular.

The cabinet report would still be a necessity in a more open more of government. The report does explain what members can't normally see, but the report also summarizes information that may be a little tedious to read the whole discussion of.

One problem, as I have seen it, with having a completely open system is that the multiplicty of viewpoints would become so complex as to hinder progress on topics. However, there is a cabinet procedure by which laws are recommended to be taken to the region for discussion and comment and then are revised in cabinet discussions.

A second problem with the open forum is a question of motivation. If anyone can participate in the government without running for office, why would a person actually run to be minister of anything? With the responsibility of performing certain services for the community, ministers should be respected members of the community who help shape the direction of its governance.

jg