Talk:The Kodiak Succession Act, 650
The Kodiak Succession Act, 651 Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/08/2023 9:14 AM
Tabled by Jonn Stevens, MGA, DPPK, as an Independent members bill. The Kodiak Succession Act, 651 A resolution to help clarify the line of sucession for the Government of Kodiak. https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/The_Kodiak_Succession_Act,_650 Proposed by Jonn Stevens, MGA, DPPK. Voting is presently set for 22 March 2023 The Kodiak Republic Wiki The Kodiak Succession Act, 650 PREAMBLE ACTION on ## Month #### with ## Aye, ## Nay, and ## Abstain. Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/08/2023 9:14 AM
@Assembly Member Discussion is now opened. 👑Ultrabear — 03/08/2023 9:16 AM i dont giva a fu- Seraphina — 03/08/2023 9:18 AM Then why are you here? 👑Ultrabear — 03/08/2023 9:18 AM idk Seraphina — 03/08/2023 9:18 AM You get the green, you get the laws Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 03/08/2023 9:33 AM I believe that in the case of a chancellor’s resignation or death we must have stability that is why I wrote and support this act we need a clear procedure on what will happen when the chancellor is etheir killed or unable to fulfill the duties of the office Rama Pandor [FED] — 03/08/2023 10:17 AM I agree with this bill Prevail — 03/08/2023 11:05 AM I fully support it Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/08/2023 11:46 AM
Is there anyone who thinks that if the Chancellor isn't present, the Deputy Chancellor isn't next in line? Also, it may help to clarify when the Deputy can officially take over duties, and if a new election is called soon afterwards of if the Deputy finished the term. Also, why are we limiting how many times they can run, and does the author have titles they want to include for the articles? Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 03/08/2023 11:51 AM The law as I know it right know is you can only serve two term as chancellor i tryed to identify how the terms would work depending on how long the deputy had been chancellor and theirs nothing stoping them from running nonconsecutive Jac27 [FED] — 03/08/2023 12:24 PM I think the line of succession should be as it's written, Deputy of the President and Assembly President I support the bill John Edwards [KWP] — 03/08/2023 3:13 PM For clarification, this is for the head of state, the Chancellor. Not the Assembly president. Jac27 [FED] — 03/08/2023 3:22 PM yes it is maybe I was confusing Luik Oule [KWP] — 03/08/2023 4:24 PM I fully support this bill, and am glad that we are preparing for the future before the future surprises us. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 03/08/2023 4:49 PM My personal feedback is that this bill should be truncated into one article of 5 lines, and should be enacted as a 3rd article to the Executive Chancellery Act - https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/The_Executive_Chancellery_Act_(Inter) The Kodiak Republic Wiki The Executive Chancellery Act (Inter) An act to regulate the term of the Chancellor. Enacted during the Great Interregnum Luik Oule [KWP] — 03/08/2023 4:55 PM Thank you for pointing this out, I'm sure the author will take this into consideration. And while I still fully support the bill, I agree that some simplification and centralization of this proposal is a good idea. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 03/08/2023 5:00 PM I mean, it’s a possibility I don’t seen why specifically though I mean, I’m open to the idea just doesn’t that act deal mostly with term limits I can understand. Maybe article 3 going in there but the whole bill I don’t think that’s necessary W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 03/08/2023 5:19 PM I think that given that it refers to a process regarding the chancellery, that would be the best place to put it. I don't necessarily know that it needs to be its own 5 line bill. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 03/08/2023 5:22 PM I mean sure I mean I don’t see in argument really against it Also, I guess it makes it easier to identify these types of things about the chancellor, instead of trying to look up multiple bills Braughn F. G. Kryos — 03/09/2023 11:39 AM I have issues with this bill, but they're primarily grammatical and spelling concerned Feels a bit rushed; without any proofreading. Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/09/2023 12:04 PM
which can all be looked at before going to vote. 🙂 Braughn F. G. Kryos — 03/09/2023 12:17 PM My profession is editor, so anyone who wants to have some editing input, feel free to reach out to me. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 03/09/2023 1:17 PM And question Mr president can we have this changed to like a amendment or Addition to the executive chancellor act Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/09/2023 7:57 PM
I don't see why not if that's the authors wish and there are no objections from the Assembly Alfonso Sadurin — 03/09/2023 9:48 PM In my opinion, Cabinet should not be the one electing the Chancellors, but the General Assembly. Rama Pandor [FED] — 03/09/2023 9:54 PM I disagree with this 👑Ultrabear — 03/09/2023 9:54 PM I sense argument Rama Pandor [FED] — 03/09/2023 9:54 PM The Executive must be United no matter it’s affiliation Rama Pandor [FED] — 03/09/2023 9:54 PM debate 👑Ultrabear — 03/09/2023 9:55 PM Potato putato W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 03/09/2023 9:57 PM I think its more a poor use of wording - the cabinet will select from among them as executives who will compete the term as chief executive. in the past when Chancellors were missing or killed, the cabinet made decisions as a committee. Jonn believed when writing this bill that there should always be a singular chief to make decisions. Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/09/2023 10:04 PM
If the deputy chancellor doesn’t take over when the time arises, what is the point of having that position at all? W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 03/09/2023 10:04 PM at the time, it wasn't a position that existed. the DC was created originally as a political tool akin to a 'best cabinet member' position, not a position of succession. The CD was often given as a concession to another political party. Rarely was it meant to be an indication of succession. EG - it would have been odd if the majority KWP chancellor were replaced during a mostly KWP cabinet with an NUP DC. However, the position has since evolved into something more concrete. The position has never been codified in law it exists after political decisions made since the advent of parties in 639 Mivod Hlaja [KWP] — 03/09/2023 10:09 PM I think that in the case of the DC also being incapacitated, the Assembly President should take the position. They’re a publicly elected representative who is generally experienced. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 03/09/2023 10:13 PM I am personally against that idea because I don't believe that either a) the president can effectively continue to perform the duties of the office while also being Chancellor and b) I think that would be a gross over-stepping of the separation between the Assembly as a representative organ and the Chancellery as an executive body. Mivod Hlaja [KWP] — 03/09/2023 10:14 PM I don’t like the idea of a appointed body choosing the chancellor. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 03/09/2023 10:15 PM I mean, functionally, that is the entire action of the proposal. the alternative being the status quo - that the entire cabinet is collectively 'the Chancellor' if both the C and DC are incapacitated Mivod Hlaja [KWP] — 03/09/2023 10:16 PM Yes, that’s the problem I am against anyone who did not publicly run holding chancellorship. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 03/09/2023 10:19 PM OOC: this was my position when the proposal was first suggested in Cabinet when my player character was Patrick Barber - that I did not think it was appropriate for anyone not the chancellor to be emplaced as chancellor - and that I prefer the status quo of the executive making decisions as a collective. And this is still my position But given the broad support in this house for the proposal, I preferred to say nothing. Mivod Hlaja [KWP] — 03/09/2023 10:21 PM The Cabinet running the Chancellorship as a whole while emergency elections take place is certainly an idea. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 03/09/2023 10:26 PM I am personally against new elections in the case of incapacitation for a number of reasons. Most of all the time. the fastest we could run a new election would be two RL weeks. The 'ramp up time' for new cabinets has always extended into the three and four week period, including cabinet approvals. Meaning that the Chancellor would have to be declared, or declare themself, absent before six weeks of their term has elapsed. Otherwise, a new election simply writes off a month before the next election on the probabilities that a candidate runs an election, wins, and then chooses to resign in less than 6 weeks - I think its just so miniscule that its more likely we have someone fill the duties for 6 weeks, go awol for two, get declared absent, and then there's not even enough time for an election to take place before the next is due Mivod Hlaja [KWP] — 03/09/2023 10:29 PM I will return to my original position of having the President take over if the DC is unable. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 03/09/2023 10:31 PM Then i shall conclude that I believe that is unreasonable a request to be made upon the President, and a vast conflict of interest and overreach of the executive over the conduct of this chambre. And also that I prefer the status quo but may acquiesce to the proposal by Mr. Stevens if it is the will of this Assembly. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 03/09/2023 11:07 PM What exactly is the status quo, as you see it? W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 03/09/2023 11:07 PM this one Braughn F. G. Kryos — 03/09/2023 11:07 PM Is that codified anywhere? W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 03/09/2023 11:08 PM no, its been convention for three absent chancellors. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 03/09/2023 11:10 PM I would prefer codifying a process like this one rather than having convention hold sway. Although, I agree that the Chancellor being effectively replaced by the cabinet ministers makes more effective and efficient sense than running a special byelection in the meantime. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 03/09/2023 11:14 PM I think the major question (between not passing or passing) is do we want to Cabinet in this situation to be ruling as committee, or do we want Cabinet to pick one of them to be leader temporarily. Personally, I prefer ruling by committee because I don't believe it is right to empower someone with the full powers of the executive without an election - but I don't see an emergency election as a viable option John Edwards [KWP] — 03/09/2023 11:24 PM The role of Chancellor and President should absolutely not be combined in this scenario.
Having been the Chancellor during a crisis or two, I can see the benefit of having someone who makes the final call, however those situations are always approached as a consensus anyway. Sometimes it is important to make a decision relatively quickly, something not always achievable if operating solely by committee. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 03/10/2023 7:14 AM The issue comes down to being split over a topic. If there is no one leader, then I think there will be the potential for a split decision where neither side can really get anywhere. If there is no acting chancellor, I think there should be. I was just thinking of a first strike situation where someone really needs to be in charge and make a decision. I understand the trepidation, but I think that the Deputy Chancellor might be empowered to act in certain ways should the Chancellor be unable to do so. Luik Oule [KWP] — 03/10/2023 8:30 AM (Disclaimer: I am currently the Deputy Chancellor for Kodiak, just throwing that out there for the sake of transparency and so that people can decide for themselves the extent of bias that I have. If you find any grammar or spelling mistakes, please ignore those to the best of your ability lol. Also, sorry for the entire essay that I wrote! 😅)
Before I get started, I would like to invite the @Chancellor to speak, as this concerns her role and succession and is more experienced than me in matters of state and leadership.
With that out of the way, here is my opinion on the matter. When the leader of the Republic dies or goes missing in office, there are many options for the succession of this role. Rule by committee could be a viable short-term option; however, I emphasize short here, as a committee would be rife with differences and competing interests, and generally be unproductive if used for long periods of time.
If the agreement is that emergency elections are just not practical not viable, in the worst case we could be stuck with a committee you not only did not elect (which seems to be one of the concerns that people have about the Deputy Chancellor option), but one that could be ineffective and slow. I'm not trying to shame the cabinet or cast us in a negative light; all my colleagues are well suited and qualified at their position. I am just stating that a committee is always slower than a single person.
So, an also imperfect but better alternative would be to elevate the Deputy Chancellor to Chancellorship, but with limited powers. They would act like an interim-Chancellor until elections could be held. Again, they would only have very limited powers, and would not be able to do all the things that a Chancellor could do.
While I fully agree that this is not flawless, I believe that this would ensure that our country will not fall into a succession crisis or fall into disrepair in the absence of a strong, central, executive figure. Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/10/2023 9:57 AM
I would tend to agree with Mr. Ward. It's simply not sustainable for someone to serve as both President and Chancellor, and if the President becomes the Chancellor and someone has to take over as President, it's just more steps than is necessary. I understand the Americanism of the idea, but I don't think it works here.
I also would argue that the cabinet is, to a degree, an elected body, as the assembly has to approve of them by a vote. Josey <3 — 03/10/2023 12:31 PM Personally, albeit I concur with what was verbally expressed, may i integrate what if The Kodiak Republic believes it is time for an incipient Chancellor to take position and do not accede with the Deputy Chancellor taking the role. Will The Kodiak Republic take a vote? Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/10/2023 2:53 PM
...what? Josey <3 — 03/10/2023 2:54 PM What are you failing to understand? Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/10/2023 2:54 PM
The entire post, I suppose Josey <3 — 03/10/2023 2:55 PM To Sun It Up, What if The Populace Disagree With The Deputy Taking Charge Would We Have A Vote Or Will We Just Have To Agree To It? Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/10/2023 2:55 PM
well, that's the point of this discussion it wouldn't be on a case by case basis, no Either the Deputy takes over because that's what the law says or someone else does, because the law says that instead Josey <3 — 03/10/2023 2:57 PM Yes, I Understand And Say We Do, Do A Vote, How Will We (Members) Ask For The Vote? Josey <3 — 03/10/2023 2:57 PM Hmm Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/10/2023 2:59 PM
we'll vote on the method when this bill goes to a vote, if that's what you are asking. but it is still being discussed Josey <3 — 03/10/2023 2:59 PM Yes. Thanks Charlotte Groves (Juliette) — 03/12/2023 1:57 AM Thanks Luik.
My personal thoughts at that the people have elected a Chancellor specifically to represent them in the executive branch. This to me means a couple of things, firstly - they did not choose someone else to lead, however secondly - they chose to in some instances trust in the judgement of their choice - particularly with an additional confirmation of the cabinet.
Whilst the Deputy Chancellor is not a role that has been very specific in the past - in fact I would think that Chancellors have utilised the Deputy in different ways, I think it important that the Deputy Chancellor does play a part in this - to temporarily take over in the unexplained long absence of the Chancellor (it should be pretty obvious if that happens...). I don't believe the Deputy ought to abuse the full powers of the Chancellor, and indeed the GA should be watchful and call for no confidence if they deem this necessary. However, in the interests of smooth running of the executive, should a Chancellor essentially ghost us - then even ruling by committee would need someone to be the face of the committee or even make a difficult decision if no one can come to an agreement in cabinet.
On reflection, if we're insuch a state where the DC also goes AWOL... and we go down a line of succession of cabinet ministers... we have a big issue on our hands and we might as well write off said term and start over. Is that too extreme a view? I do not think so. That to me suggests a total failure of government, and the GA ought to come to terms with not having confidence in the government.
I agree that emergency elections are not viable, and I further agree that the President should be excluded from any succession, as the President was elected for an entirely different role for starters, and the conflict of interest across branches is a prudent issue highlighted by Magnus Ward. Klaus Mikaelson
to this channel. See all
pinned messages .
— 03/15/2023 2:18 PM
Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/15/2023 2:19 PM
I am somewhat hesitant with article 2, having the cabinet meet to vote on who is third in line should that be necessary. I would prefer if there was a set line of succession with all cabinet ministers listed John Edwards [KWP] — 03/15/2023 4:20 PM But then you are essentially declaring that one ministry is above another. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 03/15/2023 4:23 PM I mean we could have the chancellor set up a line of succession Among the cabinet at their discretion Rama Pandor [FED] — 03/15/2023 4:23 PM I like that actually Braughn F. G. Kryos — 03/15/2023 7:45 PM That's an elegant solution. It relies heavily on favoritism and politic, but so do ministry appointments anyway. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 03/15/2023 7:46 PM We can presume that the order presented is the order of precedence from the time after this proposal passes Braughn F. G. Kryos — 03/15/2023 7:51 PM Presented where, exactly? I'm not seeing anything further than "the Deputy Chancellor", which leaves us with exactly 2 steps rather than 6 or 7. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 03/15/2023 7:53 PM when they present their cabinet for approval Image but I suggest that only take place after the passage of this proposal if it passes Braughn F. G. Kryos — 03/15/2023 7:54 PM I think that should be outlined in the proposal itself. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 03/15/2023 7:54 PM yes, if the author accepts the suggestion, it should Braughn F. G. Kryos — 03/15/2023 7:55 PM Precedence can only take policy so far. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 03/15/2023 11:10 PM We should also consider a more robust definition of "incapacity" Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/16/2023 8:10 AM
So? When it comes to leading the nation, some ministries are/should be above others Seraphina — 03/16/2023 8:11 AM Idk I'm not that big a fan of favouritism Braughn F. G. Kryos — 03/16/2023 8:13 AM Appointment-based systems are always favoritism-based. All the talk of meritocracy and "choosing the right person for the job" is just a cover for favoritism. And that's okay. Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/16/2023 8:53 AM
elections are favoritism based. You vote for who you personally prefer. This isn't anything new or different that I'm proposing. It's the status quo. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 03/16/2023 8:54 AM I mean, yes. But appointments are even more favoritism based. Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/16/2023 8:55 AM
and how is it favoritism to say "I think if push comes to shove, maybe the Minister of Defense or the Minister of Justice would be better at leading the nation than the Minister of Transportation."? That's about the offices, not the people in them Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/16/2023 8:55 AM
the chancellor is appointing a cabinet either way Braughn F. G. Kryos — 03/16/2023 8:55 AM Specifically if that changes from Chancellor to Chancellor. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 03/16/2023 8:56 AM Again, I'm not against the idea of favoritism. We are making the same argument here. Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/16/2023 8:56 AM
the positions aren't changed, only the people and a position that focuses on a very interior matter, may not be best for dealing with foreign affairs issues Braughn F. G. Kryos — 03/16/2023 8:57 AM Correct, but the idea that Mr. Ward and I were discussing is the ability for the Chancellor to, at the beginning of their term, nominate their own line of succession Instead of it being based on a list in legislation somewhere that is rigid. Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/17/2023 2:54 PM
any other thoughts or discussion from the Members? Luik Oule [KWP] — 03/17/2023 9:34 PM None from me. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 03/17/2023 9:38 PM Nothing beyond recognising that the author has not chosen to include the suggestion about ordered precedence, nor addressed the issue of defining incapacitation Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/17/2023 9:59 PM
Would the author like to comment? Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 03/18/2023 2:31 AM Oops sorry didn’t see the message anyway I think I’ll be adding a few things that were suggested by members in the debate mostly because I see them as very beneficial Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/19/2023 10:44 AM
please let me know when you have done so, or a timetable of when you plan to do so, if at all possible. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 03/19/2023 4:54 PM Yep most likely I will making edits today or tomorrow Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/19/2023 5:30 PM
Great, thank you! Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 03/20/2023 10:31 PM Apologies (OOC I was kind of busy today so I’m going to try to make the edits and define incapacitation this week again apologies) Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/21/2023 8:06 AM
It happens, just keep me in the loop, please. 🙂 Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 03/22/2023 7:26 PM Mr. President. I have edited the Kodiak succession act to one I am satisfied with also I would rather have it as a amendment to the executive chancellors, act instead if possible Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/22/2023 10:22 PM
Members, please read over the bill as amended and make any comments you may have. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 04/01/2023 8:21 PM @Assembly President unless theirs any objections due to lack of debate I’d like to motion for a vote W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/01/2023 8:23 PM No objections - though I'd like the preamble and article titles to be completed before the proposal is enacted Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 04/01/2023 8:26 PM Are article titles and a preamble necessary Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 04/01/2023 8:26 PM
I can make this changes likely tomorrow, Monday at the latest and bring the bill to vote immediately after doing so W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/01/2023 8:29 PM ultimately I might argue that since its an amendment to the executive chancellor act, and performs only one function - line of succession - it doesn't need to have more than one article title And that article should be whatever comes next in the act. 3 from memory Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 04/01/2023 8:37 PM Any way one questions Sence the chancellor has to make a line of succession should they have to submit that line of succession for a vote in the assembly? W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/01/2023 8:50 PM is voting for cabinet, and voting for chancellor, not enough? Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 04/01/2023 9:25 PM
The line of succession, in my opinion, is the duty and responsibility of the chancellor alone. If you trust a candidate enough to vote for them for chancellor you should trust them enough to declare their own line of succession Alfonso Sadurin — 04/02/2023 9:14 AM I disagree to this Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 04/02/2023 9:58 AM
Why? W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/03/2023 11:46 PM I would like to request the President try to get this moving. Its blocking up valuable debate time for other bills. The President should take it upon himself to adjust the formatting as requested or force the author to change or obligate a vote or something. Anything. Its been nearly an entire year on the floor. Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 04/04/2023 8:22 AM
Agreed! I'm going through various updates this morning Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 04/04/2023 8:30 AM
@Assembly Member Seeing no further substantive discussion, voting on this Act is now opened. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 8:31 AM so we won't be doing this? EasyPoll BOT
— 04/04/2023 8:31 AM
Question Do you approve of the Kodiak Succession Act?
Choices 🇦 Aye 🇧 Nay 🇨 Abstain
Final Result 🇦 ▓▓▓▓░░░░░░ [8 • 40%] 🇧 ▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░ [10 • 50%] 🇨 ▓░░░░░░░░░ [2 • 10%] 20 users voted
- alarm_clock: Poll already ended (3 days ago)
- spy: Anonymous Poll
- one: allowed choice
- lock: No other votes allowed
Allowed roles: @Assembly Member Poll ID: 7629beaf Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 04/07/2023 10:20 AM
With 8 votes in favor, 10 votes against and 2 members abstaining, this proposal is declared to have been rejected by the Assembly, and shall be archived in 24 hours.