FT 10-06: Appointment Act of 2019 (Withdrawn)

[ON Progressive]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: YE

24 hours to advocate.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Just going to point out, there's one big problem here that's apparently been missed.
This bill applies to "Any appointments". That would include political appointments, aka appointments to vacant Senate and Parliament Seats.
Now given the title of the bill I'm pretty sure YE isn't intending for this bill to mean that FM's Senate and Parliamentary appointments should be voted on by Parliament. So I'd suggest someone amend this bill to give clarity that this only covers cabinet appointments.

[YE]

This is basically to put a check on power to avoid a Lincoln situation. I should note the art of appointment has only been done once briefly when Truman was FM so while it’s not something I favor, there is precedent if someone wants to delegate responsibilities. I never personally did this but I could see a situation where if I still was FM, TMTH became president, YT won the open governor’s race, and fired Peebs and she opted to move to Fremont, where I’d let her run elections. What I don’t want is a bloated cabinet like what Lincoln has.

Now the question is for Senate and Parliament vacancies, should they be exempt from confirmation votes? We’ve had enough Senate openings during my time as FM and now recently had to deal with a frantic situation that resulted in a Senate opening when Sestak left the game that I feel differently about now than when I wrote this.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I will note that I've flirted with the idea of creating a "Chief of Staff"-type advisory position, but the FM is not a very work-heavy job, so I ultimately decided against it.  And I don't really see the purpose of regional cabinets which don't yield any real power.

For that reason, I could see a better case to be made for Senate and Parliament confirmation votes than cabinet positions, because the FM theoretically could use those openings as an opportunity to elevate members of his or her own party.  As far as the executive branch itself is concerned, I believe that the FM should hold more leeway given that any executive positions beside the First Minister would effectively be advisory positions for which the holder serves at the pleasure of the First Minister.

[YE]

For that reason, I could see a better case to be made for Senate and Parliament confirmation votes than cabinet positions, because the FM theoretically could use those openings as an opportunity to elevate members of his or her own party.

They could but special elections are a check on that.

[Lumine]

I will note that I've flirted with the idea of creating a "Chief of Staff"-type advisory position, but the FM is not a very work-heavy job, so I ultimately decided against it.  And I don't really see the purpose of regional cabinets which don't yield any real power.

For that reason, I could see a better case to be made for Senate and Parliament confirmation votes than cabinet positions, because the FM theoretically could use those openings as an opportunity to elevate members of his or her own party.  As far as the executive branch itself is concerned, I believe that the FM should hold more leeway given that any executive positions beside the First Minister would effectively be advisory positions for which the holder serves at the pleasure of the First Minister.

I think the First Minister's opinion is one I'd also share, executives should certainly have the power to create certain positions within their constitutional powers if they so wish, but I wouldn't say that in the regional context that necessarily warrants a confirmation process as those are powers the First Minister already possesses that he'd be delegating on a given citizen.

I'm not entirely sure about the confirmation for more relevant appointments. We do have special elections and ultimately those are my preferred method as the electorate gets to select the replacement while the temporary appointment only lasts for a few days. While not opposed in principle to making sure a First Minister does not make an irresponsible appointment and having Parliament have a say, I don't think it's practical in the current context as such a confirmation vote would eat up third or even half of the temporary appointment's "term" before a special election takes place.

[ON Progressive]

Are we still debating or can this go to a final vote?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I would like clarification as to whether Senate and Parliament vacancies would need to be approved by Parliament as well, but I don't really see the need for this legislation.  I believe that the executive should have free rein over cabinet appointments.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Let's just vote down this legislation already. It's pretty clear this isn't a good idea, it's pretty clear it will fail, so can we please just have a final vote to free up this slot.

[YE]

I will note that I've flirted with the idea of creating a "Chief of Staff"-type advisory position, but the FM is not a very work-heavy job, so I ultimately decided against it.  And I don't really see the purpose of regional cabinets which don't yield any real power.

For that reason, I could see a better case to be made for Senate and Parliament confirmation votes than cabinet positions, because the FM theoretically could use those openings as an opportunity to elevate members of his or her own party.  As far as the executive branch itself is concerned, I believe that the FM should hold more leeway given that any executive positions beside the First Minister would effectively be advisory positions for which the holder serves at the pleasure of the First Minister.

I think the First Minister's opinion is one I'd also share, executives should certainly have the power to create certain positions within their constitutional powers if they so wish, but I wouldn't say that in the regional context that necessarily warrants a confirmation process as those are powers the First Minister already possesses that he'd be delegating on a given citizen.

Okay, the way you framed it caused me to think about this in a different light a couple days back, and two  days later, your argument still persuades me. I withdraw this bill.