Department Specificity

[Niles Caulder]

John Ford was ahead of the ball, as usual.  The President and I have spoke and agreed we ought to iron this out before the game clock resumes.

So I'd like to resume this discussion here with only existing, (plus elected and nominated for the near future) Office holders--and in the context that it will determine the Fantasy Government lines of communication from the GM.

So I'll quote the relevent portions of posts to catch us all up and we can procede to resolutions.

I think there should be a list of agencies under the control of each office.  Here is one that I think makes sense.

State
State

Defense
Defense
Veteran's Affairs
Homeland Security
CIA, NSA
Energy??

Treasury
Treasury
Commerce
Labor
HHS
Social Security Administration
SEC
Education??
HUD??

Attorney General
Justice
Interior??
Transportation??

Forum Affairs
Federal Election Commission
FCC



This made me realize how much we should create a Secretary of health, Education, and Welfare.  That person should handle the social welfare polcies.

HHS, Education, HUD...if those issues ever came up in the Executive Branch, I'd think they'd be better off with a seperate Supervisor than Treasury.  Until then, I haven't observed any real interest in them whatsoever.

The great thing about this approach is that it keeps the number of Dept. heads to a minumum...which greatly improves the Administration's response time and doesn't bog down the game with TOO much bureaucracy.  The Presidency overseeing 5-6 team members formulating successful policy is just about ideal, imo.

The main point of John's proposal isn't to create more fantasy positions, but to specify what portions of the real government correspond to our six fantasy deptartments.
He leff off his list the existing Secretary of Labor who certainly could handle want he envisions for a Secretary of HEW

That said, here's how I'd prefer to see the division of the real-life cabinet and some of the more important independent agencies:

State
State
Interior
Transportation
FCC
GSA

Defense
Defense
Veteran's Affairs
Homeland Security
CIA
NSA
NASA

Treasury
Treasury
Agriculture
Commerce
Energy
SBA

Attorney General
Justice
FBI
SEC
CPSC
EPA

Labor
Labor
Health and Human Services
Housing and Urban Development
Education
SSA
EEOC

Forum Affairs
FEC

Ernest,

There  is no Secretary of Labor.  We replaced him with Treasury, hence the Dept. of labor was placed under Ben's purview.

Good catch on Agriculture and NASA, I forgot about them.

I put Energy under my department because the nuclear labs like Los Alamos seem to best fit under DoD.

We don't have a Labor secretary because Gustaf chose to not appoint one.  Tecnhically, the constitution still calls for a Secretary of Labor as one of the five constitutionally mandated Cabinet positions.  If Gustaf wanted to, he could nominate one and doing so would certainly be the easiest way to have a dedicated social services secretary.

Granted, a large chunk of Energy's budget is tied up with nuclear weapons production, and the cleaning up of old production facilities, but it doesn't deploy the weapons itself, so in that respect iit just functions as a government owned defense contractor.  The rest of its functions are not directly defense related.  If Energy were eliminated, most of its functions would transfer to Commerce, and if Commerce were eliminated, most of its functions would transfer to Treasury, so within the existing Forum cabinet departments, Energy best fits in with Treasury in my opinion.

[Niles Caulder]

I'm in agreement with Ernest with regard to DoE.

Homeland Security is something I can easily see under Defense.  But I can just as easily see it under AG.  Yet again, I can see it being something warranting division from both, perhaps an "Interior" heading...which brings up this:

Ernest's inclusions under State don't make sense to me yet.  (everything else is a bullseye, imo) I see the function of Diplomacy (and its overwhelming complexities all by itself) far departed from FCC, Interior, DoT, and the GSA.  If it were a matter of keeping the Secretary of State busy...oh boy howdy am I gonna keep him busy...  >

I do think USAID is again worth an explicit mention for State, as it's easily arguable under Commerce but its agenda is more than of soley economic strength for US interests, but rather our diplomatic interests that aren't necessarilly going to show a good balance sheet anytime soon--yet contributing greatly to our security strategems.

Interior, DoT, GSA, maybe NASA for the sake of tradition:

Whatdya say we give 'em to the VP!  These aren't the sexy jobs, but they're important--and gives the VP a chance to contribute to the Administration instead of waiting around for...well...you know.  This can be an informal accomodation---these policies officially resting on the President's direct authority--so no legislation or amending has to occur, don't you think?

Plus, this accomodation may include 'Homeland Secuirty' for the VP as well--to further divide the power to police...and share the secuirty gaming to boot.

[The Duke]

My official title is "Secretary of Defense and Security", so Homeland security is mine.

[JohnFKennedy]

My official title is "Secretary of Defense and Security", so Homeland security is mine.

Secretary Ford, do you have any messenger service with which you can contact me? (msn, aim or icq)

[Niles Caulder]

If that was the clear intent of the Office by the President and Senate when it was established, I've got no inclination at all to want to change it.

If that's how it was established, then I think it's up to the elected system to change it to anything else.

[The Duke]

My official title is "Secretary of Defense and Security", so Homeland security is mine.

Secretary Ford, do you have any messenger service with which you can contact me? (msn, aim or icq)

No, but when the cable guy comes to hook up my internet connection, I'll download AIM.  If you want to talk real wuick right now, we can start a thread in the Individual section and just ask that it be deleted later.

[JohnFKennedy]

My official title is "Secretary of Defense and Security", so Homeland security is mine.

Secretary Ford, do you have any messenger service with which you can contact me? (msn, aim or icq)

No, but when the cable guy comes to hook up my internet connection, I'll download AIM.  If you want to talk real wuick right now, we can start a thread in the Individual section and just ask that it be deleted later.

Excellent, please do so, for now we will converse via e-mail.

[The Duke]

My official title is "Secretary of Defense and Security", so Homeland security is mine.

Secretary Ford, do you have any messenger service with which you can contact me? (msn, aim or icq)

No, but when the cable guy comes to hook up my internet connection, I'll download AIM.  If you want to talk real wuick right now, we can start a thread in the Individual section and just ask that it be deleted later.

Excellent, please do so, for now we will converse via e-mail.

So no new thread, or yes to a new thread?

[Niles Caulder]

Just wanted to say re: Gaming Climate

With the basic outlines we're looking at here, we have five major Govt. players--four on the front-lines of policy and a President to absorb and coordinate it all.  Add to that this possible "Interior/VP" slot that can mold itself to the President's whims, and we've got a 6-"man" team on the Executive Branch.

I think this is PLENTY big; with the accomodation of peoples' real life demands, many of whom are students, the pace will be slow as it is for this many folks to colaborate and make intelligent responses to GM stimulus likely to succeed.

[JohnFKennedy]

My official title is "Secretary of Defense and Security", so Homeland security is mine.

Secretary Ford, do you have any messenger service with which you can contact me? (msn, aim or icq)

No, but when the cable guy comes to hook up my internet connection, I'll download AIM.  If you want to talk real wuick right now, we can start a thread in the Individual section and just ask that it be deleted later.

Excellent, please do so, for now we will converse via e-mail.

So no new thread, or yes to a new thread?

No new thread Executive business that I don't want totally broadcast.

[True Federalist]

Ernest's inclusions under State don't make sense to me yet.  (everything else is a bullseye, imo) I see the function of Diplomacy (and its overwhelming complexities all by itself) far departed from FCC, Interior, DoT, and the GSA.  If it were a matter of keeping the Secretary of State busy...oh boy howdy am I gonna keep him busy...  >

I do think USAID is again worth an explicit mention for State, as it's easily arguable under Commerce but its agenda is more than of soley economic strength for US interests, but rather our diplomatic interests that aren't necessarilly going to show a good balance sheet anytime soon--yet contributing greatly to our security strategems.

Interior, DoT, GSA, maybe NASA for the sake of tradition:

Whatdya say we give 'em to the VP!  These aren't the sexy jobs, but they're important--and gives the VP a chance to contribute to the Administration instead of waiting around for...well...you know.  This can be an informal accomodation---these policies officially resting on the President's direct authority--so no legislation or amending has to occur, don't you think?

Plus, this accomodation may include 'Homeland Secuirty' for the VP as well--to further divide the power to police...and share the secuirty gaming to boot.

Back in the days when the US government didn't have a whole bunch of departments, the State Department served as the department that took care of generic goverment funtions, so a good part of what became Interior and the GSA originated in the State Department.  Over the years almost everything except foreign affairs was stripped away from State.  In that context, placing Interior and the GSA under State made sense to me.

If we had a Post Office Department, DoT and the FCC would best fit in there.  Since we don't, either State or Treasury would be the best choice for those two.  I was trying to balance the load somewhat, so I picked State.  This especially makes sense if Labor gets dumped on Treasury as well.

However, I like the idea of a six member cabinet as it can also be used to help solve the problem of what to do during a vacancy as we neither have nor need Deputy Secretaries.  State and Defense can sub for each other; Attn. Gen. and Forum Affairs; Treasury and Labor.

It wouldn't hurt to explicitly mention USAID as while in the US gov't it reports to the SoS, it isn't part of the DoS.

[MAS117]

I just want to say I think Niles is doing a great job.

[ilikeverin]

I just want to say I think Niles is doing a great job.

Yes.  Despite my initial unhappiness with him (he probably lost me my Governor's job ), I like him now

[Niles Caulder]

Thank you, your Honor!

I knew Ernest had a rationale that would be educational!  I'm sure Adams was seething wondering what Jefferson was doing over there in State....

You know, that's not a bad idea at all...the Dept. heads can pair off and be the Undersecretaries for each other, so that absenses are less likely to stall the administration's reflexes.  [President & VP pair off in the same fashion?]  I do think that's up to Presidential preference, though.

Would love to hear more opinions!  Anticipate M's return by Friday, Ben's expertise is going to be sorely needed too!  Anyone who has an inclination is free to email me: nilescaulder@yahoo.com