Talk Elections

Would you be open to return the not-so-well developed Comprehensive Social Security Reform Committee (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=178539.50) that was initiated during my term? Those precious calculations are still in need... =(

I want to thank the president for nominating me to fill this position.

Regarding the Comprehensive Social Security Reform Commission, the parent Act is a monster of a thing, and Atlasia has been operating smoothly without the calculations. I understand we're interested in passing an accurate, sound budget, so I will prioritize my work to that effect, but right now I do not consider finding these numbers to be a top priority. I'm here to help make the game work for people on the most basic level, so I'll only jump into the more tedious busy work if the president asks me to or if there's huge pressure from the senate. I also face a few other constraints here, in that I don't want to start a project that will extend far past my term and remain unfinished. In addition, the president is considering appointing a deputy Secretary of the Interior to deal with matters related to the Treasury. This is the type of task I would consider delegating to that person.

It would be great to see you once again as SoIA, Hagrid! You did a great job last time, and I would like to see you once again in the position!

My question is already partly answered, but still: How do you envision your role in the game? Do you think of it as more of a story-teller, similar to the GM, or do you feel that you should just be here to provide data, whatsoever?

Thanks for your kind words.

In fact, I do not see my primary responsibility as making calculations and providing numbers. I will do it, provided it's for a project that I've actually been working with the regions or the senate on, but it's not the fun part of the job, and I won't take very kindly to people messaging me about an obscure number right out of the blue. Maybe that makes me a bad nominee. :P

To clarify, I'll give an example of a role I really liked having during my last stint in the cabinet. Under President DemPGH, anti-homelessness initiatives seemed to take centre-stage. The senate passed an umbrella bill that gave money to the regions, and I acted as the federal government's emissary to those regions. As a result, I think something like three or four regions actually passed homeless relief efforts of their own. When the governors brought these projects to my desk, I gave them the necessary funding. I loved that. So I see my primary job as being the link between the senate and the regions. What is more, I was okay with making financial calculations related to these projects because I already had my hand in the basket, so to speak. It worked out well for everyone.

I also think it's important for the Secretary of the Interior to work with the GM. At the beginning of my last term, Napoleon was the GM and was very good at issuing national and regional news stories. I used the powers of my office to try and deal with those current events. Sometimes I added deeper details to the stories. I think that type of relationship worked very smoothly. Unfortunately, I did not get the chance to work with the senate on those issues, but it's something I'd be open to doing this time around. If shyte goes down that requires more than executive action, I would love to draft an appropriate bill, find a sponsor in the senate, and work to get it passed.

So again, my main job is helping to make all arms of the government work together. When that happens, I think many people have a richer in-game experience.

Well, you were a good SoIA,
So I don't have any question.

No questions- I'll be voting in favor

Thank you for your detailed answer.

I would love to see you in such a role - it will surely enrich people's game experience, as you put it. A kind of "coordinator" between our different governmental branches is definitely a great idea, and I can see you doing wonders in this position. Good luck with your position, I will of course vote for your confirmation.

Are you committed to the full implementation of the recently passed Collective Bargaining Modernization Act?

I just wanted to say that it's great to see the Senate quite supportive of Hagrid's nomination, as his earlier performance as SoIA was absolutely great. I'm really looking forward to working with him, and I hope that he will be confirmated as soon as possible.

Well, I would not use the word "committed," because that makes it sound like I have some sort of personal affinity for the provisions in the law, which I do not. But yes, I will implement the legislation as passed by the senate.

Personally, I support the idea of having single national or international unions for specific sectors of employment. For example, I look to the IAFF and see a strong union that can provide valuable services and professional development to its members specifically because it brings fire fighters together from across Canada and the United States. It could not do what it does for the industry if fire fighters were represented by multiple disparate organizations.

On the other hand, I think industry-wide contracts and bargaining units are unrealistic and, in fact, will not be in the best interests of any party involved. Although some elected officials would like to pretend that all employers are the same, it's simply not the case, and no "employers' association" will be able to accurately represent the diverse conditions at different places of work. In that regard, the law does not, in my view, give employers a fair shake at negotiations. On the other side of the table, I have the feeling that a one-size-fits-all contract can never properly address the needs of specific workers at specific sites of employment. Part of what makes unions so important is that they are accessible and relevant to workers at a local level. Having local affiliates put their best representatives at the negotiating table ensures that the people fighting for workers' rights actually know the workers and their specific needs... not the needs that the people at the top of the national organization say are most important.

What's more, there's nothing in the legislation to clear up potential problems wherein one region may have one law on the books while another region has a completely contradictory one. What works in Kentucky may not work in California. Specifically for the IAFF, building codes are hugely important. The Imperial Dominion of the South uses the Consensus Codes and the rest use the National Building Code. What if something about these codes needed to make its way into a contract? We'd face some serious dilemmas. So local grassroots organizing matters a lot.

Plus, on another note, I would add that removing local negotiations eliminates the opportunity for some employers to offer competitive wages. If one company or one municipality or one school board is interested in attracting the best and the brightest in the field, they no longer have the authority to negotiate a better contract for their employees. Although I will admit that this occurrence is not common, the top-down approach introduced by the new legislation does come with its share of drawbacks. In many ways, I feel like the law attempts to solve an imaginary problem. And, frankly, I am disappointed that a number of senators did not verbalize these issues more forcefully.

I hope that answers your question.

Would you recommend abolishing the "independent" budget as established under the CSS seeing as how unlikely it is that the numbers will be crunched after three years of no progress?

This can also be a possibility :P

Yes, although I recognize that it's up to the senate.

I have to say, as a former SoIA, I did appreciate when the senate would include in legislation one-off tasks for me to do. The thing is, they need to be relatively simple and need not recur at regular intervals. I can keep up as we go along, but expecting a Secretary of the Interior to dig so far back in time for incomplete projects is asking a lot. Perhaps if the senate does delegate specific tasks to the Department of the Interior, there can be an expiry date or something. Or not. Admittedly, I don't really have a solution to this one, but having incomplete tasks from 2010 certainly puts future holders of this office in an interesting predicament.

Technically it was 2011 with a one year window for completion if memory serves me.

But yeah, I agree at this point is just not practical to expect it to get completed.

I'm very supportive of Hagrid's appointment for what its worth

Thanks for your answers. I will vote for the confirmation.

I believe the executive should have the privilege to nominate whomever he or she wants for cabinet posts. Unless evidence comes to light that Hagrid is a scoundrel or a crook, I will vote to confirm him.

I am ready to proceed as well and will vote to confirm.

Thank you, gentlemen. I don't have anything to add myself, unless anyone else has outstanding questions?

Motion for a vote.

I believe that Hagrid is the best man for this, and will do a great job! A plain "aye" vote is not enough to express my support for him!

Motion seconded.

A vote is now open on the confirmation of the nominee. Senators, please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

Aye

Aye

Aye

Aye

Aye

Aye

Aye

There are the votes to confirm. 24 hours to change votes.

I'm looking forward to receiving official word that I have been confirmed and can start my duties...

My apologies, debate tournament the past three days. The nominee is officially confirmed.