The SoS Succession Reform Act

[Sir Lüc]

Makes sense -- effectively, since the SoS can hold this position, this allows you to continue maintaining the database as long as you care to do so, but does not force you to resign as SoS in order to transfer the responsibility to someone else. Also more lightens the load that is carried by the SoS (the office I mean, obviously if the same person holds both positions they still get the whole load to carry :P )

It literally just was MPF's way of remaining database admin after he resigned as SoS.

I think it's obvious why having an important position that is functionally irreplaceable is a huge liability.

[Sir Lüc]

I'm increasingly wary of this bill because it's more "red-and-green tape". To make myself clear: I think it would be a great thing for the SoS to recruit a Deputy to the Chancery. But I'm not sure about the point of forcing him to under penalty of law - in a situation where there might not be a qualified candidate.

That is more or less where I wanted to get at with my question had I remembered to follow up. It's difficult to find qualified candidates, and we're fixing that by... requiring that we appoint two qualified candidates.

I've also noticed that the appointment of the Deputy by the same means as the Principal Office - rather than the Principal Office appointing their own Deputy - may well set up a scenario where the SoS and their Deputy don't get on. It's like in those US states where the Lieutenant Governor is elected separately from the Governor, rather than on a joint ticket. They might be political opponents or even from opposite parties, thus making the situation less efficient. The more I look at this, the less I like it.

Besides, if we're requiring consultation, we might as well keep it as is and let the SoS appoint their deputies.

A third objection I have is the automatic promotion of DySoS to SoS. After all, automatic promotions have only caused a constitutional crisis once, right? :p

This bill's aims are noble, but the way I see it, it would cause more problems than it attempts to solve, and, well, I still believe the SoS should have free hand in administering the Chancery, within the law and under the nominal oversight of the Ziu. I'm sure there are better ways of ensuring a safe succession.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I'm increasingly wary of this bill because it's more "red-and-green tape". To make myself clear: I think it would be a great thing for the SoS to recruit a Deputy to the Chancery. But I'm not sure about the point of forcing him to under penalty of law - in a situation where there might not be a qualified candidate.

That is more or less where I wanted to get at with my question had I remembered to follow up. It's difficult to find qualified candidates, and we're fixing that by... requiring that we appoint two qualified candidates.

I've also noticed that the appointment of the Deputy by the same means as the Principal Office - rather than the Principal Office appointing their own Deputy - may well set up a scenario where the SoS and their Deputy don't get on. It's like in those US states where the Lieutenant Governor is elected separately from the Governor, rather than on a joint ticket. They might be political opponents or even from opposite parties, thus making the situation less efficient. The more I look at this, the less I like it.

Besides, if we're requiring consultation, we might as well keep it as is and let the SoS appoint their deputies.

A third objection I have is the automatic promotion of DySoS to SoS. After all, automatic promotions have only caused a constitutional crisis once, right? :p

This bill's aims are noble, but the way I see it, it would cause more problems than it attempts to solve, and, well, I still believe the SoS should have free hand in administering the Chancery, within the law and under the nominal oversight of the Ziu. I'm sure there are better ways of ensuring a safe succession.

I am completely open to suggestions for improvement if commenters believe this noble effort would cause more problems or is objectionable.

But I am glad to have the support of the current SOS in this proposal.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

The goal of the proposal is to move the pressure in the appointment process down to a deputy Secretary of State which you might be able to call an SOS-designee. If that works, then we have potentially months and years to find a future Secretary of State rather than having just weeks ahead of an incumbent Secretary of State notifying the Seneschal of their departure. The goal of the automatic succession process is to remove the pressure from the principal and put it on the deputy. So statutorily, yes, two appointments now, but for practical purposes, just one with the automated succession.

This proposal increases the time available for securing a new SOS and ensures that the next SOS, in cooperation with Dr. dal Nordselva, is trained and ready on Day 1. And there is at least one potential dySOS candidate right now.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

The goal of the proposal is to move the pressure in the appointment process down to a deputy Secretary of State which you might be able to call an SOS-designee. If that works, then we have potentially months and years to find a future Secretary of State rather than having just weeks ahead of an incumbent Secretary of State notifying the Seneschal of their departure. The goal of the automatic succession process is to remove the pressure from the principal and put it on the deputy. So statutorily, yes, two appointments now, but for practical purposes, just one with the automated succession.

This proposal increases the time available for securing a new SOS and ensures that the next SOS, in cooperation with Dr. dal Nordselva, is trained and ready on Day 1. And there is at least one potential dySOS candidate right now.

You might as well state openly that you are interested in becoming Deputy SoS, since you've been hinting at it. I will state for the record that I agreed to co-sponsor before I knew you wanted the job, which frankly puts me in a tough spot. All the attention of numerous bills written by you and aimed at the Chancery, and maybe even me personally, builds a lot of pressure. I rarely support legislation in an attempt to remain apolitical, and despite the authority I have to Clark bills of my own, I've only ever done so one time before as SoS, and it was to fix an error in the law. I agreed to sponsor this bill because it *might* work, not to create a job opening.

As someone pointed out, I can appoint a deputy any time I want to. Until now, no one has expressed a desire. I was a Deputy SoS for a long time, and it was good training in some aspects of the job (it is much more challenging than I imagined, so hats off to my predecessors), even though I never expected to become SoS myself.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

The goal of the proposal is to move the pressure in the appointment process down to a deputy Secretary of State which you might be able to call an SOS-designee. If that works, then we have potentially months and years to find a future Secretary of State rather than having just weeks ahead of an incumbent Secretary of State notifying the Seneschal of their departure. The goal of the automatic succession process is to remove the pressure from the principal and put it on the deputy. So statutorily, yes, two appointments now, but for practical purposes, just one with the automated succession.

This proposal increases the time available for securing a new SOS and ensures that the next SOS, in cooperation with Dr. dal Nordselva, is trained and ready on Day 1. And there is at least one potential dySOS candidate right now.

You might as well state openly that you are interested in becoming Deputy SoS, since you've been hinting at it. I will state for the record that I agreed to co-sponsor before I knew you wanted the job, which frankly puts me in a tough spot. All the attention of numerous bills written by you and aimed at the Chancery, and maybe even me personally, builds a lot of pressure. I rarely support legislation in an attempt to remain apolitical, and despite the authority I have to Clark bills of my own, I've only ever done so one time before as SoS, and it was to fix an error in the law. I agreed to sponsor this bill because it *might* work, not to create a job opening.

As someone pointed out, I can appoint a deputy any time I want to. Until now, no one has expressed a desire. I was a Deputy SoS for a long time, and it was good training in some aspects of the job (it is much more challenging than I imagined, so hats off to my predecessors), even though I never expected to become SoS myself.

Yes, I reached out to you directly with information on my experience with SQL (within the last two weeks). Before that, I reached out to the Deputy Minister of Technology with the same information (I think about a month ago). But no one has seemed interested in taking me up on the offer for helping. I don't think qualifications is the issue since I have database management experience. Further, I have been the only one harping on the apolitical nature of the SOS.

But that is not the intent of the bill. I hinted at my willingness to be the SOS-designee to show that the issue with finding someone (with actual qualifications in database management, no less) is not insurmountable.

I am leaning towards withdrawing the bill as it seems my intent is being miscontrued.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

I am leaning towards withdrawing the bill as it seems my intent is being miscontrued.

That your intent is being misconstrued is certainly possible, and I will be the first to admit, as I said in a PM to you, that I was surprised at your willingness. Sometimes it is difficult to separate what can easily feel as "attacks" from genuine interest in service.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I am leaning towards withdrawing the bill as it seems my intent is being miscontrued.

That your intent is being misconstrued is certainly possible, and I will be the first to admit, as I said in a PM to you, that I was surprised at your willingness. Sometimes it is difficult to separate what can easily feel as "attacks" from genuine interest in service.

Mr. Secretary, my inquiry as to serving as your deputy was an effort to demonstrate that my desire to ensure the nonpartisanship of the SOS office is not based on personal animosity but principle. I figured, if we have a principal and a deputy both as party leaders then it is a wash for any potential conflicts.

[Tric'hard Lenxheir]

I am leaning towards withdrawing the bill as it seems my intent is being miscontrued.

That your intent is being misconstrued is certainly possible, and I will be the first to admit, as I said in a PM to you, that I was surprised at your willingness. Sometimes it is difficult to separate what can easily feel as "attacks" from genuine interest in service.

I find misunderstanding a persons intent online is almost the "norm" in most cases. It is difficult to read a persons comments online and not put one's own spin on what is said, this often happens when someone is joking around and the other person takes it as a serious comment. I personally think the idea of this bill is a very good idea, I don't care who gets the job, having someone trained to step in should the sitting SoS be incapacitated or need to resign or be removed from office is an excellent idea based upon the current lack of citizens with the prerequisite qualifications. I and I am sure many others enjoy being part of Talossa but have no truly useful skills to offer when it comes to running the day to day business...if the King ever needs someone to drive a truck I'm your man but anything that requires intelligence...not so much LOL

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

Fair enough. I won't further derail this hopper post (apply Wittiquette to myself haha).

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Wait, I'm confused. Is the purpose of the bill to "ensure smooth succession in case something happens to the SoS"? Or is it "I think the SoS is politically biased, so I want to force the nomination of a Deputy from a different party to keep an eye on him"?

It is interesting that the Free Democrats convention starts in a week. If Txec dal Nordselva is no longer part of the FreeDems leadership team after that, does the whole purpose for this legislative initiative - and the other one that was voted down on this Clark - simply vanish?

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Wait, I'm confused. Is the purpose of the bill to "ensure smooth succession in case something happens to the SoS"? Or is it "I think the SoS is politically biased, so I want to force the nomination of a Deputy from a different party to keep an eye on him"?

It is interesting that the Free Democrats convention starts in a week. If Txec dal Nordselva is no longer part of the FreeDems leadership team after that, does the whole purpose for this legislative initiative - and the other one that was voted down on this Clark - simply vanish?

The former is one purpose, Miestra. I referenced the latter as one reason why I suggested myself for the position SHOULD the bill pass as an effort at balancing and my own experience with databases. I proposed the measure as an effort to address multiple concerns, most important of which, is the stated difficulty (by you, the Seneschal, and the SOS) in finding a successor.

Should Nordselva no longer be FreeDems party leader then yeah that is a big concern that is gone and I will honestly, and finally, be relieved. But it still leaves the succession problem.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

It is interesting that the Free Democrats convention starts in a week. If Txec dal Nordselva is no longer part of the FreeDems leadership team after that, does the whole purpose for this legislative initiative - and the other one that was voted down on this Clark - simply vanish?

Wait, is Dr. dal Nordselva considering stepping down as Party President?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I can only say that you should watch the outcome of the upcoming FreeDems convention. I will only say at this point that, if this bill was conceived on the assumption that the current SoS was intending to co-hold that position indefinitely with the Presidency of the Free Dems, it was misconceived.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I can only say that you should watch the outcome of the upcoming FreeDems convention. I will only say at this point that, if this bill was conceived on the assumption that the current SoS was intending to co-hold that position indefinitely with the Presidency of the Free Dems, it was misconceived.

Thankfully the bill was not misconceived then. I am hoping the FreeDems will support the bill now. Is that possible?