I'm not a fan of decreasing the number of elected Officers.
I don't see entrenchment as a major concern with either position, if an officer is doing a good job and is re-elected that's a benefit to the region, likewise if they are reappointed, but it is significantly easier to overcome as a potential challenge when the Officer is elected instead of appointed imo. With a regularly scheduled election, while it's likely a successful Officer would be re-elected (like they should) it at least gives other citizens an opportunity to challenge and question them, present their own ideas and thoughts as to what should happen within their typical office, appointments don't give you that. Regardless of whether the Assembly has to confirm appointees or not, "there is someone else I prefer" is going to be a pretty poor and frowned upon reason to reject the Delegate's pick, whereas "there is someone else I prefer" is the entire reason for ranking someone higher than someone else in an Officer election. The Assembly removing an appointed Officer is also not something I see happening literally ever. It's already incredibly taboo to challenge in this region, I think it will be even more socially taboo to remove an appointed officer given their existence in the position is an implicit endorsement of their job performance by the Delegate.
frattastan wrote: ↑28 May 2023, 23:40
That's probably the easiest concern to fix. (1) You mandate that an appointee has to announce a plan of their ideas and policies before the vote. (2) You subject appointees to the same schedule as elected Officers, with votes (or eventual appointment of someone new) every four months.
I don't think this fixes any concerns. Forcing an appointee to announce a "plan" isn't going to change anything of substance. To require a plan of substance we'll find ourselves bogged down in wordcounts or whatever, and to not require some sort of substance means, imo, it can easily be ignored with a few lines of nonsense (I point to the Delegate Updates which have dropped word count and substance over recent years as my example)
I also think making the only positions with any portfolio flexibility appointed is a very bad idea. One of the parts I know I enjoy the most about our unique system is the ability for anyone to come up with a portfolio, a plan, something completely unique, or an adaptation of the norm, and run on it. Regardless of whether they end up winning or end up being appointed to that portfolio when they win it still encourages and stirs new debate on new ideas and new ways to do things in the region, something that would be consolidated exclusively within the realm of a Delegacy campaign. I don't believe a newcomer is going to find it easier to approach the Delegate privately, or possibly publicly, about wanting to become an Officer on a portfolio than running in an election, and I think it risks taking a sizable chunk of the debate and implicit oversight that debate creates out of the region entirely.
What I can support is a beefed up Vice Delegate who is confirmed by the Assembly, as I think that would help to reduce some of the concerns and challenges of an all elected cabinet. I do believe that it's good for the Delegate to have someone they work well with in the Cabinet, and given the abject horror at the suggestion that the Delegate should push for a poor Officer to be Challenged, or probably encourage someone privately to run in a general election, I think the VD is a pretty suitable role to fill it. I don't think the VD should become the successor on resignation or anything like in other regions, but I think the VD should be able to serve as a Deputy to Delegate to be able to directly help them on tasks they want done, and help to wrangle unruly officer, or motivate the inactive.
If an Officer is in "open rebellion" and refusing to do what the Delegate wants/a compromise cannot be reached/whatever may cause problems in the Cabinet having a Vice Delegate to help the Delegate carry out their manifesto and do what they want to see done helps to take that burden off. Imo, having a "catch all" to help the Delegate out across the Executive will make a greater impact than letting the Delegate choose a few Officers, who are arguably department/portfolio locked anyway.
When it comes to a Vice Delegate's confirmation the Vice Delegate wouldn't be assessed on their own platform or plan for anything in particular, but their skillset and ability at doing general executive work. Their "Platform" would be that of the Delegate, which the region would have already voted for.
VD Aside, and as a mini TL;DR, I'm not convinced that swapping out some elected Officers for appointed ones brings much tangible benefit to the region, and that arguably removing the possibility of varied portfolios from Officer elections might be to its' detriment. I do understand and somewhat I agree with the desire for the Delegate to have someone they appoint and know they get along with in Cabinet, but I think that should come in the form of a Vice Delegate (or some sort of formal advisory position), both confirmed by the Assembly, which is appointed during the Delegate's term, confirmed by the Assembly and serve until dismissal or the conclusion of that term.