Cabinet Reform

[Catalyse]

As mentioned in my campaign platform, changing the way the cabinet operates was something I wanted the region to look into.

My original idea would be to have people run for election on the specific portfolios of Culture and Foreign Affairs. But we could also just reduce the number of elected officers and retain the Delegate's power to shuffle these two particular portfolios just between the elected officers - I think that idea was fluctuated on discord.

The goals here are to increase cabinet flexibility and reduce the impact of inactive or underperforming officers on government performance, while not putting into question the democratic ballance in the region between directly elected positions and unelected ones - which is the goal with maintaining the positions that are often most sought after or percieved as most important, FA & Culture, as elected positions.

I also want to repeat that the current setup can create bad cabinet dynamics. If the Delegate is unhappy with the performance of an officer, seeks to openly have someone else run for that same position, and then the officer retains the position, that would creates an unnecessary strain on the relationship between Delegate and Officer, and if the officer that the Delegate sought to have removed remains in their position this can be further detrimental to government performance.

Concerns have been raised that appointment of officers would mean the entrechment of people in non elected offices. I understand the concern, but there can be ways to minimize that risk, the Assembly can retain the right to remove an appointed officer.

And just as we don't see that happening currently under the same model I don't think we have reason to believe that this would happen with appointed officers - it doesn't happen right now because we don't have the same person running for the same office ad eternum, and if that doesn't happen right now I don't see why the same person would be willing to go for the same office ad eternum just because it is appointed rather than elected.

The objective here is also to adress the state of the Outreach Office if the idea about gameside affairs comes to pass. Since this would potentially reduce the scope of the Outreach Office, to in my view one that goes from focusing on gameside activity and moderation to one that focus on integration and pushing region members to become citizens.

A potential model for this would be something such as:

• Two/Three ( mostly depending if we retain Outreach as it is, I guess ) elected officers;

• ? appointed officers, depending on if people want a limit to appointed oficers and dependent on manner of appointment ( requiring assembly approval or not );

[frattastan]

I think I prefer the model where two Officers are directly-elected and have set assignments. Culture (or "Internal Affairs") and FA seem fine because they could be the larger or more controversial ones, where you're more likely to want an independent opinion and direct Assembly oversight. The Delegate could nominate another two officers, subject to Assembly confirmation, and choose their role freely (or have no fixed role anyway).

As a side effect I think that the fixed assignments will also remove some sub-optimal outcomes which happened in the past, such as electing more than one person who wanted the same office, or electing a slate of four officers out of five candidates where the fourth was rather bad but better than the completely horrible fifth candidate.

Re: the possibility of entrenchement, in my opinion it's more likely to happen with elected offices rather than appointed ones. The reason is simple:
(1) citizens who have been around for a long time are more likely to know how to win an election (writing a good platform, leveraging their past experience or goodwill that they built, etc.) than newer ones; if you're voting on just two Officers the scrutiny may also be greater, although the fixed assignment should reduce somewhat the risk of electing the 'safer' candidates over and over;
(2) newer citizens are more likely to win an appointment confirmation than an election; they will have the Delegate's confidence behind them, and some voters will be prepared to tolerate borderline cases since, in doubt, it's the Delegate who will suffer the most from any deficiency from the person that they appointed.

We have shown a willingness to elect new citizens to office before. I don't believe that this is down to the system (which would imply that the general population is more willing to take risks and trust new people than the Delegate). As everywhere else it's been down either to impressive performance outside of office in a brief timespan, or to lack of more experienced candidates.

My primary concern is actually in terms of reducing the Delegate's discretion in how to set up the cabinet. Now we would be mandating the existence of certain offices, and that they be the responsibility (under Delegate oversight as head of government) of a specific elected official. But, if this is limited to offices that we consider indispensable it's probably fine.

[Aggie]

I'm not a fan of two appointed officers. I prefer either one appointed officer or none, purely because this system will lead to more entrenchment and fewer new contributors holding office:

(1) Under our current system where all officers are elected, you must convince the public to give you your vote. The electorate as an entity broadly tend to come from all faucets of the region, which means there will be people who have a pre-conception of the candidate as an individual and will have some knowledge their contributions to the community. It is going to be easier for a candidate to convince these voters than to convince the delegate, who will due to the demands of their role, be less heavily involved in all areas of the community, than, you know, all voting citizens.

"Who the voters know" is an inherently broader category than "who the delegate knows", and leads to more fresh individuals being elected to office, or at least being noticed.

(2) If the theory that we could elect the same caretaker officers term-on-term were true, as I've alluded to, there's absolutely no guarantee that the delegate won't appoint the same caretakers because they've kept things chugging along, so sod it - this is actually more likely to happen in places where there are appointments in lieu of elections. If someone has been in an office for a long time, they are naturally going to be associated with the office and its output, and Heads of Government will just keep on appointing them because after a while it'll become too difficult not to.

Sure, we don't have the same person running for the same office ad eternum either, but that's because they'll face some sort of scrutiny: on the other hand, it's going to be much more difficult to scrutinize an appointed officer because they don't need to present ideas or accomplishments to the public and be compared to other viable candidates - elections serve as a really good way to force people to re-evaluate their suitability for office. This system removes the need for all that, making the delegate appointing someone ad eternum much more likely.

(3) Even under a system where the assembly retains the right to remove appointed officers, a challenge will not dislodge an appointed officer, partially because we don't really remove incumbent officials who haven't resigned; asked to be challenged; or removed by the delegate in the first place, and from the perspective of the citizenry, it will look like the challenger disapproves of the officer when they simply may be looking to implement their own ideas into the office.

* Putting the issue of entrenchment aside, people should be able to vote on what their government does and have the opportunity to select from a broad pool of candidates with their own plans and visions for their offices. Even if they aren't elected, campaigns still serve multiple purposes:

(1) It's a way for the region to collectively share opinions on how things should be run on a public forum. It isn't perfect, but in every region where there are elections, concepts, proposals and ideas are exchanged through the medium of platforms and elections.

(2) It is a way for eager new citizens to be noticed. Even if voters don't elect them, many brand-new people often become much more involved with the region even after their officer campaign fell flat, simply because the executive is more willing to include them and appoint them as deputy officers, or just simply give them new assignments. Quite a few of our recent delegates (me included!), didn't succeed in their first election and yet became very involved in the region purely because people were more willing to ask us to do stuff and give us ownership over projects.

Our current system is by no means perfect, but it is fine. I'd prefer looking at other legislative alternatives to two appointed officers, whether that be a single appointed officer with no set portfolios, or an appointed Vice Delegate or something.

[frattastan]

I'm not a fan of two appointed officers. I prefer either one appointed officer or none, purely because this system will lead to more entrenchment and fewer new contributors holding office:

(1) Under our current system where all officers are elected, you must convince the public to give you your vote. The electorate as an entity broadly tend to come from all faucets of the region, which means there will be people who have a pre-conception of the candidate as an individual and will have some knowledge their contributions to the community. It is going to be easier for a candidate to convince these voters than to convince the delegate, who will due to the demands of their role, be less heavily involved in all areas of the community, than, you know, all voting citizens.

"Who the voters know" is an inherently broader category than "who the delegate knows", and leads to more fresh individuals being elected to office, or at least being noticed.

The electorate is more diverse: you will find someone who knows someone else and has a positive view of them (because they interact in the same area, for example). But why would a majority of the electorate have a more open-attitude towards fresh individuals than the Delegate? There is nothing inherent in that notion. In fact, in ranked voting systems like ours winning candidates have to attract multiple segments of the electorate, so it favours people who are broadly known in the region. FPTP would be better suited to the scenario that you describe.

I'm also a little sceptical of the suggestion that the Delegate would be less familiar with the various areas of the community compared to the majority of voters.

(2) If the theory that we could elect the same caretaker officers term-on-term were true, as I've alluded to, there's absolutely no guarantee that the delegate won't appoint the same caretakers because they've kept things chugging along, so sod it - this is actually more likely to happen in places where there are appointments in lieu of elections.

From other regions that have appointed cabinets, I think that this is more likely to happen in departments that require specific skillsets (or those that are perceived as such anyway), like Defence or FA. e.g. Gladio and Rom were Ministers of Defence for a long time in TNP? That wouldn't be an issue here since neither area would be subject to appointment. Practically, the main factor that will determine whether there is a rotation of fresh people in government is the total number of active members. Regions that have a larger pool of people to choose from will try more new faces, those that have few will stick to the same old ones. This is independent of the manner of selection.

Sure, we don't have the same person running for the same office ad eternum either, but that's because they'll face some sort of scrutiny: on the other hand, it's going to be much more difficult to scrutinize an appointed officer because they don't need to present ideas or accomplishments to the public and be compared to other viable candidates - elections serve as a really good way to force people to re-evaluate their suitability for office. This system removes the need for all that, making the delegate appointing someone ad eternum much more likely.

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.

If someone has been in an office for a long time, they are naturally going to be associated with the office and its output, and Heads of Government will just keep on appointing them because after a while it'll become too difficult not to.

(3) Even under a system where the assembly retains the right to remove appointed officers, a challenge will not dislodge an appointed officer, partially because we don't really remove incumbent officials who haven't resigned; asked to be challenged; or removed by the delegate in the first place, and from the perspective of the citizenry, it will look like the challenger disapproves of the officer when they simply may be looking to implement their own ideas into the office.

I disagree that these aspects are peculiar to appointed Officers. It may occur, but you're describing something that already happens.

Putting the issue of entrenchment aside, people should be able to vote on what their government does and have the opportunity to select from a broad pool of candidates with their own plans and visions for their offices.

Ah, but they do and will largely continue to. There is an election for Delegate (who is "head of government"). There will be elections for the most important departments. There will be votes, and hopefully platforms and discussion of them for the other offices. The idea that after this change people won't be able to keep government accountable is too dramatic. There will be a more cohesive cabinet, but the degree of accountability would still be high compared to other democracies. The number of loopholes or the possibility for dysfunction is probably higher in the current system: for the most part that's rooted in the fact that the Delegate has to work with four specific people, while also having the right to assign them at whim.

[Guy]

I have thought for a while that allowing the Delegate to appoint some Officers would be a good idea, and I previously proposed it.

I do not think having appointed Officers will lead to lower Officer turnover. Incumbent Officers are usually re-elected in any case if they are doing a decent job, and it is more likely an Officer will have their appointment terminated by the Delegate than lose re-election.

There will not be a decline in accountability, because in both a practical and legal sense, the Delegate ultimately determines government policy and is accountable to the Assembly. Any issues about accountability as to Officer-specific performance I think can be addressed by giving the Assembly the power to remove an appointed Officer, making appointments have a maximum term, and/or requiring Assembly confirmation of each appointment.

The concerns raised about appointed Officers are really more-so about lowering the number of elected Officers. Of course there is a trade-off, in that there is probably a sensible outer limit on the number of Officers. But I think the better question is whether we want to have 3 elected Officers or 2 (or, indeed, 4). Any cap on the number of appointed Officers would flow on from there.

[Manson]

Not in favor of any of this.

Especially not in favor of a TSP-esque local council. ROs already are codified in the Constitution so that’d be unnecessary.

[frattastan]

Especially not in favor of a TSP-esque local council. ROs already are codified in the Constitution so that’d be unnecessary.

That's in the other topic.

[Manson]

Especially not in favor of a TSP-esque local council. ROs already are codified in the Constitution so that’d be unnecessary.

That's in the other topic.

It was mentioned briefly here. Still not in favor of this though, not sure it’d provide much relief to anyone.

[BowShot118]

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.

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.

[Catalyse]

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)

Why would we get bogged down in word counts in this instance but we don't get bogged down in them in the current campaigns for elected officers? We don't have to specify word counts anyway, it just has to be stated that the appointee is expected to provide some plan on the office they have been appointed to, or otherwise the Assembly doesn't approve the appointment.

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.

Yet we have effectively never had a cabinet that hasn't had a Foreign Affairs Officer and a Culture Officer, so in effect, mandating that these roles have to be given to the elected officers, or that people run directly for these portfolios, does nothing in hindering the current system's flexibility because there is already no flexibility in these two portfolios because the region, or the delegate, recognizes that they're positions of more importance and which often have more candidates wanting to be in these positions. And if the Delegate wants to give other responsibilites to the elected officer, they can do so, no one said that for example Salem's current assignment - FA + WA - would be impossible in the system I'm proposing.

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.

Maybe, but perhaps the delegate will have an easier way promoting newcomers to government positions. If the delegate sees someone who has interesting ideas or is willing to put time into government work they can approach them and appoint them if they are willing.

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.

Tying this extra officer position to WA residency would be a mistep. It reduces the number of possible candidates, for one, and is completely unnecessary to fufill ministerial duties in the region. If you want to call the position something else other than "officer", by all means, but this adds none of the flexibility in managing the cabinet and would invalidade our current VD setup as a security apparatus.

[BowShot118]

Why would we get bogged down in word counts in this instance but we don't get bogged down in them in the current campaigns for elected officers? We don't have to specify word counts anyway, it just has to be stated that the appointee is expected to provide some plan on the office they have been appointed to, or otherwise the Assembly doesn't approve the appointment.

Word counts was just an example of a way to try and mandate some substance - regardless I do think that it's very unlikely the Assembly will ever shoot down a Delegate's pick, not unless they were truly diabolical, because the fact they've been appointed by the Delegate is the Delegate showing their support for them and a desire to work with them. Unlike an election as well, we will get no comparison on what any "alternative" could be. Confirmations gives the Assembly a choice: Do you approve of this person or not, and when you aren't presented with an alternative and the person has the Delegate's implicit - or explicit - support it becomes very hard to justify saying no.

Yet we have effectively never had a cabinet that hasn't had a Foreign Affairs Officer and a Culture Officer, so in effect, mandating that these roles have to be given to the elected officers, or that people run directly for these portfolios, does nothing in hindering the current system's flexibility because there is already no flexibility in these two portfolios because the region, or the delegate, recognizes that they're positions of more importance and which often have more candidates wanting to be in these positions. And if the Delegate wants to give other responsibilites to the elected officer, they can do so, no one said that for example Salem's current assignment - FA + WA - would be impossible in the system I'm proposing.

I guess, and both Culture and FA are very important, and by mandating them you have very little impact on the overall functionality of the government and its flexibility, but by mandating them as elected officers with fixed portfolios you are removing the flexibility for the candidates. While, yes, you could theoretically give them extra responsibilities (which is definitely feasible for FA) it feels very much that is just "dump more work onto a single officer". If someone runs on say, Roleplay, and is given Culture and roleplay, they're now expected to do several offices worth of work when all they wanted to do was run on Roleplay?

It feels like a very imperfect technicality to what is currently a non problem.

Maybe, but perhaps the delegate will have an easier way promoting newcomers to government positions. If the delegate sees someone who has interesting ideas or is willing to put time into government work they can approach them and appoint them if they are willing.

I guess we don't know until it happens ultimately, but I guess at the moment the Delegate can still encourage them to get involved in a department, encourage an officer to make them deputy etc, there are other routes someone can take when they have an idea besides "immediately become Officer".

Tying this extra officer position to WA residency would be a mistep. It reduces the number of possible candidates, for one, and is completely unnecessary to fufill ministerial duties in the region. If you want to call the position something else other than "officer", by all means, but this adds none of the flexibility in managing the cabinet and would invalidade our current VD setup as a security apparatus.

I don't disagree that tying it to the WA is a bad idea, hence why at the end I clarified with an "or advisor-esc". I do think were kidding ourselves if we think having the Vice Delegate has any tangible impact on regional security anymore. There hasn't been a VD for the past 4 years I've been in TRR, and we don't mandate the appointment of one, so we can't really invalidate a security apparatus that doesn't practically exist. I guess there is a slim argument that if we elect a delegate the CitCo doesn't trust it removes their ability to appoint someone to a High Endo position in case of the worst, but given that doesn't practically happen I don't see any harm in reworking it into a proper Deputy to the Delegate.

If we really want high endorsement emergency security position then I'm fine with one being created / the current VD position being renamed, but I don't see it being used like our current Vice Delegacy.

I do dispute the claim about a Deputy being "completely unnecessary" though. The point of a Deputy isn't to do an Officer's job for them - in that case the Officer should be challenged (and the Delegate can just ask for them to be challenged, or if they're desperate to save face ask via a proxy) - the point is to give the Delegate someone they know they can work with to help them execute their duties, and ideally reliably help to undertake tasks across the government. It gives the Delegate someone they can theoretically rely on to manage an unruly Officer, or de facto run an Office in case of a vacancy, or help to carry out a pet project of the Delegate etc. Ultimately, a Deputy provides the Delegate with the sort of flexibility that no sort of Officer can. I think that helps to address concerns about our current system.

[Vis]

Motion to bring this to voting.

[BowShot118]

Motion to bring this to voting.

There is no proposal to bring to vote - this is effectively just a discussion thread about an idea

[Vis]

Motion to bring this to voting.

There is no proposal to bring to vote - this is effectively just a discussion thread about an idea

Boo. Then it has been sitting here long enough!!

[wabbitslayah]

Holy shit why are people possibly supporting ideas I brought up in 2018!?!

[Manson]

Holy shit why are people possibly supporting ideas I brought up in 2018!?!

You were ahead of your time.

[Catalyse]

Motion to bring this to voting.

There is no need to rush something to vote that would significately alter the way our regional government operates.

Instead you could share your opinion. The purpose here is to have people chip in so that we can possibly come with something that works for the region and the people in it.

Either way, as you can imagine, dealing with other NS stuff has preoccupied most of my time, which means that writing the necessary legislative proposal for this hasn't been my priority.

[Vis]

Motion to bring this to voting.

There is no need to rush something to vote that would significately alter the way our regional government operates.

Instead you could share your opinion. The purpose here is to have people chip in so that we can possibly come with something that works for the region and the people in it.

Either way, as you can imagine, dealing with other NS stuff has preoccupied most of my time, which means that writing the necessary legislative proposal for this hasn't been my priority.

It's been several days without any new replies before I posted my comment, so it's not like I was interrupting the debate
Same with the Europeia shenanigans, it was 2 days ago, after I had already posted my reply.

As for my opinion.. I don't have any particular thoughts to share, which is why I haven't made a post to that effect.

[Altasund]

I feel like Bow's idea for a vd sounds more attractive than handing the delegate the power to appoint officers
However, given I've never been in a government position in TRR, I'm not best placed to know the potential merits of either proposal - but I'd definitely be interested in hearing perspectives on those ideas from people who *do* know what it's like to be in government before I'd feel happy voting for anything

[Catalyse]

Motion to bring this to voting.

There is no need to rush something to vote that would significately alter the way our regional government operates.

Instead you could share your opinion. The purpose here is to have people chip in so that we can possibly come with something that works for the region and the people in it.

Either way, as you can imagine, dealing with other NS stuff has preoccupied most of my time, which means that writing the necessary legislative proposal for this hasn't been my priority.

It's been several days without any new replies before I posted my comment, so it's not like I was interrupting the debate
Same with the Europeia shenanigans, it was 2 days ago, after I had already posted my reply.

As for my opinion.. I don't have any particular thoughts to share, which is why I haven't made a post to that effect.

I did not claim you were interrupting any debate, merely that there's still room for people to give their opinions.

[Catalyse]

I feel like Bow's idea for a vd sounds more attractive than handing the delegate the power to appoint officers
However, given I've never been in a government position in TRR, I'm not best placed to know the potential merits of either proposal - but I'd definitely be interested in hearing perspectives on those ideas from people who *do* know what it's like to be in government before I'd feel happy voting for anything

But why tie this position to WA memebrship when it only serves to limit the number of possible nominees?

Regardless of the lack of use of the VD as it as a position within our region's security apparatus, which we don't because we don't have the usual need for influence nor have we had the history of rogue delegates others regions have, the fact is that security is intrinsically connected to WA membership.

But there's no connection between WA membership and being capable of fufilling a governmental position, again, it only serves to limit the number of possible nominees to make this change completely pointless. Is that the point of that suggestion? Or is the problem here that we're using the name "officer" for elected and non-elected positions?

[Chef Big Dog]

This thread will be archived in 2 days if no clear further interest is shown, on August 12th, 2023, at 4:54PM EDT.

[frattastan]

I have been busy with other government matters but I'm still interested in this discussion.

[BowShot118]

I have been busy with other government matters but I'm still interested in this discussion.

Is this still true?