We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Administration Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Democratic National Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: August 2367
Description[?]:
| Common sense |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Appointments and requirements for government employees.
Old value:: Government employees are selected and appointed in a political way.
Current: All government employees have to promise political independence.
Proposed: All government employees have to promise political independence.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 09:11:36, February 27, 2007 CET | From | AM Populist Social Democrats | To | Debating the Administration Bill |
| Message | We believe that there is no such thing as political independence. Every person has his political biases. Could the ARLP operate a ministry effectively if many of its "politically independent" employees were communists? Could the PLPL run finance as it likes with libertarian employees, or education and culture with devoutly religious employees? Every ministry will have employees with political views of their own. Let the views be consistent with those of the party in charge, if they are to actually put policies in place. |
| Date | 11:02:59, February 27, 2007 CET | From | AM Feminazi Movement | To | Debating the Administration Bill |
| Message | We perceive the 'political independence' pledge to be something that governs their jobs, not their private opinions in the polling booth. Promising political independence will allow a government to get on with governing, with employees that will display neither passion or prejudice. Support. |
| Date | 11:25:21, February 27, 2007 CET | From | AM Populist Social Democrats | To | Debating the Administration Bill |
| Message | We simply view it as unrealistic. No one lacks political opinions. No one's actions as a civil servant would not be informed by these opinions. We might as well allow these biases to be open, and in accord with the party that controls the ministry for which they work. |
| Date | 09:07:01, February 28, 2007 CET | From | AM Feminazi Movement | To | Debating the Administration Bill |
| Message | Indeed, everyone is entitled to a political opinion. They can even be rabid voters for the flying spaghetti monster, that is entirely fine. What we do want is a means for removal from a government position where their political motivation has interfered with the discharge of their duty. Similarly in regards to the initial PLPL response, you COULD easily then decide that all train drivers have to be social democrats. Ludicrous. Allow people to do their jobs in an impartial way. Still support. |
| Date | 12:20:14, February 28, 2007 CET | From | AM Populist Social Democrats | To | Debating the Administration Bill |
| Message | We would have no reason to care whether train drivers were Social Democrats. We might not want their bosses who help run the national TOC to be right wingers or libertarians (if we controlled that ministry), as such people might want the nationalized TOC to operate poorly enough that everyone would choose private TOC's. |
| Date | 16:12:45, February 28, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Administration Bill |
| Message | Appointing 'in a political way' isn't necessarily a bad thing - and doesn't necessarily entail bias or corruption. Indeed, the idea of a quota (balancing viewpoints within a department) would be 'appointing in a political way'. Similarly, claiming political independence isn't necessarily good - provided the political bias of the worker is constructive. Personally, we in the AMR prefer the idea of very political employees that do not let their politics intrude in the execution of their duties, where there is conflict. This is honest, constructive when the forces line up, and a forgiving mechanism where ideologies disagree. |
| Date | 17:55:28, February 28, 2007 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the Administration Bill |
| Message | Why have the LRM flipp-flopped on this issue? |
| Date | 23:41:14, February 28, 2007 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the Administration Bill |
| Message | Why have the CivilLibs flipp-flopped on this? They previously said that they would support this motion. |
| Date | 08:59:29, March 01, 2007 CET | From | AM Feminazi Movement | To | Debating the Administration Bill |
| Message | Sorry, leadership issues. We have removed our Convocation director and restored our vote. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 82 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 117 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: There are two countries based on Egypt in the game. Cobura is based on modern Egypt with a retro twist, while Hawu Mumenhes is based on Ancient Egypt with a modernist twist. |
| Random quote: "The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated" - Mahatma Gandhi |