Proposed Bill Establishing a Civil Service

[Jon Seattle]

Proposed Bill Establishing a Civil Service

A. Objective

To allow for the appointment of individuals to carry out the actions of the Neufreistadt-CDS governing bodies. Civil servants will carry out the tasks currently done by the Artisan Branch.

B. Civil Service Positions and Members

Civil service positions are established by legislative action by the RA and appointed civil servants may receive compensation provided by the Neufreistadt-CDS budget. Legislation will describe the position and duties but will not specify the individual that will fill that role.

Civil service members are appointed by the Executive Branch to fill a specific position established by law and serve for a term defined by that law.

The Executive Branch may dismiss a cilvil servant for not executing the duties described in this bill. Any dismissed civil servant may appeal a dismissal with the Scientific Council.

C. Civil Service Duties

Civil servants pledge to faithfully protect the constitution and to execute legislation passed by the RA at the direction of the Executive Branch.

1. Civil servants are required to execute Executive Acts where these do not conflict with laws passed by the RA, and to follow guidelines or oversight provided by the Executive Branch.

2. If a civil servant finds a discrepancy between an Executive Act and laws passed by the RA which cannot be resolved in discussion with the Executive Branch they are required to ask for clarification from the Scientific Council.

3. Where there are no relevant Executive Acts, civil servants are required to execute RA laws to the best of their ability.

4. Civil servants are required to provide full and accurate information about their activities and the state of land, Neufreistadt-CDS organization, assets, and finances to the Executive Branch and the RA as requested.

5. Civil servants are expected to propose and participate in drafting Executive Acts for consideration by the Executive Branch.

[Claude Desmoulins]

Since this bill makes such extensive reference to the executive branch, perhaps we had best sort out the nature and powers of that before we take this up in earnest.

Also, can someone please explain what's wrong with the present civil service model?

[Jon Seattle]

This bill was written so that it will work fine with either the CSDF's of DPU's model of the executive. It says nothing about the organization or election of that executive. So it would seem fine to go ahead with these discussions.

I notice that there is no provision for a cilvil service anywhere in the code of laws (or in the constitution). Can I take it from your comments that you would rather operate with any law or public debate around policy governing the civil service?

A "civil servants do whatever they feel like" approach would seem to be unwise, especially as conflicts might easily arise and would need to be resolved.

I would be very interested to hear in detail how the current (extralegal as far as I can tell) model differs from this proposal. How does it handle issues of accountability?

[Patroklus Murakami]

I think the fact that we now have a Civil Service developing is a sign of the maturity of this project. It is important that we decide what we expect civil servants to do, who their loyalties lie with and define where they receive authority from in order to carry out their tasks.

As I've mentioned before, I'm a civil servant in RL (in fact I'm typing this during my lunch hour at work!) We have a very developed Civil Service Code in the UK which makes it clear that civil servants are impartial implementers of government decisions, that our allegiance is to the Crown (not to the government of the day) and what rules are necessary to ensure that our actions are seen in that light.

I think it's important that we develop something appropriate to our circumstances as the civil service function develops. Otherwise we proceed with ad hoc arrangements and 'understandings' of the way things should be. Given our recent history, it should be clear that clarity is to be preferred in order to avoid conflict and disputes over matters of custom and practice and interpretation of custom and practice later.

[Claude Desmoulins]

This bill was written so that it will work fine with either the CSDF's of DPU's model of the executive. It says nothing about the organization or election of that executive. So it would seem fine to go ahead with these discussions.

While I do believe we'll do something about the executive, let's take worst case scenario and imagine that no executive reform proposal garners the necessary 4 votes (since it's constitutional change) If the civil service bill has already passed, would the civil service then report to the Guild?

I notice that there is no provision for a cilvil service anywhere in the code of laws (or in the constitution). Can I take it from your comments that you would rather operate with any law or public debate around policy governing the civil service?

I would be very interested to hear in detail how the current (extralegal as far as I can tell) model differs from this {CSDF} proposal. How does it handle issues of accountability?

I really think you're reaching here. At least as early as October 2005 with the Rathaus Act (NL 3-7) the RA has authorized the Guild to take certain actions and budgeted money for those actions. The budget passed February 22, 2006 was an extension of that approach. Authorizing the payment of certain city employees. A job description for RA Archivist was approved by the RA March 11. It was not an act as it was seen as a matter of RA procedure(it's under other documents). Since a budget was already in place, the creation of the PIO position was done with a bill. The PIO is clearly selected by and subject to the guild, not the RA.

A "civil servants do whatever they feel like" approach would seem to be unwise, especially as conflicts might easily arise and would need to be resolved.

Again, this is not, I think, fair. The RA and SC archivists are subject to the branches they archive for, the PIO is clearly subject to the GM. I asssume the webmaster would similarly be under Guild oversight. The Treasurer/Estate Manager is a stickier wicket because of it's power and importance. As you are no doubt aware, discussions are ongoing as to how to redesign that office from the ground up.

[Claude Desmoulins]

I think the fact that we now have a Civil Service developing is a sign of the maturity of this project. It is important that we decide what we expect civil servants to do, who their loyalties lie with and define where they receive authority from in order to carry out their tasks.

As I've mentioned before, I'm a civil servant in RL (in fact I'm typing this during my lunch hour at work!) We have a very developed Civil Service Code in the UK which makes it clear that civil servants are impartial implementers of government decisions, that our allegiance is to the Crown (not to the government of the day) and what rules are necessary to ensure that our actions are seen in that light.

I am all for clarity. One issue, however, is that we have no 'crown', despite Gwyn's declared aspiration to be named monarch . If the CSDF executive proposal passes, the civil service would be subject to the cabinet which is subject to the RA majority. In effect this would make the civil service completely subject to the "government of the day". Perhaps this belongs in the executive thread.

The scope of the civil service's authority is also an important question. Handled poorly, they could become a concentration of power unto themselves, with their accountability reduced to being nominal.

[Jon Seattle]

Claude,

It seems rather pessimistic to assume we will do nothing about the executive. Obviously this bill could be made conditional on the establishment of an executive of some kind. It is only one element of replacing the Guild. However, it is a much needed element of that reform.

It is very telling that the only act you could find supports anything like a civil service is something handled by the Guild. Are you proposing that the Guild remain in place as it is? No, it is not I who is reaching. It is you who is ducking the question altogether.

The question I asked, and that you did not address, is how is accountability to be handled with civil servants. We have the old approach, where the Guild handles executive functions. If we remove the Guild, what standards of accountability are to be in place?

[Claude Desmoulins]

I'm not proposing that the Guild remain as is. As a matter of fact, I find much to commend your civil service proposal. However, I'm still waiting for an explanation of executive/admisintrative acts.

I would also point out that most of the provisions of sections A and B are in place now, and in that respect these sections represent a codification of existing practice.

Section C with its Executive Acts is where I am both less than clear and somewhat wary.