Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Decision-making in Departmental Governance: Cannabis Legislation

Posted 6 years ago on June 30, 2013, 1:56 a.m. EST by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The system is designed to keep Departments isolated. They are "autonomous silos of governance" and should not interfere with each other. However, there are cases where interdepartmental interaction is necessary.

You'll see this more when there are Political Parties associated with more than one Department. (An Activist Opposition Party can be associated with one or more Departments.)

In the transition, from the current system to the new, laws would not change. But when people live free awhile, they will start to question things more and we'll see a period of significant changes.

Which Department(s) would be involved in cannabis legislation? This is my first uneducated guess (because I really don't know):

  • Justice

  • Health

  • Education

  • Science

We would need a way to decide if cannabis is really outside of the jurisdiction of the Education and Science Departments. Please suggest ideas. I was thinking the people of Departmental Constituencies vote for their Department's interests, and their Departmental Leadership "applies" for political involvement. It's a given that Justice has jurisdiction, and probably Health too, but the last two are questionable.

Let's say for conversation/exploration that Education and Science have won the right to share Legislative Jurisdiction (I love coming up with names...), on cases involving cannabis.

Here is how I see Legislative Court proceeding on the case of cannabis legalization:

Each Department with Legislative Jurisdiction on the matter has sessions to make sure their Leadership is congruent with their Constituency.

  • The Department Leadership goes through the legislative decision-making process as if they were the only Department with jurisdiction.

  • As per the Rules of Legislative Courts, there may be up to three rounds where the Leadership and Political Activists (Opposition Parties) must reach a conclusion. The third round must end with Judicial Resolution, if it goes that far.

If all Departments reach the same conclusion, the decision is official, and legislation is made or amended. If not, a Supreme Court type of session will have to take place. I have not dreamed this far into Departmental Governance, so your assistance is welcome, but how's this?:

  • If at least 4/5 Departments agree, it passes. Less than 4/5 (3/4, for example) agree, and Interdepartmental Legislative Court begins.

  • Political Parties do not get involved, but real-time Constituency Evaluations (ask about this) are still as valid as ever and displayed on the monitors during sessions.

  • Up to three rounds ensue, after which a conclusion must be reached by Judicial Resolution, much like normal Legislative Court to keep it simple, but with possibly a different arrangement of (or just more) special judges. OR (you decide), there is no Judicial Resolution in this case and no legislation is made or changed.


Now you see that there are system rules/components not yet mapped out. But people are pretty smart. If we need solutions, we just find and incorporate them. We improve and weed out the weaknesses as they are discovered. Being a founder is that easy.



Read the Rules