How does the government come up with new titles for positions/departments

[questions73]

Hi there,

 

I have no idea what background would be required to know the answer to this question (although I am sure it is not a science background) so I thought I would post it here in the "other topics".

 

What sort of person would you consult if you were planning to create a new type of government official/department and needed to come up with a title for them/it?

 

The people who draft laws (which create these new positions/departments) are Lawyers. As far as I can tell, they are not educated in historical terms used to describe government positions.

 

As an example: Country A has a three tier court system: District Court; Court of Appeal; and Supreme Court. A law is passed creating a court below the District Court. This new court is termed the "Magistrates Court". The bailiffs of the Magistrate Court are referred to as deputy marshals. Whereas the bailiffs in the other courts are referred to as deputy sheriffs.

 

This is a poor example because I know that "deputy sheriff" and "deputy marshal" are titles that are well known. However, assuming these titles were not well known, who would a lawmaker seek advice from to come up with a title? Obviously you would need some sort of historical background, but what historical subject would teach you this sort of stuff.

 

For common titles, it would be simple just to use the Internet. However, someone has to put the information on the internet to begin with. Who is that person?

 

Terms/titles I can think of:

Bureau

Ministry

Office

Department

Registrar

Sheriff

Marshal

Bailiff

Magistrate

Ombudsman

Commissioner

Commission

State

County

District

 

Also, how would I find out about the hierarchy of these titles/terms. For example, I know that a county/shire is within a state/region. What about marshal vs sheriff?

 

For the avoidance of any doubt, I am not asking you to tell me about marshals, sheriffs, magistrates, etc. I have only used these as examples. I already know about the relationships/history behind the titles I have mentioned in this post. I am asking how a lawmaker would go about getting the answers to these sorts of questions. I have used examples of titles that I am already familiar with.

 

I have wanted to know the answer to this question for a long time. I hope someone here can help.

Edited January 5, 2015 by questions73

[imatfaal]

Hi there,

 

I have no idea what background would be required to know the answer to this question (although I am sure it is not a science background) so I thought I would post it here in the "other topics".

 

What sort of person would you consult if you were planning to create a new type of government official/department and needed to come up with a title for them/it?

 

The people who draft laws (which create these new positions/departments) are Lawyers. As far as I can tell, they are not educated in historical terms used to describe government positions.

...

 

What would make you think that the treasury solicitors (a UK version) or their colleagues abroad were not educated in the historical terms. Government / Constitutional lawyers are steeped in history and traditional / convention is their stock in trade.

 

I would lay a small bet that a treasury solicitor if asked this question and answering frankly would say "we have to let the legislators choose something - heaven knows we couldn't allow them to decide anything important"

[John Cuthber]

For the most part, it's obvious.

For example, (In the UK) there's a Department for Work and Pensions, because it's a fairly large chunk of what the government does. (Obviously the government has lots of jobs to do and it splits them up into slices.

That department is headed by a secretary of state- his title is the Minister for Work and Pensions.

Within the departments are ministers.

There are sometimes junior ministers who deal with parts of departments.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_for_Work_and_Pensions#Ministers

and their titles all stem from what they do.

 

Most of the names of these roles are historic- "Ombudsman" is, I believe, one of the relatively few words in English derived directly from the Icelandic.

Some of these names go in and out of fashion- the word "Czar" was in vogue recently- so we have a "Drug Czar" which seems mildly absurd to me.

 

So, as far as I can tell, if they need a new "someone to look into" something new (well newish- governments are generally slow)- say broadband speeds they will appoint a commission who will ask interested parties to put their views forward and they will decide on what,if any, level of government action is needed. If it's a relatively small thing, it's probably more or less already within the remit of one of the government Departments.

 

Every now and then the Prime minister gets his knickers in a twist with one of the ministers. so he abolishes the department- thereby leaving the minister without a job.

IIRC John Major did that to Michael Portillo- the "employment department group" ceased to exist.

It didn't make much real difference- the various people who were actually doing the work were transferred to other departments.

 

This article calls it a "promotion" that's not how it looked at the time.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=19950704&id=G1ExAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AKIFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5744,2196284

[questions73]

 

 

What would make you think that the treasury solicitors (a UK version) or their colleagues abroad were not educated in the historical terms. Government / Constitutional lawyers are steeped in history and traditional / convention is their stock in trade.

 

Before coming here I checked an introductory law textbook and another on "constitutional and administrative" law.

 

The books do mention various titles. However, I am interested in the ones that are less well known; do not exist yet; or are not currently being used.

 

I have also looked at the legislative drafting guidelines for the parliamentary counsel office - and the American equivalent websites (House/Senate Office of Legislative Counsel). The American websites have much less information.

 

I have been trying to find the answer to this question for a long time. It is something that has always bugged me.

 

 

For the most part, it's obvious.

For example, (In the UK) there's a Department for Work and Pensions, because it's a fairly large chunk of what the government does. (Obviously the government has lots of jobs to do and it splits them up into slices.

That department is headed by a secretary of state- his title is the Minister for Work and Pensions.

Within the departments are ministers.

There are sometimes junior ministers who deal with parts of departments.

http://en.wikipedia....sions#Ministers

and their titles all stem from what they do.

Most of the names of these roles are historic- "Ombudsman" is, I believe, one of the relatively few words in English derived directly from the Icelandic.

Some of these names go in and out of fashion- the word "Czar" was in vogue recently- so we have a "Drug Czar" which seems mildly absurd to me.

So, as far as I can tell, if they need a new "someone to look into" something new (well newish- governments are generally slow)- say broadband speeds they will appoint a commission who will ask interested parties to put their views forward and they will decide on what,if any, level of government action is needed. If it's a relatively small thing, it's probably more or less already within the remit of one of the government Departments.

Every now and then the Prime minister gets his knickers in a twist with one of the ministers. so he abolishes the department- thereby leaving the minister without a job.

IIRC John Major did that to Michael Portillo- the "employment department group" ceased to exist.

It didn't make much real difference- the various people who were actually doing the work were transferred to other departments.

This article calls it a "promotion" that's not how it looked at the time.

http://news.google.c...pg=5744,2196284

 

I think you have misunderstood what I am asking. I am having trouble putting my question into words.

 

For clarification: I have a good understanding of how governments work (US, Australian, UK etc).

 

I mean titles for everyday public servants. Presumably they will not appoint a commission of inquiry for this purpose:-P

 

So for example, we have Rangers that maintain forests/parks. What if the government identified a need for a new type of worker. For example someone who only works in mountains. An obvious title would be "Mountain Ranger". However, let us pretend that in country A, the word "Ranger" is constitutionally protected and can only be used to describe one type of conservation worker. A new title would be needed. Otherwise you would end up with something like "maintainer of parks and forests in mountainous areas". This is a rather cumbersome title.

 

The reason I am wondering this is that the United States seems to have many government positions that have titles (even more than the UK - which is where most of their historical titles would come from) and I have always wondered how they come up with them.

 

I am not a fan of the US legal system, but one thing I do like about it is that it seems to use titles in a way that is less cumbersome than other countries that I have looked at.

 

The use of "deputy Sheriff" to refer to a bailiff at the local level and "deputy Marshal" to refer to a federal bailiff is preferable in my view to putting "federal/local before the term you wish to use.

SWAT officer (not a historical term) is preferable to "member of armed offenders squad".

FBI is preferable to "Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand".

 

I guess I am looking for the government equivalent of IUPAC nomenclature. Instead of naming chemicals, they would be naming government positions.

 

Thank you for your responses.

 

My background is in chemistry, I just find the way the government works to be really interesting.

Edited January 5, 2015 by questions73

[John Cuthber]

I may get shot by the analogy police for this but...

Before the IUPAC* came to be, chemicals had names.

The names were derived from all sorts of things- properties of the substance- glycols , for example, got their name from the fact that they are sweet (glycos is the Greek for sweet) and picric acid similarly got its name from the Greek word for bitter.

Some got names after plants - oxalic acid from Oxalis- the sorrel plant.

Others from planets Plutonium and Uranium, for example.

One guy actually managed to sneak his own name onto an element: Gallium.

 

As far as I can tell, that's roughly where we are with naming government bodies and officials.

Incidentally, I am a government official and my "title" is that I'm a "Higher Scientific Officer". As far as I can tell, that's pretty much meaningless unless you know the "rules".

 

 

*International union of pure and applied chemists- for those who don't know.

[questions73]

Thanks for your reply.

 

I did realise chemicals had names before IUPAC came into being .

 

My point in bringing up IUPAC is that if someone asked me why a chemical had a particular name, I can usually refer them to the IUPAC nomenclature guidelines. Admittedly there are still many chemical names that are not part of the IUPAC system (element names, old nomenclature rules, INCI*).

 

I guess my question boils down to this: where would I find a list of current and previous government titles/names**? Is this sort of thing studied by academics?

 

*International nomenclature for cosmetic ingredients.

**I refer to names/titles like "Magistrate, Ranger, Constable, Marshal, Sheriff, Warden, Coroner, Registrar, Ombudsman", rather than descriptive titles like "Chief Information Officer; Science advisor; Royal historian; social worker".

Edited January 5, 2015 by questions73

[imatfaal]

I guess my question boils down to this: where would I find a list of current and previous government titles/names**? Is this sort of thing studied by academics?

 

*International nomenclature for cosmetic ingredients.

**I refer to names/titles like "Magistrate, Ranger, Constable, Marshal, Sheriff, Warden, Coroner, Registrar, Ombudsman", rather than descriptive titles like "Chief Information Officer; Science advisor; Royal historian; social worker".

 

 

Almost certainly it is studied by academics - I would refer you to discourse analysis which might say that through the choice of nomenclature of an official the framing of any argument is changed.

 

For Example: If John's title was "Grade 212 HSO" you would have no reason to increase or decrease your credence of his argument on a scientific matter; but it would be difficult to avoid changing your opinion if you learnt that he is not John from the pub but John the government appointed Higher Scientific Officer. This increase (or decrease) could be completely fallacious (as it might be on a subject for which John is not an expert etc) but the fact that people in general do change their view of an argument dependent on this perception of authority by the proponent can be shown experimentally.

 

The use of names, terms of reference, language allowed, vocabulary, jargon etc to influence the way a narrative can proceed is studied in discourse analysis. It is a bit post-modern in a lot of its guises - but it has a lot of truth in it as well.

[swansont]

In the US, there's a classification system. Not surprising for a bureaucracy. I am a physicist, so my classification is Physicist, series 1310. There's a list of minimum qualifications I must have (they can vary with the GS level to which you are hired)

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/classification-qualifications/general-schedule-qualification-standards/1300/physics-series-1310/

 

Park Rangers are series 0025

 

The list of white-collar job series

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/classification-qualifications/classifying-general-schedule-positions/#url=Standards

 

Guidelines for blue-collar jobs

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/classification-qualifications/classifying-federal-wage-system-positions/

 

There's more if you poke around at the OPM site