[EBC Special Report] Senate Sleeps as People Lead

---

---

Senate Sleeps as People Lead
Written by Elio​

---

---

If there was one word to define this term of the Senate thus far it would be "Sleepy".

Since the 93rd Senate was elected at the beginning of February, the perception of it from the Citizenry is that it has been slow, to say the least, with multiple comments from Citizens in EBC News' Mid-Term polling highlighting that their Senate feels "inactive", "less active", and even "dead". EBC News' further research in this area shows that this may be more than just a feeling. Since the selection of the Speaker on February 10th, the Senate has considered 8 matters, ranging from an amendment to the Line of Succession to Court Reform. Of these, two ended up Tabled, three are still ongoing discussions without a defined piece of legislation attached, one Amendment failed, and two are still in debate/vote. Across all matters, the Senate has had 106 posts in the Senatia, and 5 in the Swakistek Conference Hall, where only Speaker Cordova has engaged in any form of Oversight at all this term. Compared to prior Senates, this is already the lowest-activity Senate in months. EBC News has provided a breakdown below of the last 4 Senates for comparison:



On Matters Considered (outside of Selection of the Speaker, and regular Cabinet confirmations), this 93rd Senate is second to last, with only the 91st coming behind. On every other measure though, the 93rd Senate is in last place, often by a significant margin, and is already 65% down on the previous term in terms of Total Posts. A deeper dive on the matters considered by the Senate has yielded further findings of general inactivity and lack of involvement of the majority of Senators on most matters. The trends on this are broken down below:

The general themes evident in all of these matters is that, on the majority of the - albeit, very few - issues before the Senate, the majority of Senators are not engaging substantively or at all pre-vote/motion to table, and there is very little in the way of debate from those that do engage. Similarly, the trend is towards multi-week debates with very little engagement, with one matter (Senate Half Terms) sitting for 52 days (at time of writing) since the beginning of this term with only 4 Senators engaging, and only 11 posts between them. Additionally, of the 5 actual Bills before the Senate, 3 of them were not generated by the Senate themselves, but were passed to the Senate after votes by the People's Assembly - one of which (the Reasonable Delay of Amendments Act) the Senate rejected with only 3 Senators contributing to debate or consideration of the measure in any way before voting it down. On the one matter that the Senate was fairly swift and engaged on - the Shadow Ministry Oversight Program (SMOP), which sought to conduct increased oversight by assigning individual Senators to lead on each Ministry area - EBC News has found that only Speaker Cordova has engaged in any oversight of the Executive this term at all.

This is in distinction to the raft of activity lately by the People's Assembly which, under new Chair Igualla, has in the same period discussed 12 matters (a 50% increase on the Senate), passed 5 pieces of legislation/ordinance (a 400% increase on the Senate), and had 156 posts (a 47% increase on the Senate). This heralds a new era for the People's Assembly, which is often faced with questions of its relevancy to the region's governance, criticisms of its activity levels, and continual proposals to abolish it. A similar story is present also in the current Constitutional Convention that, whilst originally off to a slow start, has hosted 16 conversation topics (a 100% increase on the Senate), and had 223 posts (a 110% increase on the Senate), as well as engaged a range of different Citizens in its debates. In both the People's Assembly and the Constitutional Convention, it is the People - not the Senate - that have been the drivers of substantive discussions and debate over the structures and governance of our region, whilst the Senate looks to be left behind.

This stands in stark contrast to the platforms all Senators set out before Election Day. Senator Istillian said he was "eager to put my perspective forward", Senator Pichtonia noted that "the People's Assembly failed. I would favour a more engaging and democratic Senate in its stead", Speaker Cordova strongly stated his belief that "It's our duty as senators to conduct oversight of the executive", Senator SkyGreen spoke of his commitment to "post daily just to ensure that I'm up to date with everything", Senator Lime highlighted a range of reform ideas he wanted to get done - of the People's Assembly, the Circuit Court, and Weighted Voting, and Senator Fillet Minion similarly ran on reform initiatives including Term Limits on Officials. From the campaign threads of those who sought to, and managed to, get elected it would look like the Senate had ahead of it an engaging and active term full of lots of exciting new reform discussions - as of the time of writing, the majority of this is yet to materialise; or at least, not from the Senate.

With Citizens in both the People's Assembly and the Constitutional Convention outpacing our elected officials in the Senate on matters of discussion, on legislation passed, and on general engagement in matters of state, and with multiple Citizens expressing concern over Senate activity levels in EBC's mid-term polling, it is the Senate - not, as often claimed, the People's Assembly or the Convention - that is in a race against time before the end of this term to prove its relevancy and ability to lead. With 2 weeks left before the next election, it remains to be seen whether or not it will step up to the challenge.

 

[upc]

This is a fascinating piece, great work Elio!

 

[PhDre]

I feel like two things are the case:

1) The Constitutional Convention is "sapping" energy and interest in participating in the Senate. What are the reasons to engage with reforms if the entire Constitution, and any reforms you push, might be "overwritten" by the Convention? I think the Senate will continue to suffer as long as the Constitutional Convention exists, simply because of the "threat" of reform from the Convention wiping out Senate legislation.

2) I'm not sure I agree with the framing of the Constitutional Convention as particularly active. Almost 20 percent of Convention posts are people signing up for the Convention, and another 10 percent of Convention posts are debating rules which only 7 Convention members voted on. Those Convention rules state:

GR4. Convention members are expected to make at least one quality contribution per week, except when on an announced leave of absence (LOA) not exceeding fourteen days.

GR5. Either the Chair or Vice Chair may issue a warning or 72-hour suspension for violating any of the General Rules. The Chair and Vice Chair may, by mutual agreement, remove a member from the Convention for violating any of the General Rules after a previous warning or suspension.

13 of 29 Convention members haven't posted in over 50 days (almost all of those are sign ups who have never contributed). No warnings have been issued by the Chair of Vice Chair.

The Convention Chair posed whether the Convention should continue, stating this was a "last call for participation" - with 8 responses.

I'm just not particularly sure what the goal is the Convention, whether the structure makes sense, whether there is active interest in a Convention, or if everyone participating is just in the room because they want to rubberneck. It's not seemingly successful now going on two months, and (imo) the energy of the region for using our existing systems (like the Senate) for legislative reform are suffering because of it.

Edit: My #s about Convention member activity are based on posts that I can see in the Constitutional Convention subforum - if there are private debates that are not accessible to non-members, I dont believe I can see those and they are not included.

 

[Elio]

What are the reasons to engage with reforms if the entire Constitution, and any reforms you push, might be "overwritten" by the Convention

This may be an exceedingly obvious answer, but reason number 1 would be "they were elected to do so"

 

[PhDre]

What are the reasons to engage with reforms if the entire Constitution, and any reforms you push, might be "overwritten" by the Convention

This may be an exceedingly obvious answer, but reason number 1 would be "they were elected to do so"

Very true, I just expect little interest or enthusiasm in the Senate as long as the Constitutional Convention exists. The previous Senate election was pretty unenthusiastic and there are no major issues really campaigned on. I agree that the Senate term has been very sleepy, but imo it makes sense given the state of the political system and the "release valve" of potential reform through a Convention, even if the Convention has failed to deliver.

 

[Deepest House]

An article like this about the senate is like the Bat Signal for DH.

In addition to general inaction and lethargy in the Senate, we have once again seen the senior legislative chamber fail at executive oversight. Indeed, they recognize their failures at executive oversight are so profound that in February the Speaker attempted to resuscitate the Shadow Ministry Oversight Program. Take a look at Senate oversight threads. Only a single thread has a post since February, and that was yesterday from the Speaker.

Contrast this with the robust activity and eager participation by citizens in the PA. It is past time that the Senate lose the executive oversight responsibility and it be transferred to the PA.

We have seen years and years of failure at oversight by the senate. We have seen years and years of attempted internal fixes. Rarely have we seen any success.

Let’s try something bold and innovative, while also increasing citizen participation in government.

 

[Lloenflys]

This is a long post. TL;DR - (1) The PA hasn't really been that active recently, Igualla has; (2) The purpose of Oversight needs to be defined more clearly before we do anything with it; (3) Minimal oversight may well not be the bad thing some people seem to think it is; and (4) Unless there's a clear reason to do so we should avoid removing powers from the Senate and making it a less attractive place to serve the region. Now ... the actual post:

While I am pleased that the PA has shown signs of life over the past few weeks, I am going to push back strongly against the suggestion that this demonstration of the institution having a pulse is indicative of a need to transfer oversight responsibilities from the Senate to the PA, and I'm going to do it for a number of reasons:

(1) The PA's recent "activity" has been heavily driven by one person - @Igualla - who has been an active and innovative PA Chair (certainly the most succesful holder of that role in recent memory). But if you go in and look at the bill threads, they hardly represent some bastion of activity. Most of the bills that have been acted on involved Igualla bumping threads that had been started weeks before and then left to sit there without any significant discussion. At most one or two people said something to the extend of "I agree with this" and then after a couple of more posts by Igualla on the status of the bill as it headed toward a vote, a vote was called. This is not indicative of an active and engaged PA, it is indicative of an active and engaged PA Chair. It is not evidence of a highly functioning organization that is ready or capable of taking on more responsibilities because everything that is being done is dependent on one person who may or may not continue to be interested in handling the duties of the PA.

(2) Let's approach this from another angle - "oversight" hasn't been conducted extensively recently, or really ever since I arrived here in December 2018. In fact, it tends to happen only in the breach, when something happens that is significant enough to force some sort of public reckoning. But what purpose does oversight currently serve and why do we need more? What is missing that we want to change? If we transferred thhis responsibility to the PA what do we foresee the PA doing with it? Because of the answer is asking ministers a bunch of routine busy work questions that don't serve a purpose other than forcing them to answer a bunch of questions, is that going to make being a minister MORE exciting, or LESS exciting? It's already difficult enough to get people to agree to be ministers. If we add to the burden of being a minister by creating more busywork - and not just busywork, but busywork that often provokes some level of anxiety even when the questions aren't especially confrontational - are we expecting more or less participation by our citizenry as ministers? If we're going to add to that burden, shouldn't be do so with a purpose rather than just because "no one ever conducts oversight" and we have some vague feeling that they should? I strongly suggest that before going down this path, we have some sort of discussion on what the purpose of oversight is (I don't know, maybe some body or gathering of citizens specifically meant to address the functioning of our civic institutions could serve as the forum for such a discussion, hint hint), but shifting things around just in the hopes that it increases oversight, without a purpose, would seem odd to me.

(3) I would love it, incidentally, if we defined the purpose of Oversight in the way that I've tried to interest people in before - helping people learn how to be accountable to third parties for the job that they're doing. That's a real world skill that can be used in virtually any job people are going to have moving forward. Like any skill, practice makes perfect. But this would have to be a change of mindset to one that is comfortable recognizing that oversight is not a one way street - something done BY the Senate (or the PA, or whoever) and imposed upon Ministers, but instead something done as a cooperative between the Senate (or the PA) and the ministry. Ministers would need to come in thinking of presenting their ideas to the Senate and highlighting successes and opportunities to the Senate as part of the job, as a chance to demonstrate their work and present it in a positive light, or of thinking about and articulating challenges when they arise. But ... I'm not optimistic the region wants this, because even though I think it is a useful skill that would provide tangible, real-world benefits to ministers, there's no question it would do the same thing as oversight generally - increase the workload and increase the anxiety level of service. Which leads to ...

(4) Perhaps oversight is best conducted in the breach, used as a tool for the Senate when necessary to ask questions and determine if the Senate needs to use its powers to remove ministers. We don't need oversight for oversight's sake. When things are going well, it is busywork. It could serve as a repository for how successes occurred, but that is better done within the exective itself through memoranda and threads explaining how to be succesful in the role, not in Senate oversight threads. When things aren't going well, the executive should be working to fix it. If an event goes poorly, would it be helpful to have vigorous oversight? Is that process going to lead to better performance, or is it just going to lead to more turnover in the ministries? I would suggest that oversight properly should be used only when the Senate is getting to the point of considering the removal of a minister, to determine if the minister in question seems to clearly understand the gravity of the situation and to set up the justification for removal. In this view, intermittent or minimal oversight is a feature, not a bug. Having served in the Senate, as a Minister, and as a President I can tell you that Oversight has rarely if ever been particularly helpful for a minister - which is why I strongly advocate for formally recognizing that oversight questions aren't necessary except in extraordinary circumstances.

(5) Finally, let's not pretend that this is just about oversight. This is about removing the power of confirmation from the Senate and putting it in the hands of the PA as a continued effort to give the PA something meaningful to do, for reasons that escape me. After all, it doesn't make any sense to give the PA power of Oversight without ultimately having them be responsible for the overall management of ministers, including confirmation and removal as well. But at that point we've worked ourselves into something more closely resembling true bicameralism by significantly weakening our elected legislature, thus making the Senate less desirable for potential candidates, and as mentioned above also increased the busywork and anxiety level of serving in a ministry, all in one fell swoop.

 

[Igualla]

snip

I absolutely agree that the PA as an institution has yet to hit the activity levels I'm hoping to see. It was and is my goal to get the PA back into a working order after it sputtered to a stop with the last Chair. While I am constantly doing daily update pings, one thing challenge that I face is getting the word out about PA business. Since people have to affirmatively join the PA group on the forums, very few people likely have that group and tag on Discord, meaning my daily pings likely aren't reaching many people. I'd love to start doing @everyone pings, but I feel I might get a talking to for that.

I will say, while I may be the one moving things through the PA, I'm not the only one bringing up matters for our consideration. Not including myself, four other Europeian citizens were able to bring legislative matters to the PA, over a dozen individual Europeians contributed to bills we were considering, and several have been put forward to the Senate or acted on within the PA. While not every bill sees the same amount of engagement, I do think it's important to note that not everyone is going to have strong opinions one way or another on certain topics. As the PA is not elected and is wholly voluntary, some citizens may decide to engage only in topics they have an interest or knowledge in, and in my book, that's okay! Not everyone in Europeia is going to want to debate the merits of how a sentence is worded or whether Ministers can start their work a day or two early, but some people do, and others want to debate giving the RSC more power to keep the region safe or other topics of that nature.

My goal is to continue getting more people interested and involved in the PA to the point where we're having productive discussions and I don't have to move things to votes myself all the time. We're not at that point just yet, but I hope to continue to showcase the power of the PA and get us there.

 

[Lloenflys]

snip

I absolutely agree that the PA as an institution has yet to hit the activity levels I'm hoping to see. It was and is my goal to get the PA back into a working order after it sputtered to a stop with the last Chair. While I am constantly doing daily update pings, one thing challenge that I face is getting the word out about PA business. Since people have to affirmatively join the PA group on the forums, very few people likely have that group and tag on Discord, meaning my daily pings likely aren't reaching many people. I'd love to start doing @everyone pings, but I feel I might get a talking to for that.

I will say, while I may be the one moving things through the PA, I'm not the only one bringing up matters for our consideration. Not including myself, four other Europeian citizens were able to bring legislative matters to the PA, over a dozen individual Europeians contributed to bills we were considering, and several have been put forward to the Senate or acted on within the PA. While not every bill sees the same amount of engagement, I do think it's important to note that not everyone is going to have strong opinions one way or another on certain topics. As the PA is not elected and is wholly voluntary, some citizens may decide to engage only in topics they have an interest or knowledge in, and in my book, that's okay! Not everyone in Europeia is going to want to debate the merits of how a sentence is worded or whether Ministers can start their work a day or two early, but some people do, and others want to debate giving the RSC more power to keep the region safe or other topics of that nature.

My goal is to continue getting more people interested and involved in the PA to the point where we're having productive discussions and I don't have to move things to votes myself all the time. We're not at that point just yet, but I hope to continue to showcase the power of the PA and get us there.

I don't want to be misunderstood - I think you are doing an excellent job, and are most definitely doing more with the PA Chair role than ... possibly anyone I've seen since my early days in the region when there were some exceptionally active chairs. But some of the things you mention are the very reasons that I don't want to see the PA formally tasked with more ... it is indeed a wholly voluntary body, and if no one is interested in any particular subject, then we will have decisions ultimately being made with little or no discussion and no effort by people to go deeper simply because it's there to vote on. At least in theory, if the Senate acts in the same way and doesn't take its responsibilities seriously, the people can remove misperforming Senators and replace them. A quiet Senate doesn't necessarily mean Senators aren't doing their jobs, either - not every term is going to have a lot of legislation, and I have spoken to several Senators who have said they have felt like it was appropriate to take a step back to try to avoid overshadowing or conflicting with the Convention. I plan on running with the exact opposite approach toward the Convention - not antagonistic towards it, but simply not taking it into consideration as far as how I do the job in the Senate (should I be lucky enough to be elected), but it's not WRONG for Senators to have an alternative view on how to behave in relation to the Convention. Anyway, just more rambling from me - but the key takeaway here is that I think you've done an excellent job Igualla, I just don't think that the PA itself has somehow demonstrated that it is a hive of civic discussion as it was portrayed earlier when DH called for it to be given oversight.

 

[Lime]

This is an amazing piece of research and analysis Elio! The use of data is really helpful here and actually proves something rather just basing things off "vibes."

I am disappointed in the Senate's activity this term, I do think we should be doing better and I have tried myself to contribute more to discussions and have started a Court Reform discussion and raised the PA Chair reform in the Senate half-term/Junior Senator discussion. That said I could still be doing more, and I will try to do more so we can close this Senate term on a more positive note.

Equally however, I do also broadly agree with the points PhDre and Lloenflys have made about both the Constitutional Convention and the People's Assembly. I do think the Convention is limiting interest in the Senate, and the statistics PhDre referenced about the lack of activity and engagement in the Convention don't really suggest citizens are actively engaged or interested either (the "vibes" I got from the Convention were that it hasn't been particularly active but it is definitely starting to pick up a bit now). The PA as well, while definitely more active than it was before, has mainly been the result of Igulla's actions, with some assistance with Rand, rather than a big increase in citizen activity. So I guess I don't really see either the Senate or "the people" leading, instead everyone appears to be in a bit of a stagnation mode with just enough activity to keep us from falling into decline.

 

[Elio]

Something doesn't hold up for me. The Convention can't be not particularly active and engaged and useful whilst at the same time being such a threat to Senators hopes and dreams that they sit at home playing xbox all day. If the convention wasn't a worry, Senators would have more reason to engage in the Senate, not less - free from fear that the big bad convention isn't going to steal their thunder. If the convention was such a powerhouse that it could feasibly produce a complete revamp of our setup, then I'd expect Senators - you know, people who stood for election to legislate - to be all over that, engaging every day and pushing their ideas forward. That Senators aren't doing that (some are, but not all), and also aren't engaging in their own Chamber, is the most nonsensical part for me

 

[Lime]

Something doesn't hold up for me. The Convention can't be not particularly active and engaged and useful whilst at the same time being such a threat to Senators hopes and dreams that they sit at home playing xbox all day. If the convention wasn't a worry, Senators would have more reason to engage in the Senate, not less - free from fear that the big bad convention isn't going to steal their thunder. If the convention was such a powerhouse that it could feasibly produce a complete revamp of our setup, then I'd expect Senators - you know, people who stood for election to legislate - to be all over that, engaging every day and pushing their ideas forward. That Senators aren't doing that (some are, but not all), and also aren't engaging in their own Chamber, is the most nonsensical part for me

I do agree that it is a paradox that simultaneously the Convention is draining attention away from the Senate, yet at the same time it's inactive! And I think coming from a Senator it is a poor defence! But I do still think it's true. The Convention just existing, even if it's not active, has meant everyday citizens are focusing their eyes more on the Convention rather than the Senate and I think that does have an impact on Senators who maybe have less to worry about because they don't feel the usual pressure to be as active. Also the threat of a Convention upending any work or reform you do is a deterrent I think for some. I've tried to avoid it, by starting a discussion on Court reform even though the Convention is also having a wider discussion on Judicial reform and may upend any work I do, but I can see why some may not see the point in starting a Senate discussion if the region at large is going to have a bigger one on the same topic.

 

[Olde Delaware]

Whole region is dead, everything has effectively moved to discord.

 

[Deepest House]

Whole region is dead, everything has effectively moved to discord.

This is why we should be willing to try stuff like empowering the PA.

We are playing a game. Let’s not forget that. We don’t have some sacred duty or obligation to our traditions and institutions. We can make changes.

The forum is moribund. Just try something. Enjoy the process of making a big change.

If we empower the PA and it sucks, we just undo it. And that will drive a whole new cycle of activity, too.

We need to take up and propose a controversial issue and let it get to vote to drive activity and gameplay. I appreciate Lloen trying to shut down the idea before it even starts, but that’s also shutting down IC gameplay.

Let’s go for it. Try it. If it sucks, we will fix it. Like we did with the split.

 

[Lloenflys]

We need to take up and propose a controversial issue and let it get to vote to drive activity and gameplay. I appreciate Lloen trying to shut down the idea before it even starts, but that’s also shutting down IC gameplay.

I'm trying to shut it down because I think it's a bad idea that would make being a minister more onerous, leading to fewer people wanting to do it. Not everything is worth trying, and in my opinion, this fits into that category. What exactly is the goal? What do you want oversight to be that the PA will do better at? Tell me what the goal of oversight as handled by the PA is and maybe I'll agree that it is a worthy one. Instead, I just see "Oversight hardly ever happens, therefore something is broken and we need more oversight". Oversight for the sake of oversight isn't a good thing, it's a bad thing that would make whatever game aspect of being a minister that is left less fun, not more.

 

[Deepest House]

Well, we shouldn’t let one guy thinks it is a bad idea hold us back!

Seriously, if it sucks, we undo it. We are no worse off than before.

 

[Lloenflys]

Well, we shouldn’t let one guy thinks it is a bad idea hold us back!

Seriously, if it sucks, we undo it. We are no worse off than before.

We will agree on this 100%. If I'm alone on an island in thinking that this is bad, counterproductive, and problematic for the health of the region then people should absolutely ignore me and implement it anyway. That's how democracy works! But I'm going to do my best to convince people that I have a point and that we really don't want this - at least not unless there is an actual rationale for doing it that goes beyond "because we can and we can put it back if we don't like it!"

 

[Deepest House]

I’ve given the rationale: the senate has continuously failed for years at implementing an effective oversight program.

 

[Lloenflys]

I’ve given the rationale: the senate has continuously failed for years at implementing an effective oversight program.

You are ignoring my question though - what is an effective oversight program? I've asked multiple times in this thread what it is that you want out of oversight, because it appears what you want is just ... "more questions." And I don't think that is a pathway to success ... it's just busywork. So is there something you expect the PA do to with oversight? Or is it really as simple as ... you just want more busywork? This is a legitimate question, by the way, not snark. I don't really understand what the vision for oversight is or what you want it to accomplish, other than that you feel the Senate has failed at it. But if the failure is just that it doesn't happen often, see my arguments above about why that isn't a bad thing. We can disagree about that position that I have, but if that's the case then say so. You can't just say the Senate has "failed." That is just rhetoric unless you can point to something that is consequential about what that failure constitutes, and to do that you have to say what you actually expect out of oversight.

 

[Comfed]

I'm not DH, but one thing that I would consider to be an example where oversight failed is the situation with the WA minister last term. Even before JL's leave of absence, it was clear that the ministry was inactive and the minister was seemingly asleep at the while; the whole time, the most "oversight" was a few pointed comments in the end-of-term opinion poll.