Exellence in Governance

Excellence in Governance​

In recent weeks we have had two confirmations that brought up questions about how the Senate should approach confirmations. The first was the Ministry of Roleplay, and the second was the nomination of CSP to the role of Associate Justice. With the upcoming Presidential election, we will be getting new ministerial nominations, making now the ideal time to examine the role of Senate confirmations in the region.

To start let's look at the more obvious objective of the confirmation process, to prevent the President from making maladaptive appointments. To some this only means stopping clear cut cases of extreme nominations such as nominating Unibot to the position of Grand Admiral, but the Senate has the responsibility to go a step farther. The Senate should ensure the individual is sufficiently skilled, active, and motivated to take on the position. Obviously this can only be determined through vigorous questioning.

Some questions that can address skill would be questions about past experience. Past experience can't always be relied on, but there are many other ways to determine skill such as the follow: discussion of plans for the term, giving possible scenarios, and asking general questions about the area the nominee will be responsible for. For example a Justice or Attorney General nomination might be asked to interpret a theoretical law/clause.

Determining activity is far more based on trust and past behavior. One can always ask various questions on activity, but the important part is determining if you trust them, which will largely be a function of past behavior, especially recent behavior.

Motivation is something that, similarly to skill, can be seen by questioning. Asking about plans for the coming term is one way to see how motivated the nominee is, but recently a more specific way has been identified. Hyanygo identified a trick the Senate missed when he asked Seven Deaths if he had conducted any research to prepare for being Minister of Roleplay. Such research or the lack of it is a great indicator of how motivated the nominee is. Tone can also help determine how motivated the nominee is; in text we can use word choice and writing style to indicate tone.

Often we don't see the point of questioning established individuals because we are familiar with their work, and we know what to expect from them, but it's still important. Questioning these individuals can determine how motivated the candidate is, which can vary from term to term even with those that are established, and may reveal holes in plans or other problems. One additional problem that can affect these types of established candidates is arrogance, which can often lead to laziness or shoddy work.

Once in a while a nominee will make the decision himself that he is established enough to not need questioning; this individual would likely refuse to answer questions or give dismissive "I'll do what I do" responses. This behavior is a huge red flag and these people should never be confirmed. Likely these are the people who will suffer from the arrogance related problems mentioned above, and it shows a lack of motivation when they can't be bothered to answer questions. This is also massively disrespectful to the Senate and the Republic, and allowing such disrespect sets a bad precedent in the region.

The role of Senate confirmations should not stop at the candidate. The nomination for Minister of Roleplay brought up the largest of the other areas that should be examined by the Senate, the position itself, especially with new ministries. The Senate should prevent any nomination to a new ministry they believe would be disruptive and maladaptive to the region in any significant way. It should also avoid allowing new ministries at late points in the term. It is true that the president could find workarounds, but refusing confirmations sends a strong message.

Senate confirmations are more than the simple nod of approval that the have severed as many times in the past; rather, confirmations are full checks on executive power, which should be used to ensure excellence in governance.

Written by Notolecta
Edited by Calvin Coolidge, Sigma, and Hyanygo.

 

[Malashaan]

Great article, Noto.

 

[Common-Sense Politics]

I think you've completely misrepresented my "attitude" both here and in your mixlr show. You assumed my tone and then drew all your conclusions based on that assumption. I answered the question asked (and yes, I did answer it) in what I thought was a an honest, matter-of-fact way. It would be very easy for me to pledge to be active for any length of time for any number of reasons under any number of conditions. People do it all the time. We know that this is not how life or NS activity work so I chose to not condescend the Senate by blowing smoke up their keisters. If there is a family emergency in an hour from now, I will not prioritize you people or my position here. You will lose that consideration every time. If I get busier with school, there will be more time for school and less time for you people and my position here. You will lose that consideration every time. If I'm getting laid tonight, or get tickets to a concert, or am going on a road trip, I will not prioritize you people or my position here. You will lose that consideration every time.That is how life and NS activity works and we know that and I will commit to no more than that to please anyone because of all the things I am, no one here can call me a liar.

In the question of my choice to not respond to your specific comments (not questions), the answer there is also fairly clear cut. You didn't like my answer. That doesn't change my answer. You assert I'm not bright enough to serve on the Court. How can I respond to that with any semblance of dignity? That's your opinion. You're entitled to it and to attempt to convince others of it. You failed to do so. Nobody agreed with you. I still don't begrudge you for your opinion. You're not totally wrong on your assessment of my abilities. You are wrong to paint this picture of my motivation based on an uniformed assumption and by extension distort the context of my conduct. I do begrudge you that and frankly, it's bush league.

I hope to not have to talk about this again.

 

[Rach]

Considering all that CSP has achieved from a legislative standpoint, it stands to reason he can also judge to a high degree as well.

 

[Shin]

I think you've completely misrepresented my "attitude" both here and in your mixlr show. You assumed my tone and then drew all your conclusions based on that assumption. I answered the question asked (and yes, I did answer it) in what I thought was a an honest, matter-of-fact way. It would be very easy for me to pledge to be active for any length of time for any number of reasons under any number of conditions. People do it all the time. We know that this is not how life or NS activity work so I chose to not condescend the Senate by blowing smoke up their keisters. If there is a family emergency in an hour from now, I will not prioritize you people or my position here. You will lose that consideration every time. If I get busier with school, there will be more time for school and less time for you people and my position here. You will lose that consideration every time. If I'm getting laid tonight, or get tickets to a concert, or am going on a road trip, I will not prioritize you people or my position here. You will lose that consideration every time.That is how life and NS activity works and we know that and I will commit to no more than that to please anyone because of all the things I am, no one here can call me a liar.

In the question of my choice to not respond to your specific comments (not questions), the answer there is also fairly clear cut. You didn't like my answer. That doesn't change my answer. You assert I'm not bright enough to serve on the Court. How can I respond to that with any semblance of dignity? That's your opinion. You're entitled to it and to attempt to convince others of it. You failed to do so. Nobody agreed with you. I still don't begrudge you for your opinion. You're not totally wrong on your assessment of my abilities. You are wrong to paint this picture of my motivation based on an uniformed assumption and by extension distort the context of my conduct. I do begrudge you that and frankly, it's bush league.

I hope to not have to talk about this again.

Well said.

 

[Notolecta]

In the question of my choice to not respond to your specific comments (not questions), the answer there is also fairly clear cut. You didn't like my answer. That doesn't change my answer. You assert I'm not bright enough to serve on the Court. How can I respond to that with any semblance of dignity? That's your opinion. You're entitled to it and to attempt to convince others of it. You failed to do so. Nobody agreed with you. I still don't begrudge you for your opinion. You're not totally wrong on your assessment of my abilities. You are wrong to paint this picture of my motivation based on an uniformed assumption and by extension distort the context of my conduct. I do begrudge you that and frankly, it's bush league.

I didn't distort anything CSP. You went into the Senate and were completely disrespectful to the process. You could have easily explained why you were the best choice at the time, but chose instead to simply ignore the a legitimate concern about your appointment. You fail to see that there is a difference between "I have nothing to say" and "I should make it known that I don't plan to." There is a difference between "I will be active as long as I am able to" and "I'm here for as long as I'm here". You chose your words and they represent your intent, whether you wanted them to show that intent or not. The wording you used shows only arrogance and a clear assertion that you can't be bothered with the Senate.


Also Rachel your claim is absurd. There is no logical correlation between a legislative career and a judicial one.


I want to remind everyone this article isn't about CSP, it's about the Senate and how it should confront confirmations.

 

[Common-Sense Politics]

I wasn't asked why I was the "best choice at the time" nor is that my determination to make or assertion to defend. That's for the president and the Senate to decide. I answered the only question asked of me. I don't have a responsibility nor do I have the inclination to fabricate a reason for the Senate to confirm my nomination to any post when they themselves decline to adequately question me. If that was perceived as disrespect for the "process", it wasn't intended that way. I would have willingly and cordially answered any questions about who I am or what I hope to bring to the Court. None were asked. I can't argue or counter "you're not smart enough" and I won't. I think my service on the Court will speak for itself and I'm happy to have the opportunity to serve under Hy where my focus will be broadening our pool of candidates to choose from in the future and the development of the Europeian Bar Association.

 

[Shin]

CSP's record stands for itself. His exemplary service within Euro's legal sphere is demonstrative of someone well versed in our codes. With such a solid record at hand, I fail to see a reason to delay confirming someone that was eminently qualified for the position. To demand otherwise for the sake of ceremony is petulant. While one might have questions about his capacity to fit the role, a brief stroll through the archives could answer most questions imho.

 

[Mousebumples]

I didn't distort anything CSP. You went into the Senate and were completely disrespectful to the process. You could have easily explained why you were the best choice at the time, but chose instead to simply ignore the a legitimate concern about your appointment. You fail to see that there is a difference between "I have nothing to say" and "I should make it known that I don't plan to." There is a difference between "I will be active as long as I am able to" and "I'm here for as long as I'm here". You chose your words and they represent your intent, whether you wanted them to show that intent or not. The wording you used shows only arrogance and a clear assertion that you can't be bothered with the Senate.

I tend to agree with CSP here. I'm not saying that he couldn't have responded to your comments, but like he said, you didn't ask him any questions. Your comments were - and I quote:

I actually must question whether CSP is the best choice. While CSP is an intellegent and hardworking indivdual, he's hardly a judicial expert and I wonder if there is not a more judicially minded candidate for the position. That said I do of course take great satisfaction in the fact that this is a nominee that has been less politically active as of late, and it is not unknown that I like a depoliticized bench. I'm also unsure about CSP's response to the question on his activity; it leads me to believe we have no reason to believe he won't just leave tommorrow.

Look, I have all the respect in the world for CSP, but I cant say he's the right person for the job at this time, so I'd be hesitent to vote for this nomination.

You didn't as questions. You made statements and expected people to argue with them.

If you wanted to me to elaborate further on why I thought CSP was the best choice, you should have asked me (as President and the individual nominating CSP for this role) for clarification.

If you wanted CSP to expand further on his judicial interests and experiences, you should have asked him to do so.

You made statements that you figured would be interpreted as questions and interpreted accordingly. Like CSP, I welcome questions of my nominees; I question the merit to posting statements without solid factual basis as if they are questions, as I don't know that they actually add much to the conversation or the confirmation process.

 

[Notolecta]

I didn't distort anything CSP. You went into the Senate and were completely disrespectful to the process. You could have easily explained why you were the best choice at the time, but chose instead to simply ignore the a legitimate concern about your appointment. You fail to see that there is a difference between "I have nothing to say" and "I should make it known that I don't plan to." There is a difference between "I will be active as long as I am able to" and "I'm here for as long as I'm here". You chose your words and they represent your intent, whether you wanted them to show that intent or not. The wording you used shows only arrogance and a clear assertion that you can't be bothered with the Senate.

I tend to agree with CSP here. I'm not saying that he couldn't have responded to your comments, but like he said, you didn't ask him any questions. Your comments were - and I quote:

I actually must question whether CSP is the best choice. While CSP is an intellegent and hardworking indivdual, he's hardly a judicial expert and I wonder if there is not a more judicially minded candidate for the position. That said I do of course take great satisfaction in the fact that this is a nominee that has been less politically active as of late, and it is not unknown that I like a depoliticized bench. I'm also unsure about CSP's response to the question on his activity; it leads me to believe we have no reason to believe he won't just leave tommorrow.

Look, I have all the respect in the world for CSP, but I cant say he's the right person for the job at this time, so I'd be hesitent to vote for this nomination.

You didn't as questions. You made statements and expected people to argue with them.

If you wanted to me to elaborate further on why I thought CSP was the best choice, you should have asked me (as President and the individual nominating CSP for this role) for clarification.

If you wanted CSP to expand further on his judicial interests and experiences, you should have asked him to do so.

You made statements that you figured would be interpreted as questions and interpreted accordingly. Like CSP, I welcome questions of my nominees; I question the merit to posting statements without solid factual basis as if they are questions, as I don't know that they actually add much to the conversation or the confirmation process.

Legitimate concerns are requests for clarification. Would it really have been different if I said the same things just with a question mark? No, it wouldn't have.

 

[Lethen]

Yes, it would have. One is direct. The other is indirect.

 

[Vinage Vinage]

Lethen has stupid views

Lethen, what do you say to those who think you have stupid views?

One question, one statement. Also I don't think Lethen has stupid views. He's an unfortunate example

 

[Notolecta]

Lethen has stupid views

Lethen, what do you say to those who think you have stupid views?

One question, one statement. Also I don't think Lethen has stupid views. He's an unfortunate example

Expect what I said was about my concerns, not a firm comment. An expression of concern isn't a statement, it is a request for clarification. Especially when the work questioning is used in the statement.

 

[Common-Sense Politics]

You're literally just making things up now. An expression of concern is by definition a statement. It may be a request for clarification. And we're talking about my mind for interpretation...

 

[Brunhilde]

I actually must question whether CSP is the best choice. While CSP is an intellegent and hardworking indivdual, he's hardly a judicial expert and I wonder if there is not a more judicially minded candidate for the position.

I realize that I haven't exactly been around for very long, but I have to question this. You, yourself have provided me with the info that you have been Chief Justice two times. Alongside that experience you have been a Senator 4 times, the MinComm, a Chairman twice, an Attorney General, an Associate Justice three times(I'd like to mark this, as I believe it to be more relevant that the Chief Justice ascension), the Minister of Interior, Grand Admiral twice, and the Mayor of the Council. I believe that I have heard not only you yourself refer to yourself as a legal expert but I also remember hearing it from others so let's use that as a basis to the way we judge people here, yes?

CSP, on the other hand, has been President four times, Vice President twice, Grand Admiral twelve different times(on a side note, holy shit), MoFA five times, MoFC once, MwP once, Attorney General twice, Senate Speaker twice, a Senator nine different times, and, assuming that he is counting his current term as Associate Justice as well, a Justice once.

Now, I'm no expert on Judicial experience, but I have to say that CSP does seem like a potential judicial expert. I mean, the man has more experience working with legislation than even you do. Aside from that, he's been in executive positions that require him to be mindful of current laws(assuming he spent the full term in office) a total of 560 days. That includes his stints as President, Vice President, and his time as the Attorney General. Once again assuming that he served an entire term, he has served a total of 630 days as a legislator for a grand total of 1160 days working with and around our legal system. Even without the total number of days that he has spent as a Justice. This, of course, isn't adjusted for any terms cut short or for any time in our history that we had terms that weren't 70 days. Regardless, it would still be a long ass time. With that said, the idea that CSP isn't a judicial expert is absolutely ridiculous. The idea that the President should have looked for someone more judicially minded is even more ridiculous. In fact, this entire subject is completely ridiculous.

CSP is, without a doubt, qualified to serve on the bench. Frankly, I think he's qualified to serve wherever he damn well pleases whenever he damn well feels like it.

 

[Brunhilde]

Sorry, forgot something.

In comparison, you've held similar positions for 350 days. Even if we include your time as an Associate Justice, with terms of 120 days, you only make it to 710 days. 450 fewer days working with law.

 

[Lethen]

While quality over quantity is usually my opinion, holy shit. Brun just won.

 

[Vinage Vinage]

But there weren't any questions in it, so we might not get an answer

 

[Notolecta]

Yup, because senate and executive expeirnce equals judicial prowess. That assertion from brun is not at all a fallacy. It's also super relevent to his behavior in the confirmation thread and the point of this article.