6th Senate Week in Review | 07/23-07/30


ebclogo2.png

ebcbreakingnews.png


6th Senate Week in Review | 07/23-07/30

Written by Kasa and Evelyn
Edited by Grea Kriopia


INTRODUCTION

Welcome back to Senate Week in Review. I would like to extend a special thanks to Evelyn for stepping in last week while I was away. After her excellent work on the previous issue, she joins me again today as co-writer. The EBC returns this week with a notable change to the series, the introduction of Star Senators.

Every week, the writer(s) of Senate Week in Review will take a look at the activity, contributions, and overall performance of each serving Senator throughout that week. The Senator that is judged to have the largest positive impact on Senate discussions throughout that week will be named the Star Senator for that week. Ultimately, the purpose of this system is to offer citizens a concise and clear spotlight on individuals who are excelling in their Senatorial roles.

Elections Act (2024)

Attorney General Calvin Coolidge noted this week that his concerns with the previous version of Speaker Rand’s bill (concerns which caused the bill to be vetoed) were no longer present in regards to the one currently under consideration. This is a good sign for Speaker Rand and proponents of Approval Voting, who now will likely not have to worry about a repeat of the prior bill’s failure.

That said, the new bill still has to pass the Senate. Senators appear to be waiting for Speaker Rand to publish his promised explanatory notes, so discussion on the bill stalled this week. Given the large scope and comprehensive nature of this bill, it seems like it still has a very long road to trek before it becomes law, if it ever does.

PAC Senate Voting Act (2024) & PAC Senate Contributions Act (2024)

As the current version of the act has so far failed to gain broad support, Speaker Rand suggested that the bill be tabled. Senator Cordova seconded a motion to table, although it should be noted that such a motion was never presented.

Senator Gem, who authored the bill, responded to Senator Sopo’s question about a rewritten bill granting the PAC speaking rights by stating that they would “be capable of drafting a new bill in the next day or two” on the 24th. Senator Gem also added that, given there was still clear Senate interest in a modified version of this bill, it would not make sense to table it.

Just after the draft of this article was written (and just prior to the announcement of their resignation), Senator Gem posted a rewritten bill, the People's Assembly Chair Senate Contributions Act. This bill, following the prevailing opinion within the Senate, would extend Senate speaking rights to the PAC Chair. It has so far received a positive response from Senator Cordova and Speaker Rand. The EBC will return next week with a more in-depth analysis on the bill.

People’s Assembly Referenda Act (2024) & Resolution 015: Recognizing the Nethelian Faith

There was no discussion within the Senate on either of these pieces of legislation this week.

Senator Gem's Resignation

Senator Gem announced their early resignation today in a letter posted to the Speaker's Office.

In their resignation letter, they expressed concerns regarding the current Senate's activity levels, commenting that "[they've] seen both Senator activity and public engagement fall to pitiful levels". Senator Gem's concerns regarding senate activity will likely resonate with the public - at the time of writing, the current Senate has only passed a single piece of legislation, the Substitute Reform Act. Senator Gem noted that they attempted to improve Senate activity by introducing "novel concepts such as cultural NBRs", though they stated that they "failed to put in the work to follow through with such projects."

Furthermore, Senator Gem said that they may risk spreading themselves too thin if they continue their Senate term alongside their other responsibilities, NationStates and otherwise. Senator Gem closed their resignation letter by expressing their desire to run for the Senate again in the near future. This was echoed by fellow Senator Cordova, who said: "I'm sure I'll see you back in the Senate soon."

Senator Gem is to be commended for their efforts in raising senatorial activity - of the six pieces of legislation introduced in the current senate, three of them were introduced by Senator Gem, with the PAC Senate Contributions Act seeming very likely to become law. Their contributions will surely be missed for the remainder of the 95th Senate.

Star Senator

Resigning is never easy, and having the courage, clarity and wisdom to pass the torch is far from a common trait. Even when that choice is made, it is often far too easy to immediately let go of one's remaining responsibilities. Senator Gem did not do that. While demonstrating a clear understanding and knowledge that they could not realistically manage Senatorial responsibilities for the remainder of their term, they still had the diligence to fully rewrite a contested bill, rather than pass that responsibility on to the other Senators or their successor.

For their legislative efforts this week, as well as the qualities demonstrated by their decision to step away, the EBC hereby names Senator Gem the first-ever Star Senator.

CONCLUSION

There was a general decline in Senate activity this week, following the relatively high amounts of conversation surrounding the vote on Substitute Reform, which passed last week. However, the effects of Senator Gem's resignation (and the resulting by-election) may send a clear signal to the rest of the Senate, and trigger a change of pace. Whatever happens, the EBC hopes you will join us again next week, for another edition of Senate Week in Review. Thanks for reading.
 
I love these summaries/analyses, thank you so much!!
 
What is the purpose of naming a specific person as the "Star Senator" - especially on the sole grounds that they resigned from the Senate?

As far as I am aware, the EBC has generally not, in a news reporting, taken a particular position in favour of or against particular people or political issues. There is a history of the EBC publishing op-eds, but those are always clearly marked as the personal opinions of a private citizen, rather than of the outlet as a whole.

Maybe the author would not know this, but the Minister of Communications (or whoever is running the Ministry in their stead, given Ellenburg's leave of abscence) certainly would, and so I'm wondering if this was simply an oversight, or it was noticed and allowed it to be published anyways.
 
What is the purpose of naming a specific person as the "Star Senator" - especially on the sole grounds that they resigned from the Senate?

As far as I am aware, the EBC has generally not, in a news reporting, taken a particular position in favour of or against particular people or political issues. There is a history of the EBC publishing op-eds, but those are always clearly marked as the personal opinions of a private citizen, rather than of the outlet as a whole.

Maybe the author would not know this, but the Minister of Communications (or whoever is running the Ministry in their stead, given Ellenburg's leave of abscence) certainly would, and so I'm wondering if this was simply an oversight, or it was noticed and allowed it to be published anyways.
Someone being named Star Senator is not, in any way, an endorsement from the EBC. As I mentioned in the article, the system is drawn from the overall activity level of that Senator in that specific week, as well as the quality of their contributions. None of it is based on the personal political views of the writers, editors, or staff at the EBC. Of course, the writers are human, so there is potential for bias in this as there is in any publication. However, as we have in the past, we will do our utmost to remain unbiased in our reporting.

The purpose of this system, as was originally envisioned, is to celebrate the activity and contributions of individuals as a whole, rather than taking a partisan stance on issues. (This is somewhat comparable to Citizen Spotlight, just for Senators.) It's always nice to have your efforts recognized, after all.

To be clear, this sytem is planned to continue every week, it isn't a special announcement for one Senator.

There were some suggestions offered regarding taking a closer look at Senate activity posted on the recent Week in Review threads, so this is the change made in response to that.
 
Reporting on the activity levels and actions of Senators is one thing. Singling out one individual Senator - on the basis of a subjective evaluation where you admit that there is "potential for bias" - as the "Star Senator" is quite another, and I don't understand how that is not an endorsement. There is a time and place for recognizing people for service to the region, even if doing that may have a political benefit for the awardees as well; I do not think news reporting is that.
 
you admit that there is "potential for bias"
There is potential for bias in all reporting, because all reporting is done by humans who are susceptible to (overt or subconscious) bias. This isn't a controversial statement, it is one accepted by literally every news network, and one that all reputable media outlets acknowledge and strive to fight against in their reporting. There is no one who isn't susceptible to bias. This has been an accepted fact in psychology for many years.

I don't understand how that is not an endorsement.

To repeat what I have already said, it is not an endorsement, it is a recognition of activity and legislative contributions, regardless of our own opinions. If you do not trust the EBC to make unbiased judgements, that is fundamentally your call. I would argue that the majority of Europeians would disagree with you, even when just looking at the history of this Week in Review series. Nearly all of the comments have been positive, though the series by its very nature discusess controversial legislative topics. When it comes to our recent performance in objectively covering the Senate, there quite literally is not a better case study.

Reporting on the activity levels and actions of Senators is one thing

Reporting on the activity levels and actions of Senators is not just "one thing", it is exactly what we are doing.

on the basis of a subjective evaluation
Again, if you sincerely don't believe that we can make objective evaluations, that is up to you. If you have some other suggestion that you believe would accomplish the same objective but in a better way, I'd love to hear it. Right now, this is the change that has been implemented.

There is a time and place for recognizing people for service to the region, even if doing that may have a political benefit for the awardees as well; I do not think news reporting is that.
You mentioned in your first post that you believed we had
taken a particular position in favour of or against particular people or political issues.
So, which is it? Do you believe this system is taking political stances, or do you believe it is recognizing Senators for their service?

If you believe the latter (as your most recent post would suggest), then I do not understand why you are asserting that our evaluation is guaranteed to be "subjective". It is possible (fairly easy, even) to take an objective look at how much a Senator has contributed to discussion in comparison to their fellow Senators in a given week, and decide after comparing all of them who has been the most active. Poll respondents do that to help inform their decisions all the time.

Apologies for the rather long-winded response, but I find it incredibly unfair to accuse a group of people as widely respected within the community as the EBC of "bias" and "subjective evaluations" after the first article introducing a new change to a series is out. If Star Senator went to someone who very clearly did not contribute to discussions as much as others did during a given week, or repeatedly went to one or two Senators despite others often making valuable contributions, then I could entertain this point. But it hasn't, because it is literally the first week of its existence.

If you disagree with our pick, that is fine. But I would ask you very strongly not to make unfounded assertions about the objectivity of the EBC.
 
Back
Top