Opinion: This Is Not Senate Work
Defending Arnhelm's Autonomy
Written by Astrellan
Back in June 2019, I made the decision to run for my second Senate term after finishing a partial one just before. My platform went into detail on only one legislative issue -- creating the City-State of Arnhelm. In that election, I received the highest amount of votes, tying with DAX.
You see, the region itself had started a movement to create Arnhelm and even abolish the Citizens' Assembly (CA) - which, ironically was proposed in the CA. Why? My post in the Senate thread here is a good representation of my thoughts about the CA at the time. The institution had been suffering for quite some time - for years, as some people have said. So, you could imagine my surprise and shock when the idea of an Arnhelm Investigatory Committee (AIC), in its original form on Senator Darkslayer's platform, even suggested that it could resolve to "bring back the CA to replace Arnhelm."
At first, I didn't want to shoot down the idea in its entirety. Though I made my reservations about the idea clear, I did not want to suggest that the idea is meritless - after all, I could see one possible good idea that could come out of it -- the creation of a specific ground/place for legislative training. But, as I thought about the idea more over the coming days and seeing the thread proposed in the Senate just today, I came to a strong conclusion: this is not Senate work.
This committee is not something the Senate should be doing. It is clear that Arnhelm has a community which is passionate in running and playing an RP legislature - 14 Ordinances do not write themselves. There is activity. Say what you will about the times when Arnhelm was not running at full speed - frankly, it followed activity patterns relating to the region and it's completely unreasonable to expect high activity all the time, especially from a niche community. In any case, Arnhelm has often had a high level of activity. Contested elections, amendments galore, policy decisions, political parties - they are there and they have happened.
It is clear that people care about Arnhelm and it is clear that it has a good level of activity, especially for something which mainly focuses on legislation-drafting, an activity that does not appeal to all Europeians. I don't really think it's appropriate therefore for the Senate to open the committee, especially now. It's an activity for the people who care about it. If they had any issues with Arnhelm, such as activity levels, lack of legislation, etc, they are more than empowered to post about it themselves or make an internal committee in Arnhelm.
I'm not alone in these thoughts either. Former Mayor of Arnhelm Olde Delaware told me that he is "disappointed that the Senate, particularly [Calvin], continue to try to find work arounds to get rid of Arnhelm", adding that "these are people, with the exception of GraV who couldn't be bothered to join and stay active in [Arnhelm]". He questions their ability to "fairly find the facts". I held reservations about the fairness of such a committee too, especially one which considered in its first iteration the option of removing Arnhelm. There was no clear message on what standards they would use; after all, how can you fairly measure whether Arnhelm is completing its "original goal"? Laws per month? New legislators per week? It does not sound right to me.
The current Mayor of Arnhelm Forilian pointed out the fact that "Arnhelm hasn't even existed for a whole year at this point", saying "it'd be foolish to look at its pros and cons this early into its existence". He adds that with Arnhelm's current level of activity, he is not sure we "need" a "fact-finding committee" at all. I completely agree with this -- Arnhelm has, recently, been building up a bigger executive for the first time since it started. This will only accelerate as more laws are passed which require executive agencies. Now is not a good time to judge Arnhelm, if at all.
Senator and Former Mayor Prim made similar remarks in Discord today, sharing his concern over the "shifting narrative" of the AIC: "What concerns me slightly is that this committee was originally billed as determining the fate of Arnhelm -- and now it's being presented to the Senate as a "fact-finding" committee." He also retells his efforts "to keep Arnhelm from trying to entangle itself too much with Europeia", and his frustration that he now has "to fight to get Europeia to do the same". Again, my views incarnate - the first amendment I passed on the City Council Act was named the "Arnhelm Autonomy Amendment" for a reason. Arnhelm should remain as autonomous as possible - this committee does not aid that.
Former Senator Ervald told me his opinion on what this situation is like: "this committee is framing itself like a prosecutor from Ace Attorney and their detectives trying to find out the truth, when really, they are deciding if to recommend the death penalty or not." He worries that they are "obsessed with the possibility of trying to get rid of Arnhelm" and they should instead "have an open public discussion in the Senate and the Grand Hall". I too am worried if this committee will spiral from a "fact-finding committee", as it has been rebranded, to a committee concerning itself with the ultimate future of Arnhelm as per the original post - a "death panel", to put it in Ervald's words.
Ex-Senator and Vice-Chancellor Drecq was blunt in his opinion: "The Senate Committee on Arnhelm is the dumbest, most useless thing likely to happen this Senate term", a fact that wouldn't change even if "the Senate term was twice as long." He continues that "Arnhelm is active. But even if it were not, there is literally no cost involved. It costs nothing to run it. It costs nothing not to run it", finishing with saying "that the Senate decides now is the time to look at it and think about changing it, or god forbid even abolish it, is, and I can only say it again, dumb. I am amazed by it." Again, Drecq's opinion nearly mirrors my own - as he said succinctly in Discord, "If [the committee] finds its good, it does nothing. And if it finds it isnt good, it still should do nothing."
I wonder about the nature of the committee, whether it is specifically to "find the facts" or whether it's a front for something much more substantive. I wonder why it was brought up now, after a boom of activity under Mayor Forilian's term and a solid track record besides. I wonder why the Senate can't keep its hands off Arnhelm and let it keep its autonomy as intended from the first draft. And I wonder why we have to rain on the parade of a community who are clearly enjoying what they are doing.
