EBC By-Election Debate


EBC Debate
From the Europeian Broadcasting Corporation, one of Europeia’s premier Media groups.
Keeping Europeians and the world informed since 2009.

JGlenn-Sopo​


I'm here today with the two Candidates for the Senate's free seat - Sopo and JGlenn. From now until the start of the election there will be a question asked to the two candidates who will then do make the following:

1. An opening statement on the question
2. A comment regarding their opponents opening statements
3. A defensive statement regarding their opponents comments

[e.g. JGlenn answers "X" Sopo Counters "X" JGlenn Disagrees "X" and vice-versa]

I ask citizens to please make their comments here regarding what the two candidates discuss.

So, to start....

During the last Senate term, specifically under HEM's Speakership, the Senate had two committees that would call Minister to speak and answer the Senate's questions.

How far should the Senate go as a check on the Executive?
 
Click to expand...
When I served as President, each Senator was designated as a critic and the Cabinet was called to come before the Senate to answer questions every so often. The system had good intentions, but oftentimes the Senators would fail to ask questions so the plan fell through. I agree with the mentality of the Senate holding the Executive accountable. This is not something I would like to see legislated, rather, something each Senate should seek to do of its own accord. We have a system of checks and balances and the Senate should do its part.
 
This should go without saying, but obviously the Senate has two basic functions, Legislation, and checking on the Executive and Judicial. For the sake of this question, I will, obviously, focus solely on the Executive. So what are these checks? First off, The Senate confirms all of the Executive appointments (Cabinet), and then has the power to veto Executive Orders. My thought is that it should stop there, as everything I've seen done after these have really been what I would call Useless Activity.

I know that the Senate is looking for more Activity, however acting as Critics or having the Ministers to report to committees isn't constructive. As a former Minister, I was never a fan as they never served their purpose. The Senate doesn't have the power to remove Ministers, so therefore I don't see the point in having the Senate going that far in its check on the Executive.
 
I see nothing wrong with the Senate taking additional measures in order to act as a check on the Executive. The committees mentioned, however, have fallen inactive. I do not believe that it is necessary to have a standing committee on the issue. The committee is a good idea, it was just not executed well enough. I'd like to see the committees combined. Furthermore, I'd like to see each member of the committee be assigned oversight on an individual Ministry. Regular reports to the entire body will not be necessary so long as committee members are satisfied with the progress of their assigned Ministry. This should be done in a way as to not impede on the regular duties of the Executive. Ideally, it will only require minimal communication between a Senator and their assigned Minister. Can you say synergy?
 
I only ask what the purpose of Ministers reporting to Senators would be? Under Constitution V, the Senate only has the Power to remove the President, Vice President, the President's deputies, or other Senators. Nowhere does it define the Cabinet as those deputies, only that the President is allowed to appoint deputies. I see this only as a useless activity boost, which the outcome will be pointless. Now obviously, if we change or add to include Cabinet members as deputies under the Constitution, this would change my view on this issue, but not by much. To make an individual report to multiple "managers" is just bad management, which is what we would be doing by making Ministers "report" to senators.
 
Okay to keep the debate flowing now [and now that both candidates have at least had a chance to speak and disagree with their opponent] time for another question. This one coming semi coming from Hyanygo but now edited by moi:

During the Law Reforms some laws went through a lot more discussion and debate than others - often some disagreeing with the final outcome.

Would you advocate reviewing some of the new, and dropped, legislation passed through the Law Reforms? And why?
 
Let me clarify. Ministers would not need to "report" to the Senators. That system is flawed and has not worked in the past. The Ministers are accountable to the President, and the President is accountable to the people. The Senators would simply be paying special attention to their assigned Ministry, only asking questions and communication with the Minister so far as it is necessary to understand what is going on in the Ministry. The Senator, then, reports to the committee that "all is well" or "x is not well." From there, the committee can deliver a "satisfaction report" of sorts to the President, who can use that to improve the Ministries. The end goal is to keep the Executive accountable, and I don't see this as a burden to either the Senators involved for the Ministers.

Edit: Ninja'd by Vinage. Sorry.
 
I felt that the whole Law Reform process went by too quickly. While I was Mayor, and when running for Mayor this previous term, I was hoping to get the City Council involved in the process, so that we can have more eyes looking over these acts. My thoughts are that this whole process is an on-going process, and that we should be reviewing laws even after the overhaul happened. So yes, I do feel we should bring some of these acts back onto the floor of the Senate.
 
Sopo said:
Let me clarify. Ministers would not need to "report" to the Senators. That system is flawed and has not worked in the past. The Ministers are accountable to the President, and the President is accountable to the people. The Senators would simply be paying special attention to their assigned Ministry, only asking questions and communication with the Minister so far as it is necessary to understand what is going on in the Ministry. The Senator, then, reports to the committee that "all is well" or "x is not well." From there, the committee can deliver a "satisfaction report" of sorts to the President, who can use that to improve the Ministries. The end goal is to keep the Executive accountable, and I don't see this as a burden to either the Senators involved for the Ministers.

Edit: Ninja'd by Vinage. Sorry.
Click to expand...
(sorry to do this, but I had to)

What you are explaining is "reporting" to a senator no matter how you spin it. A manager asks questions, and pays special attention to their subordinates. That manager then create "satisfaction reports" or performance reviews which are then forwarded onto Human Resources. So therefore the Ministers are still reports to both the President/VP AND whichever Senator is "watching" that Ministry.
 
I agree with JGlenn, for the most part. Any acts that the Senate promised to re-evaluate after passing the reform need to be looked at again. If we fail to maintain the law, we'll end up with the need for another law reform. Our goal should be to preserve a functioning body of law with a minimum of (optimally no) mistakes.

Edit: To the previous question, I'd be happy to continue discussing this elsewhere if Vinage would prefer that. Meanwhile, I'll abstain from responding as to not clutter/confuse the debate.
 
To respond to Sopo on the 2nd Question, I have nothing to debate there. We seem to agree on this issue.
 
Apologies for the delay in posting up a new question. Yesterday's exam printing kicked my rear.

Should Europeia return to either the use of MRS, MSA, something in-between or nothing at all?
 
Well with the Ban on Auto-TG recruiting, it is only fitting that we return to the MRA. I see no problem with that, and actually welcome it back warmly. Recruiting is something I've always have kinda enjoyed, so having to go back to manual recruiting, if elected, won't phase me. If others wish to add other things to the MRA to make it similar to the MSA, then so be it, however I will be fulfilling my quota via recruitment only.
 
On the contrary, I would like to see a (minimum) one-month waiting period before re-instituting the MRA. The bulk of recruiting is not done because of the MRA, in fact, I expect it has little impact overall. I'd like to see how the region does without mandatory recruiting before mandating it once again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top