[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:

1712094322755.png


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.
 
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.
We need to be more willing to push on the President to answer for the activity of their ministers.

As much as I don't think we want to make the job of President any more burdensome, selecting effective ministers is probably the most critical aspect of the job.
 
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.
We need to be more willing to push on the President to answer for the activity of their ministers.

As much as I don't think we want to make the job of President any more burdensome, selecting effective ministers is probably the most critical aspect of the job.

I don't necessarily disagree - I guess in this case I'm not convinced that handing this responsbility over the PA actually fixes the problem and carries with it what I see as significant negative consequences, but this does at least provide one possible answer for what "oversight failure" would mean - and I could maybe even get on board if we're saying we want to avoid ticky tacky busy work questions but we want more questions (or, to be honest, ANY questions) when things seem to be going wrong. My biggest concern is that if we open up formal oversight to literally everyone in the region, I think we're more likely going to get more of the "busywork" oversight and not necessarily any more of the "quality" oversight, but I certainly could be wrong.
 
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.
We need to be more willing to push on the President to answer for the activity of their ministers.

As much as I don't think we want to make the job of President any more burdensome, selecting effective ministers is probably the most critical aspect of the job.

I don't necessarily disagree - I guess in this case I'm not convinced that handing this responsbility over the PA actually fixes the problem and carries with it what I see as significant negative consequences, but this does at least provide one possible answer for what "oversight failure" would mean - and I could maybe even get on board if we're saying we want to avoid ticky tacky busy work questions but we want more questions (or, to be honest, ANY questions) when things seem to be going wrong. My biggest concern is that if we open up formal oversight to literally everyone in the region, I think we're more likely going to get more of the "busywork" oversight and not necessarily any more of the "quality" oversight, but I certainly could be wrong.
One of the problems between Senate oversight and PA oversight is that currently the Senate oversight has "teeth" - if a minister or Pres fails to respond, they are violating the law.

If we move oversight to the PA, we should likely remove that. And then if the President or a minister feels that some particular questions should be ignored, then they run the risk of the question becoming bigger and more people upset.

Re-politicize the oversight process. Make non-response politically risky again, not just perfunctory and legally forced.

The President responds to discussions in Euro all the time in discord, on the forums, etc. Let the President decide what constitutes "busywork" oversight from "worthwhile" oversight at their own risk.
 
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.
We need to be more willing to push on the President to answer for the activity of their ministers.

As much as I don't think we want to make the job of President any more burdensome, selecting effective ministers is probably the most critical aspect of the job.

I don't necessarily disagree - I guess in this case I'm not convinced that handing this responsbility over the PA actually fixes the problem and carries with it what I see as significant negative consequences, but this does at least provide one possible answer for what "oversight failure" would mean - and I could maybe even get on board if we're saying we want to avoid ticky tacky busy work questions but we want more questions (or, to be honest, ANY questions) when things seem to be going wrong. My biggest concern is that if we open up formal oversight to literally everyone in the region, I think we're more likely going to get more of the "busywork" oversight and not necessarily any more of the "quality" oversight, but I certainly could be wrong.
One of the problems between Senate oversight and PA oversight is that currently the Senate oversight has "teeth" - if a minister or Pres fails to respond, they are violating the law.

If we move oversight to the PA, we should likely remove that. And then if the President or a minister feels that some particular questions should be ignored, then they run the risk of the question becoming bigger and more people upset.

Re-politicize the oversight process. Make non-response politically risky again, not just perfunctory and legally forced.

The President responds to discussions in Euro all the time in discord, on the forums, etc. Let the President decide what constitutes "busywork" oversight from "worthwhile" oversight at their own risk.
I'm open to that idea. It always seemed to me that the consequences of being non-responsiveness were better as political consequences than as legal consequences anyway. Legal consequences for someone not providing sufficient answers is fraught with subjectivity and never set particularly well with me.

I'm still concerned about an over-proliferation of questions causing a decrease in willingness to serve as a minister, but that looks a lot more like something that, as DH says, can just be rolled back and removed if it proves to be true. I'm also not sure I like the idea of removing Oversight from the Senate entirely. I think it's still a useful and necessary tool to investigate whether removal (or some other sanction) is appropriate if things really go sideways with a minister. I think I'd be more open to the idea that we open up the PA to oversight with political consequences, and leave it available as a tool to be used by the Senate in situations that potentially are serious enough to remove a minister. Perhaps also allow a vote by the PA that would function the same way as Pre-Legislation only with ministerial removal. In other words, perhaps allow the PA to recommend to the Senate that a minister be removed. I still prefer to see the Senate retain the authority to do the removal, but I understand I may be in the minority there. I just think that works better, but I'm interested in hearing what other people think.
 
I'm of the same mind as Lloenflys in terms of not believing it would be beneficial to move oversight to the PA at this juncture. If the PA was fully back on its feet, things were moving through effectively without multiple prods, and we had easy and organic participation, maybe the PA could take on the responsibility of oversight. But unfortunately we're just not there yet.

Oversight belongs to the Senate because they're the elected body that's supposed to hold the Executive accountable. It's part of our checks and balances, and if we remove that from the Senate in favor of moving it to the PA, then we're effectively removing a huge part of the Senate's duties.
 
@Lloenflys (because I am on mobile and don’t want to mess with quoting)

I’m not ignoring the question. I’m not the one to decide what an effective oversight program is. That would be for the PA.

What we do know is the Senate has continuously failed. It isn’t a secret. Senators are always trying to cook up something new to try to do it, but it never works and fizzles out. This term included.

It’s simply time to try something else.
 
Back
Top