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.

 

[Brunhilde]

You're right, Noto. Extensive experience in the Executive and the Senate do not equal judicial prowess. They equal familiarity with the law and an understanding thereof, which goes on to equal the same judicial prowess that you are talking about. I may be mistaken, but the definition of fallacy is "a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument." I don't know about you, Noto, but I see extensive experience working with legislation and around legislation as enough proof to back up my claims of CSP's judicial prowess. If anything, I see your argument with its lack of proof or any definable substance as a fallacy.


Furthermore, I was referencing a single thing that you said which brought up questions about CSP's ability to be a judge. No where did I mention or reference your argument about his behavior in the thread.

 

[hyanygo]

Brunhilde errs when she equates familiarity to specific (but easily learnt at Europeian level) skills. Brunhilde should have made more of a point of his experience as Attorney General. Furthermore, Brunhilde's comments here:

Extensive experience in the Executive and the Senate do not equal judicial prowess. They equal familiarity with the law and an understanding thereof, which goes on to equal the same judicial prowess that you are talking about.

is logically invalid. Let:
E = Extensive experience in the Executive and the Senate
J = Judical prowess
F = Familarity with the law
U = Understanding of the law

!=Negation
V=Disjunction
&=Conjunction

Premise 1:
"Extensive experience in the Executive and the Senate do not equal judicial prowess."
E -> !J

Argument 2:
E->(F&U) Premise a
(F&U)->J Premise b
E->J Conclusion of argument 2

Therefore, logically, Brunhilde's argument is invalid.

 

[Brunhilde]

Brunhilde errs when she equates familiarity to specific (but easily learnt at Europeian level) skills. Brunhilde should have made more of a point of his experience as Attorney General. Furthermore, Brunhilde's comments here:

Extensive experience in the Executive and the Senate do not equal judicial prowess. They equal familiarity with the law and an understanding thereof, which goes on to equal the same judicial prowess that you are talking about.

I won't touch the second part of this. Nope.

I should have clarified my statement. CSP's extensive experience in the positions I reference create a familiarity with the law and the legislative process, thus contributing to a mind that can be considered to be judicially sound in any opinion it makes. I merely did not express it well.

 

[hyanygo]

Can you think of a case where someone can be familiar with the law and the legislative process, yet not function adequately as a Justice? Pez and other early Justices come to mind. Familiarity is operational here in Europeia and the legislative process does not give (many) special insights in how to apply rules to controversies. You may, Brunhilde, argue that it is necessary but you cannot argue that it is sufficient. Your argument, through counterexample, is invalid.