It has been a little over a month since the start of the Senate's Advice and Oversight Committee, and so far, I have yet to be paid for my contributions. I accept cash, checks, and Taylor Swift memorabilia, for those wishing to right this wrong. Despite this clear oversight, the committee remains a part of our Senate, although its purpose, usefulness, and activity are up for debate. Who can we trust to make sure this issue gets debated to the fullest? I don't know either, but I thought I might as well give it a shot.
To begin, what is the Senate Advice and Oversight Committee? According to Committee Chair Angelus' opening statement in his speech: "Let's get to business", he says "the members of this body shall look to assist and provide oversight to the executive branch of Europeian Government". So far this thing is really living up to its name. For those of you who may be lacking in the definition department, the definition of oversight, according to Merriam-Webster, is "watchful and responsible care". That sounds pretty nice, actually. So, this committee will be there to help the government when it falls down and busts a hip. When you look back in the sand on the beach and see only one set of footprints, that's where the committee carried you, government. You're welcome.
Clearly, then, it's purpose has been to provide that wonderful thing we call oversight to our Executive branch. So far, the committee has looked at two different topics, a gameside participation award, which has been in discussion for about a month, and a revision of the CSO (Civil Service Office), which has been in discussion for about two weeks. The first topic has, for the most part, settled down after a consensus was reached to make an award for participating in RMB talks, and similar participation. A few days ago, Minister of the Interior Writinglegend said that the award will soon be released by his Ministry. So, for all intents and purposes, that talk can be considered a success, as the committee came up with an idea that will be used by the Executive. The other topic has essentially come down to making Assistant Ministers that can move from one Ministry to the other. There has been no word from the Vice-President on whether this change will be implemented, but this is likely due to holiday season slowing a lot of the government's activity down.
Speaking of slowing down government activity, some have said that the committee is moving too slowly, and not very reactive. Who has said that? I did, just now. In several Senate campaign platforms, candidates talked about the advantages or disadvantages of committees, and how they should (or should not) operate, if they were to be re-instated. Sopo, perhaps the most vocal supporter of the Oversight Committee, argued in his platform that "committees can play an invaluable role both in holding the Executive branch accountable and in creating a more dynamic political environment". However, the main issue from the last Presidential election in terms of Executive accountability, the lack of foreign updates, was not touched at all by the committee. In the last set of committees, set up by HEM a few months ago, a Minister was called to answer for his lack of activity, and it seems that Sopo and his fellow supporters would have liked to see that sort of discussion again. One could argue that it might be overreach to call a Minister to answer for one lackluster job performance, but Sopo even went so far as to say in his platform, "I faced a panel of Senate critics as President, and I believe I was better for it. I hope my fellow Senators will allow me to return the favor".
Now, those opposed to the committee would say that the above action would be going too far, and Kraketopia, during his Senate campaign had this to say, "if we were to grant them the power to force Ministers to appear before them, or talk about removing Ministers for not appearing before them, I would consider this a gross overstep of Senate authority and an infringement upon the rights and powers of our Executive". Perhaps the number of members on the committee that are opposed to the idea was the deterrent for not taking action, but either way, it is something to think about.
How should the committee move forward? Has it accomplished enough to continue for the rest of the term? What about next term? How many questions can I put in a row before people stop reading this article? These answers and more will likely be put forth in the comments section. Until next time, this is Calvin Coolidge, signing off.
To begin, what is the Senate Advice and Oversight Committee? According to Committee Chair Angelus' opening statement in his speech: "Let's get to business", he says "the members of this body shall look to assist and provide oversight to the executive branch of Europeian Government". So far this thing is really living up to its name. For those of you who may be lacking in the definition department, the definition of oversight, according to Merriam-Webster, is "watchful and responsible care". That sounds pretty nice, actually. So, this committee will be there to help the government when it falls down and busts a hip. When you look back in the sand on the beach and see only one set of footprints, that's where the committee carried you, government. You're welcome.
Clearly, then, it's purpose has been to provide that wonderful thing we call oversight to our Executive branch. So far, the committee has looked at two different topics, a gameside participation award, which has been in discussion for about a month, and a revision of the CSO (Civil Service Office), which has been in discussion for about two weeks. The first topic has, for the most part, settled down after a consensus was reached to make an award for participating in RMB talks, and similar participation. A few days ago, Minister of the Interior Writinglegend said that the award will soon be released by his Ministry. So, for all intents and purposes, that talk can be considered a success, as the committee came up with an idea that will be used by the Executive. The other topic has essentially come down to making Assistant Ministers that can move from one Ministry to the other. There has been no word from the Vice-President on whether this change will be implemented, but this is likely due to holiday season slowing a lot of the government's activity down.
Speaking of slowing down government activity, some have said that the committee is moving too slowly, and not very reactive. Who has said that? I did, just now. In several Senate campaign platforms, candidates talked about the advantages or disadvantages of committees, and how they should (or should not) operate, if they were to be re-instated. Sopo, perhaps the most vocal supporter of the Oversight Committee, argued in his platform that "committees can play an invaluable role both in holding the Executive branch accountable and in creating a more dynamic political environment". However, the main issue from the last Presidential election in terms of Executive accountability, the lack of foreign updates, was not touched at all by the committee. In the last set of committees, set up by HEM a few months ago, a Minister was called to answer for his lack of activity, and it seems that Sopo and his fellow supporters would have liked to see that sort of discussion again. One could argue that it might be overreach to call a Minister to answer for one lackluster job performance, but Sopo even went so far as to say in his platform, "I faced a panel of Senate critics as President, and I believe I was better for it. I hope my fellow Senators will allow me to return the favor".
Now, those opposed to the committee would say that the above action would be going too far, and Kraketopia, during his Senate campaign had this to say, "if we were to grant them the power to force Ministers to appear before them, or talk about removing Ministers for not appearing before them, I would consider this a gross overstep of Senate authority and an infringement upon the rights and powers of our Executive". Perhaps the number of members on the committee that are opposed to the idea was the deterrent for not taking action, but either way, it is something to think about.
How should the committee move forward? Has it accomplished enough to continue for the rest of the term? What about next term? How many questions can I put in a row before people stop reading this article? These answers and more will likely be put forth in the comments section. Until next time, this is Calvin Coolidge, signing off.
