Failed A Motion to establish Executive Oversight Committee

The Speaker or Chairperson may assign this to a thread that has failed their respective house's legislative process.
Status
Not open for further replies.
EUKBICR

EUKBICR

The Devil
Citizen
Oct 25, 2020
1,729
175
Awards
6
Coat_of_Arms_UDS.png


A MOTION

To Establish a Committee to Oversee the Executive
Introduced into the Senate of the Union of Democratic States on the 14th of August, by @Glaciosia
As follows:
​

UNDERTAKING the authority and responsibility of § 2.2 of the Executive Affairs Act; and of Article II, § 9b of the Constitution of the Union of Democratic States;
BELIEVING that oversight of the Executive is important;
BE IT ENACTED BY THE SENATE:

1. A Committee is established, named the “Executive Oversight Committee”
2. The Committee shall consist of all Senators and Citizens who request membership.
3. The Committee shall be led by a Chair, appointed by the Speaker.
4. The Committee shall operate on a flexible set of rules as established by the Chair.
5. The Committee shall establish a schedule to interview the President and their Ministers on a monthly basis.
6. The proceedings of the committee shall be public.
7. The committee may convene in Discord.
10. The committee shall inform the interviewees of the date of their interview and at least five (5) questions they will ask.
 
My fellow senators and senatorial candidates raised oversight of the executive as a priority for this term. I believe this bill will enable us to do so, while avoiding introducing an extreme burden on our body. Specific choices were made to reduce the workload on the cabinet and ourselves by :
1. allowing these interviews to be done by discord
2. requiring the committee to pre-write questions to avoid useless meetings
3. setting a generous monthly cycle for our interviews.
4. allowing for membership from a broad base of citizens.
 
I have quite a few problems with this in its current construction, although I do support its premise, so I will run down my criticisms and concerns in sequential order.
First off, if we are going to create an oversight committee and establish that it's essentially led by the Senate, why exactly are all Senators inclined to be on it? I think it would be equally logical to have the Speaker appoint a head of the Committee out of the Senators and then allow the citizenry who wishes to be a part of the Committee to be so underneath the Senator. Additionally, I have a slight quibble with the idea of allowing anyone the right to be on the Committee, I think there should be at least some sort of minor application, just to ensure that both the chair and the citizen are in agreement at the seriousness of this topic.
I am also in disagreement over the concept of not having any form of set rules. In the truest sense of the matter, this creates something for the sake of creating something. While I'm not opposed to doing things like this to create action, there are many cases of this Committee that I can see going incredibly lackluster. By lazily avoiding crafting even a singular rule of the operating committee, there is no reason to suggest that the rules may change completely from chair to chair throughout continual Senate terms. If nothing else there should be at least some set rules to allow for some consistency within the committee from term to term.
I also have an issue with a monthly interview process, if for no other reason than sheer excessiveness. While I understand your idea behind this, I do not believe that I can find a way to agree with it and simply oppose this part of the draft. I also take issue with the word "interview" in itself as it does not fit conceptually to me, but that is an incredibly minor issue that I felt OCD-required to note.
Lastly, my issue of informing the party being summoned of questions that will be asked to them is pretty consistently frowned upon in public circles. I am drawn back to the 2016 US Presidental election in which the Clinton camp was given debate questions in advance to prepare for. If this were to pass, I would firmly believe that this would need to be removed.

Apologies for the Onderwall, but I am diametrically opposed to the current construction of this bill, believe it to be another example of overextension, and feel as though it needs to be more thoroughly fleshed out. While I am not opposed to the idea, I am very much opposed to this in its current state.
 
We need a set of rules - for summoning a minister, for appointments to this committee, for procedure, for voting, for powers given to the chair, etc.
 
If I become minister, but also senator and am elected to the committee. aren't I basically overseeing myself? Shouldn't there be some more specifications on who can become part of this committee?
 
Kanglia said:
why exactly are all Senators inclined to be on it?
Click to expand...
This is, at the very least, not my intention in drafting the bill. I meant it to be read as all (Senators and Citizens) who wish to be on the committee.

I would note that I do, in fact, know that the executive affairs act requires the president and ministers to respond to questions from citizens. This is, in fact, cited in the preamble of this motion. As this is an internal motion, it relies upon the statutory authority therein. My intention with this motion, is to encourage this oversight to actually occur, as to my knowledge this has not really happened.

Creating a committee of people designated to do this, allowing them to act in discord, and requiring that they have ministers and presidents in the senate on a regular basis is for the end of having this actually occur.

I would be open to various forms of input, but not Phoenix's suggestions to.. not oversee the executive.
 
Glaciosia said:
I would note that I do, in fact, know that the executive affairs act requires the president and ministers to respond to questions from citizens. This is, in fact, cited in the preamble of this motion. As this is an internal motion, it relies upon the statutory authority therein. My intention with this motion, is to encourage this oversight to actually occur, as to my knowledge this has not really happened
Click to expand...
Perhaps there's a reason it's not happening that is broader than simply "it doesn't have to."

Regardless, my concerns have been made known. Have language that makes it clearly optional for both Senators and citizens, language that provides recusals in the circumstances of a member of the Committee becoming a Minister/President, entirely removing the clause concerning providing the executive with questions being asked of them, and creating at least a few fixed rules to allow for some stability.
Even with these, however, I do not believe I will be able to support this as I find it wholly unnecessary given the provisions of the EAA allowing for this. It appears to me that it is much more a case of the citizenry either not caring about what the Executive is doing(which is entirely possible) or having trust in the Executive branch that they are functioning the way they are supposed to(which I find much more likely.)
 
I propose to add a clause.
”Senators who simultaneously serve as ministers or deputy ministers may not serve on the committee.”
 
I propose to remove Clause 10.

I would also like to move to close to debate
 
I move to amend clause 2 to read:
" 2. The Committee shall consist of any Senators or Citizens who request membership."
 
The following amendments have been moved:
1. Clause 2 to be amended to read, “The Committee shall consist of any Senators or Citizens who request membership.”
2. A Clause shall be added after clause 2 and the following clauses be appropriately renumbered, “Senators who simultaneously serve as ministers or deputy ministers may not serve on the committee.”
3. Clause 10 be removed.
 
Amendment 1: Ayes to the right 3, Noes to the left 1. The Ayes have it, the Ayes have it, the amendment is passed.
Amendment 2: Ayes to the right 3, Noes to the left 1. The Ayes have it, the Ayes have it, the amendment is passed.
Amendment 3: Ayes to the right 2, Noes to the left 2. The amendment is rejected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back