In Defence of the Senats Reform Amendment

[Deleted]

My fellow citizens,

As one of the principal authors of the amendment, I would like to clarify a few points since many of you are fighting vehemently against it. While the amendment authorises the removal of a Senator by a provincial referendum, it also leaves the authority to the Province.

So, the amendment only allows the province to recall Senators. If a Province passes legislation to the contrary, it is a moot point. All of this was done to ensure the system could not be abused, while ensuring current abuses could be rectified in a peaceful manner.

What we have here is a situation in which an amendment passed the Senats and Cosa after contributions by numerous legislators of both Houses. This is the final draft.

The urgings against it come from people who, quite frankly, didn't weigh in on it in the first place. Some responses are a tad confusing. For example, HRH Prince Patrick labeled his objection as "Political Science 101" and yet, followed up with no science, simply a declaration that change is bad and to level the playing field of accountability for Senators would put us on a course to be the next Liberia. I would have welcomed the Prince's objections during the drafting of this legislation, but no such objections were raised at that time.

There is question as to whether there is a need for this amendment. There is. During the time when I became a citizen, my Province had a Senator elected who was not a resident of Benito (then Mussolini). During her tenure in the Senats, the will of the people of Benito has been willfully and maliciously ignored by that same Senator. And yet, the term length granted to Senators assured her a lengthy stay in the Senate.

I do not support shortening term lengths for Senators. Most of our Senators are good people who are rightfully seated. However, for the rest of us, there needs to be a way to remove a Senator who takes pride in voting against the will of their constituents. My opponents argue that the accountability is best left for the next General Election. I posit that waiting may not be the best course of action.

The Organic Law provides for the removal of an MC by a majority vote of the Cosa. No such provision exists for a Senator. A Senator can do whatever he or she pleases during their tenure and nobody can touch them. Citizens, this is not right. Our elected officials are accountable at election time, but there must be accountability while the Ziu is in session as well. If an MC can be removed, then so can a Senator.

Provinces will have the power to limit or even prohibit recalls altogether if they so choose. A province may, for example, establish guidelines to define "misconduct" and only remove a Senator if they violate those guidelines.

Those who are voting against the amendment are not doing so because it is the rational thing to do. Be a thinker, not a lemming.

Sincerely,

Capt. T.M. Asmourescu

[Owen Edwards]

I notice that the same folk who now argue "don't do this, it's caused by specific circumstances, the system's not broken" are the same who say "don't do this, there's not been an example of this behaviour as yet, the system's not broken". Those folk have got to decide which way they want it. In this case there are two provinces where I know significant portions of the electorate who are sick of their Senators behaviour, and have been for a long, long time.

If you require cause to amend laws, and not potential cause, then there is very strong cause to amend this law - unless it is made a lot harder for lazy incompetents hang on to the incredibly influential Senate seats, they will continue to slip through the cracks and get into those seats and stay there for up to 36 months without possibility of recall.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

All due respect (and I say this as a supporter of the amendment, if a tepid one) you don't actually address the Prince's objections to it. What about his point that with this amendment there could be a total change of all the government in the course of a month? And about the inherent strength of a Senate deliberately distanced from immediate electoral retribution?

[Owen Edwards]

I do not believe the Prince had properly understood the provisions of the Amendment to ensure that there weren't nuisance recall attempts, to ensure that it truly reflected the will of the people, and to ensure that any such decision could be reviewed to ensure it was not an undemocratic minority manipulating the system. How can one respond to such a misunderstanding except by saying "no, that simply isn't the case"?

[Ieremiac'h Ventrutx]

I feel like Hillary ... Once I was for it, now I am against it... well maybe.

Still, perhaps more deep thought needs to be taken? I am just not sure. The fact that I personally have doubts would make me lean towards a vote against it if for nothing else to allow yet more time for review. But then, hasn't this been hashed around enough ...

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jun 23, 2009 7:46:40 GMT -6 Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. said:

The Organic Law provides for the removal of an MC by a majority vote of the Cosa. No such provision exists for a Senator. A Senator can do whatever he or she pleases during their tenure and nobody can touch them. Citizens, this is not right. Our elected officials are accountable at election time, but there must be accountability while the Ziu is in session as well. If an MC can be removed, then so can a Senator.

Actually, there is a provision for holding Senators accountable: they can be removed by the Uppermost Cort. Given the activity level of the Cort lately, that's more-or-less a moot point, but I thought that should be clarified.

Jun 23, 2009 8:26:02 GMT -6 Owen Edwards said:

and to ensure that any such decision could be reviewed to ensure it was not an undemocratic minority manipulating the system.

I think Patch is worried about democratic majorities manipulating the system just as much as undemocratic minorities. One of his major points is that the length of Senäts terms is a countermajoritarian (over time) feature of the Talossan constitution.

[Owen Edwards]

The Cort can hold Senators accountable for criminal behaviour; what about spending 2 years refusing to answer emails from your constituents?

And the review process in the Amendment would allow for reflection on the nature of the democratic will behind a recall.

If Patch, who thoroughly opposes the whole concept of recalls, has a better idea as to how to ensure Senators can not get away with gross incompetence, I'm sure he would be heard out. His critiques would have been appreciated when the Amendment first came up (though perhaps not the strange comparisons to Liberia). But seeking to dismiss it now out of fear that incompetent Senators may find themselves being cut off, without offering an alternative - no, no, no.

[Deleted]

Jun 23, 2009 8:08:28 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

All due respect (and I say this as a supporter of the amendment, if a tepid one) you don't actually address the Prince's objections to it. What about his point that with this amendment there could be a total change of all the government in the course of a month? And about the inherent strength of a Senate deliberately distanced from immediate electoral retribution?

I have addressed that. Simply put, a province can opt not to allow the recall of Senators. Or, the Province can place heavy restriction on it. All the amendment does is permit the Provinces to pass a law allowing the recall.

The amendment does not weaken the Senate, it just offers one more tool to Provincial governments. Since most provinces don't have Constitutions, it would be exceptionally difficult to recall a Senator since only the Constable could initiate it.

There was a whole lot of hashing on the subject. The problem is that a lot of people don't want to understand, they want to oppose because change is evil.

[Xhorxh Asmour]

I make your words mine, Captain.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jun 23, 2009 13:01:37 GMT -6 Owen Edwards said:

The Cort can hold Senators accountable for criminal behaviour; what about spending 2 years refusing to answer emails from your constituents?

The Cort can remove Senators "for criminal activity or for mis-, mal-, or non-feasance." I hope the recall power wouldn't be used more broadly than that. But like I said, vesting this power in the Cort has its own disadvantages. First, the Cort has enough difficulty dealing with its other cases. Second, making the Cort responsible for keeping Senators accountable gets them a bit more entangled in the political process than I'd like.

[Owen Edwards]

How would one prove "mis-, mal-, or non-feasance"? And even it such could somehow be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, why should courts judge political competence, rather than the electorate concerned?

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jun 24, 2009 9:05:16 GMT -6 Owen Edwards said:

How would one prove "mis-, mal-, or non-feasance"? And even it such could somehow be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, why should courts judge political competence, rather than the electorate concerned?

Those are good questions. That's why I said "making the Cort responsible for keeping Senators accountable gets them a bit more entangled in the political process than I'd like." So in that respect creating a different process for holding Senators accountable makes some sense. But I do think that the standard should still be "mis-, mal-, or non-feasance," at least as applied.

[Deleted]

And since each province has different issues, why not give a province some control over the conditions under which their elected official is removed? Including defining mis, mal or non-feasance?

[Breneir Itravilatx]

The amendment seems to answer those questions too.

[Owen Edwards]

Quite. If a province doesn't want to have the ability to recall Senators, it can legislate against it.