Now that I actually understand what HS meant in OP thanks to Ebon and Kringle, I think I can clarify some of the issues Esfalsa raised based on the RL approach.

Like, it's good if the Assembly starts getting more engaged with oversight of the executive

That would be more like a select/special Committee, same with your "whole Assembly issue" one. They exist for a specific issue related to any office breaking the law, inspecting them and giving back the report. The Whistleblower Protection Act which we have already hints at such a thing being an obligation of Legislators when they receive sensitive information.

committee for a particular policy area ends up pretty inactive

Now that's a "Standing" Committee, or just...Committee. They usually are inactive and exist as sort of "working groups" when the Assembly wishes to address a specific topic.
Such a Committee would be (off the top of my head) a Regular Committee for General Law Revisions, which would help legislators when they express the wish to modify a certain general law or its segment.

line between joining a committee for a policy area and joining the ministry for it isn't all that defined

The only Committees that I can perceive existing here is some sort of "Petition Committee" where it formulates and pinpoints which enacted policy they would like more information on or made revisions on.

The Orange Records | Viliakmon (Pacifica) | NationStates Account Main | Discord: genericsequencealias#0990

Reply

What would the implications be in terms of fostering active debate in the Assembly as a whole? I think there's a kernel of a good idea here, but I would be worried that we end up balkanizing the Assembly. I can see an environment forming, whether it's statutory process or not, where the Assembly "isn't allowed" to move forward with a committee having input or approving of some motion. (And that may be the intention.) But instead of that leading to a more robust culture of debate and questioning, it just reinforces the current situation where 98% of the Assembly are backbenchers who are only here to cast a vote.

How can we prevent that?

(This post was last modified: 08-21-2022, 02:17 PM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

I support this idea. 100%. We need Committees, and I'd love to assist in making a resolution.

maluhia
minister of culture
ambassador to lazarus
roleplayer
 

 

Reply

About how many laws (and which laws they are) would we have to potentially change in order to enact Assembly committees into the Charter?

maluhia
minister of culture
ambassador to lazarus
roleplayer
 

 

(This post was last modified: 08-25-2022, 08:37 PM by maluhia.)

Reply

You could get away with as few as none.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

You could get away with as few as none.

Okay...I'm looking at the Laws dispatch on NS now, and I'll look at what I can find.

maluhia
minister of culture
ambassador to lazarus
roleplayer
 

 

Reply

What would the implications be in terms of fostering active debate in the Assembly as a whole? I think there's a kernel of a good idea here, but I would be worried that we end up balkanizing the Assembly. I can see an environment forming, whether it's statutory process or not, where the Assembly "isn't allowed" to move forward with a committee having input or approving of some motion. (And that may be the intention.) But instead of that leading to a more robust culture of debate and questioning, it just reinforces the current situation where 98% of the Assembly are backbenchers who are only here to cast a vote.

How can we prevent that?

I hadn't replied to this post for several days because I was thinking it over and I think it makes a good point. Possible options to prevent (or limit) the "backbencher" problem include mandating only one Committee membership per Legislator. Another option is to have only one Committee, an elected "Oversight Committee", and empower them to do the majority of "Committee Work".

That said, I don't have the greatest answer to this point, but I do think some of these points can be avoided by tweaking the details of how the proposal would work.

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

Reply

I think this is a really cool idea. Letting the Chair appoint committees to come up with proposals could allow more focus on particular problems. While I understand what Glen is saying, I don't think committees alone can fix that problem.

But, if the Chair issues a call or committee members and that group can work collaboratively to institute change, hopefully that can keep people active and we'd grow the active pool while letting the others matriculate out over time.

What you don't want to get to is a situation where you're assigning unresponsive people to committees — that would be a recipe for disaster, but giving legislators a bit more authority to tackle problems they're passionate would be good.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply