| Welcome to Europeia! So what the heck is Europeia anyways? Can I join? So, I came here representing another region? I do not want to become a citizen. Where should I go? What offices are there for people to be elected into? What is there for me to do in Europeia? That answers most of my immediate questions. What if I have any more? |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| An Analysis of CARP; Interviews with Seymour and Shin Included | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 7 2016, 04:25 AM (516 Views) | |
| Calvin Coolidge | Jul 7 2016, 04:25 AM Post #1 |
|
☆Kawaii Panda☆
![]()
|
In early February of this year, an announcement came from Senate Speaker Aexnidaral Seymour and Citizens' Assembly Chair shufordbrian: the Senate Aide program as we knew it was ending. That system was getting replaced by the "Citizens' Assembly Representative Program", typically abbreviated as "CARP". Since then, the program has mostly been viewed positively, but with recent discussions getting more critical, and Speaker Seymour stating that the program would be shuttered once the Citizens' Assembly Act (2016) had been made into law, I figured that it was time to give the program one last look, to truly understand what CARP was really all atrout. Fish pun! To start, let's see what the program actually did. shufordbrian stated in the program's original announcement back in February that "The Citizens’ Assembly would be able to send three Representatives to the Senate, two as chosen by the Chairperson in whatever manner the Chair decides, and one chosen by the Speaker. These three “Representatives” will function as being guests invited to the Senate by the Speaker under the Europeian Speech Protection Act." At the time, this was viewed as a compromise between those who wanted the Assembly to have an official vote in the Senate, and those who wanted to keep the Assembly's powers limited. By splitting the difference the way it did, this made it so those who wanted the Assembly to have more of a say got to see actual Assemblymembers debate with Senators on the Senate floor, and possibly alter the legislative discussion, while those who wanted the Assembly to not gain as much power could rest easy knowing that, ultimately, the Assembly gained little in terms of actual power, and could see this as a glorified Aide program. If you don't believe my analysis, you can see that shufordbrian had pretty much the same thing in mind, when he says "these Representatives would function as “mini-Senators”, giving a few more non-voting voices on some issues; letting them comment on issues, and express concerns; ultimately, allowing newer citizens to participate in a low-stakes environment to help them grasp issues and the process of legislating more firmly." So, the compromise had been made, and the process began, with several candidates getting selected for the program over the course of its lifespan, with one of them (Isaris) even getting elected Senator as a result of his experience in the program. Of course, with the birth of this program, the former system had to die. What made this program different from the Senate Aide program? I will, once again, turn it over to shufordbrian, who said "The old Senate Aide Program hasn’t seen much effective use recently, so the hope is that this trial phase of the retooling of the program will see more effective use, and help to reinvigorate the Citizens’ Assembly and newer members to seek out more experiences, as well as renew an interest in the Senate, especially among newer and less experienced members." It seems there weren't any actual structural flaws with the program after all, and that the cause of death was simply inactivity. Since there was an opportunity to change things up, however, the program became supercharged, and now Assemblymembers would no longer be conducting their education behind closed doors, with individual Senators, but out in the open, on the Senate floor. What does that actually mean, though? If these students are "mini-Senators", as shufordbrian says, do they get any powers? Let's take a look at the official Senate announcement of the program, which states, "They [the representatives] will have speaking rights in the Senate where they will be able to debate and discuss legislation; they may not make motions or vote, however, any member of the Senate may sponsor a bill from an individual Representative." Compare that to the old system, where a student, or students, would discuss legislation with an assigned Senator, have their ear, and the Senator would choose to share what they discussed, or not. The biggest change, then, would seem to be the transparency of the program. While previously it was entirely up to the Senators to determine the insights of the students on the Senate floor, now the representatives can speak up themselves. Of course, in either system, anybody in the region could post in the Grand Hall or the CA's Discussion Forum on Senate Matters, there seems to be something important about posting on the Senate floor itself. The only other notable change that I can find is that the number of participants is now limited. While the Senate Aide system could handle as many students as the Senators were willing to take on, CARP can only take three. Also unlike the Aide program, CARP is not a volunteer program. Applicants had to be selected by either the Speaker of the Senate, the CA Chair, or a popular vote in the Citizens' Assembly. Recently, discussion has shifted away from CARP's potential educational benefits, and towards the possible detriments of having non-Senators weigh in on Senate matters in the same shared space as the Senators themselves. This has become particularly problematic when it comes to confirmations, either of the Executive, or of award recipients. Keep in mind, the Senate announcement does not specifically ban CARP members from weighing in on these areas, it only says that they cannot vote, and cannot make motions. In fact, the restrictions on posting privileges in the Conference Hall (where these discussions take place) seems to go out its way to ensure these invited guests of the Senate can speak there, by stating "others who would normally have speaking privileges in the main Senate forum" are allowed to post within the subforum. Such posting first became a noticeable problem during the Ovation confirmation of hyanygo when United Vietussia, a CARP member brought up hy's troubled legal past, a move that stirred some controversy, whether because people that it was inappropriate to bring that up during this confirmation, or because people thought it started a negative spiral against the nominee that ultimately cost him the award. The problem got brought up once again when United Vietussia began asking questions of President Trinnien's Cabinet nominees (which, again, is not specifically forbidden). While some candidates had already answered the questions he had proposed, Trinnien stepped in told UV that he was not allowed to be a part of the discussion, and that he remove his posts that have not already been addressed. So, the role of "mini-Senator" seems to be subjectively limited. Of course, questions can always be asked in the Grand Hall or CA subforum, but why go through the trouble of giving these representatives posting rights in the Senate in the first place if that wasn't where you wanted them to post? Clearly, there are some unanswered questions about CARP, and I could not answer them alone. So, to help clarify the debate I presented questions about CARP, the CA, and the Senate to two outspoken citizens, one in favor of the program (Aexnidaral Seymour), and one opposed (Shin), to see where we end up. There we have it. The CARP debate is all out in the open, and we can see where both sides stand. Ultimately, your feeling on the matter is up to you, and I hope that the information presented in this article helps clarify the issue. I encourage the readers who made it this far to share their opinions on CARP below, and that we will continue to have this discussion. For those interested in reading more on the subject, there is a pinned thread in the Citizens' Assembly titled "The Citizens' Assembly Representative Program" that contains all the documents referenced in this article. Until next time, this is Calvin Coolidge, seizing the day. |
![]() All hail Swift.
| |
| off | Quote |
| Aexnidaral Seymour | Jul 7 2016, 04:33 AM Post #2 |
|
Somebody's got to keep you entertained.
![]()
|
Great article, Calvin. It's a shame that the main detractor(s? I guess? Mostly it's just one person, at least publicly...) haven't tried to establish an actual dialogue about it and instead resorted to rhetorical flair. I'm 100% interested in having a dialogue about the future of CARP, and whether there should be reforms, or shut down, etc. I think this article helps establish some of that conversation! A good step forward.
Edited by Aexnidaral Seymour, Jul 7 2016, 04:34 AM.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() Family, Resume, and Awards "... Aex, who is treated like the Europeian version of Nickelback by a lot of people here."
| |
| off | Quote |
| Shin | Jul 7 2016, 04:43 AM Post #3 |
|
Making the whole world smile
![]()
|
I love the sideswipes Aex. You speak of rhetorical flair, and yet consistently resort to ad-hominem characterizations of the position I have consistently taken about this misguided program. You speak of wanting a dialogue and in the same post dismiss any criticism as rhetorical flair. The offhand "all is well" attitude taken so blithely taken to dismiss detractors belies any defense of the program. Either welcome the debate and respectfully engage in dialogue, or continue to sneer. Political stepping stones where 2/3rds of which are arbitrarily handed out seems like less than a democratic mid-way point and more of a patronage program. If you want more people in the Senate to learn and function, then as I said before, expand how many Senate seats there are. Edited by Shin, Jul 7 2016, 04:55 AM.
|
| |
| off | Quote |
| Ninja Kittens | Jul 7 2016, 06:09 AM Post #4 |
|
Beautiful Stranger
![]()
|
There are two benefits to the CARP. The first is to the CARs themselves, as the program allows them to get a feel for the legislative processes of the region, and moreso, for the level of debate that takes place within the senate. There is a huge gap between what is expected of someone legislating in the CA and someone who is actually holding a senate seat, so allowing a way for some "in-between" to take place, can only further the legislative educational processes (which I feel is a really awkward way to say what I wanted to say, but whatevs). It also allows for the CARs to figure out if they even want to hold a senate seat; which can be a very valuable piece of information to be in possession of, and it's better to figure it out before you get to the senate, than after you've been elected. The second is to the region. The CARP allows the region to assess the abilities of a potential senator in the senate. The region gets to see the way potential new senators act, experience their style, and get exposed to their opinions on whatever topics are being discussed in the senate. Which is a great way to supplement a candidates platform when elections roll around. The only issue that I have with the program seems to be exactly the opposite one that you have; in that I don't think the CA should elect its representatives. It is far more practical for the Speaker and the Chair to decide between them which members are ready to take that step and appoint them; so that we do not have elected representatives whose skill level is not at the place where they can actively contribute in a positive manner to the discussions taking place in the senate. There are some issues that need to be worked out; but that is normal in any new endeavor. |
![]() You must be imaginative and strong-hearted. You must try things that may not work. You must not let others define your limits, because your only limits are your soul. signature | |
| off | Quote |
| Rach | Jul 7 2016, 12:57 PM Post #5 |
|
At Least 5% Sugar
![]()
|
I've always felt these sorts of debates should occur in the Grand Hall as this allows for all citizenry to debate with Senators. Why can't we see if people are Senate material there? |
|
♥ Love and Kindness are never wasted ♥ The 2011 President of the Year Queen of Balder Unofficial Navy Girl | |
| off | Quote |
| Notolecta | Jul 7 2016, 02:25 PM Post #6 |
|
Notty
![]()
|
Because senators rarely engage so we don't see them at worm in that level and to be honest no one uses the grand hall for political discussions anymore. Few that don't have direct access to the Senate discuss Senate matters publicly and the same can be said about most aspects of Euro. People simply aren't willing to have the sort of political debates the GH should be home to. In europeian today, and at many points in the past for that matter, most people for one reason or another don't want their opinions public. Shin fails to see that we need people to be ready before they enter the Senate and can vote, so expanding the Senate won't worm out. Throwing a bunch of unprepared members into the Senate would result in a negative impact on the region. I am also perplexed by this line of argument from shin that we shouldn't give speaking privledges to people that aren't elected or honoured. The Senate isn't an award it's a legislature. Getting quality legislation passed is the goal, so I don't understand why we see speaking rights as an award rather than a tool for furthering the legislature of the region both now and in the future. Further the idea this at all discouraged running for Senate or violates the democratic process by giving unelected people speaking privledges is absurd. Elected senators remain the only people with a vote and actual control over what legislation passed, the carp can't change this. Further it is perplexing that shin continually refers to how this is a disincentive to running for Senate or contrary to the democratic process when allowing honoured citizens to speak also does this, but then managed to seemingly support honoured citizens having voting rights and even worm their voting rights into his other argument. If you only want elected officials speaking in the Senate propose an amendment to the espa removing speaking rights from all by senators, the president, and vp. This would also get rid of invited guests killing the carp. I wouldn't expect much support though considering that would massively reduce the ability for the Senate to get reasonable outside input. I also would like to note that I have my own problems with the carp(that I have made clear in the past), namely that it is linked to the CA and that anyone other than the speaker and the senators are picking these individuals. |
|
The RT. Hon. Notolecta ESE OR1 ESH ESS Offices held in Europeia Offices held elsewhere Medals, ribbons, and other awards The best kind of diplomacy | |
| off | Quote |
| Moronist Decisions | Jul 7 2016, 03:01 PM Post #7 |
![]()
|
For the record, it appears to possibly be specifically forbidden in this instance. Aex stated clearly that
he has revoked all standing invitations to speak in accordance with ESPA - which follows that CARPs are not invited to speak here. |
Moronist Decisions ED EOB EIN ESH ESS![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Formerly: Attorney General, Associate Justice/PIP, World Assembly Delegate, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Senator | |
| off | Quote |
| Malashaan | Jul 7 2016, 03:15 PM Post #8 |
|
Supreme Malassimo
![]()
|
I think MD's comment highlights my main concern with CARP - the contours of what the CARs can and cannot do are not well defined/understood. Generally, my position would be that CARs should not be involved in questioning nominees or discussing final drafts on the Senate floor, but should be as involved as possible in the initial drafting and policy discussions of legislation. Especially with less experienced CARs, it is all too easy for legislation in its later stages to get derailed by comments that fail to appreciate key aspects of the legislation. That of course can happen with Senators as well, but it is more likely with CARs as they generally have lower experience levels, and haven't been through the same level of scrutiny as an elected Senator. |
![]() ![]() Decorations Awards Resume
| |
| off | Quote |
| Rach | Jul 7 2016, 03:27 PM Post #9 |
|
At Least 5% Sugar
![]()
|
It's sad though; Senators -should- be engaging with public and the Grand Hall should be used more for political discussion. There seems to be so little political life currently which is unfortunate in my opinion. |
|
♥ Love and Kindness are never wasted ♥ The 2011 President of the Year Queen of Balder Unofficial Navy Girl | |
| off | Quote |
| Notolecta | Jul 7 2016, 04:04 PM Post #10 |
|
Notty
![]()
|
I agree that this is bad, but there is no magic wand that came change the cultural tendencies of the region. |
|
The RT. Hon. Notolecta ESE OR1 ESH ESS Offices held in Europeia Offices held elsewhere Medals, ribbons, and other awards The best kind of diplomacy | |
| off | Quote |
| Shin | Jul 7 2016, 05:04 PM Post #11 |
|
Making the whole world smile
![]()
|
I am of the belief that it's up to the electorate to decide if a citizen is ready to be a Senator or not. In a democracy an election is how one's potential to serve is decided. If one is dissatisfied with how an individual presents their cause or performs, then campaign against them. Let's stop looking at an elected body as something for where appointments can be made to. If someone doesn't live up to your expectations one term, then don't vote for them the next term and state why they didn't meet your expectations as a voter and as a citizen. Heck, you don't even have to wait for elections to get in touch with people to let them know you expect more of them, or that you feel they can do a better job. Of course less than qualified people will end up in the Senate from time to time. That's how a democracy works. People try to work as representatives, sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail. Further I must disagree that electing a couple unprepared members into the Senate would result in a noteworthy negative impact to the region. Europeia is strong, and as such can weather the occasional bump in the road that results from being a democratic region. We should embrace our democracy, not tip-toe around it. Further with this revoking of privileges to speak in select areas, we further degenerate to some weird undemocratic half-measure that doesn't make sense. Let's stop with this seating of individuals at the kiddie table and let them stand up and be full fledged Senators. If we want more people involved the Senate, encourage more people to stand, encourage higher levels of participation in democracy, encourage people to believe in their ability to campaign and get elected. Edited by Shin, Jul 7 2016, 05:09 PM.
|
| |
| off | Quote |
| hyanygo | Jul 7 2016, 06:46 PM Post #12 |
![]()
|
There is a fuss over training that I believe can be quite dangerous. One of the side effects of increased legal training has been to increase the barrier to entry. This was not the intended consequence. Because of this an explicit programme had to be made (Writing legend has contributed significantly to my initial work). The steady professionalism of the Senate gets clouded by the myth of training. The Judiciary had its seminal work on this with Making a Mountain out of a Molehill. I wonder where the theoretical framework is going to come to get the implicit, explicit. It is no secret that I think the Judiciary has cracked it and it is phenomally successful. There is considerable work to be done but it will probably be building on what we already have. In contrast, the Senate has yet to find a model that works. The CA, Aides and now the CARP have all come and gone. It is disappointing that the CA needed to create the CARP because it's very creation was the largest signal that the CA does not work. If it worked as intended then the CARP would not be needed but rather now it appears that the perceived gulf between the CA and the Senate is growing not shrinking. This is worrisome. The success of the Judiciary comes from a clear examination of what the minimally successful Justice looks like. Once that was worked out (and this sounds obvious but it isn't being done) you explicitly and directly instruct and assess those components. The idea that you can be chucked into the Senate and learn through electronic osmosis is boohickey. At the same.time training can be taken as a political tool and warped to beyond all recognition. Training can even make the problem worse. We have to be careful. Edited by hyanygo, Jul 7 2016, 06:49 PM.
|
| off | Quote |
| shufordbrian | Jul 7 2016, 07:42 PM Post #13 |
|
It's pretty lit
![]()
|
Awesome article Calvin. I really enjoyed reading it. I think I speak for both Aex and I that the program was never intended to remain set in stone a certain way. In issuing the announcement and implementation of the initial trial run of the program, the Speaker and myself (Chair of the CA at the time) intentionally created a vague rules system for a reason: to allow for flexibility as new issues came to the forefront. One such issue may be this new question of whether CARP members should be allowed to partake in discussions on Senate confirmations. It would be completely under the purview of the current Speaker and the current CA Chair, jointly, to make decisions regarding this issue. But it's awesome that the public is having this conversation here and now. EDIT: It also does concern me a bit that I wasn't included in this panel of analysis, considering I helped create the original program in question and was quoted numerous times throughout the article. Edited by shufordbrian, Jul 7 2016, 07:47 PM.
|
Shufie Chastain, ESS![]() Family Positions/Former Positions What I Do in Real Life
| |
| off | Quote |
| Malashaan | Jul 7 2016, 07:44 PM Post #14 |
|
Supreme Malassimo
![]()
|
I would add to Hy's comments that I think the "gulf" between the Senate and CA is exaggerated in the public consciousness. We have seen some very green members succeed in the Senate (and others fail). We have also seen more than one respected "elder" fail in the Senate due to a lack of commitment. Following on from that, I think we over-emphasize the need for training for the Senate. As I often do, I come back to Trinn as an example. he had little to no training before joining the Senate. He learned how to be a Senator in the Senate. He was successful because he went in knowing both what he had to offer, ideas and a fresh perspective, and knowing what he should defer to others on, such as the finer points of legal interpretation. I took a similar route myself. While I had legislative experience in other regions when I first got elected to the Senate, I didn't have anything like the level of knowledge or skill that is typical of the best Senators in Europeia. In that first term, I learned a lot from other legislators (particularly Swak), and deferred to their judgment on matters where their experience was clear. |
![]() ![]() Decorations Awards Resume
| |
| off | Quote |
| Rach | Jul 7 2016, 08:52 PM Post #15 |
|
At Least 5% Sugar
![]()
|
We are playing a game 13 year old's can play, so it's never that hard
|
|
♥ Love and Kindness are never wasted ♥ The 2011 President of the Year Queen of Balder Unofficial Navy Girl | |
| off | Quote |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Panda's Pen · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2

.








, Awarded by President NES
, Awarded by President Rach
, Awarded by President Rach
, Awarded by President HEM
, Awarded by President HEM
, Awarded by Vice President Calvin Coolidge










- Order of Scholarship
- Order of Mercury
- Order of Service to Europeia
- Order of Community First Class










































