Marcianüs Hearing feedback thread

[Sir Lüc]

This was also posted to Old Witt: http://talossa.proboards.com/thread/13874/marcian-hearing-feedback-thread



Hello everyone, if you've read La Sc'hinteia you will know that I wanted to open a feedback thread on the hearing sometime this month. (I actually wanted to do it after the Clark, so that people could give their opinions without the weight of an ongoing vote, but I changed my mind.)

I'm interested in your opinions on the hearing. Literally anything is of interest to me: what you thought about the process, how can it be improved, did the Chair/nominee/Senators/Guests do a good job, if you thought it was too short/long/boring/uneventful, do you think this should be compulsory, what positions should probably warrant a similar hearing, etc. etc.

You also don't need to be particularly thorough, any (nonzero) amount of feedback is useful to me, to anyone who might be in my position should another hearing occur, and to any future nominee. The only thing I ask is that we try and keep this centered on feedback on the hearing rather than the nomination itself or the nominee, as opinions on this particular nominee are irrelevant to a future nomination process.

Since this hearing was intended as a service to Talossa, not just to the Ziu or to the Senate, I would welcome everyone's opinions (MCs, Senators, Justices, civil servants, ordinary Talossans...). Your opinion counts because, well, I want to know if all of this was worth it, and if so, what can be improved/changed should there be another opportunity to conduct a similar hearing.

So let's get going.

[Sir Lüc]

So obviously I think the hearing went very well. By my count, 76-ish questions were asked, which is a lot, plus a lot of other statements and even an external contribution. Basically every way people could have contributed, they did, which makes me assume that everyone that wanted to be heard was accomodated.

I do have some opinions on the hearing rules themselves after seeing them in action, but first I wish to return to the most important point, which is what Açafat asked V in the last question of the hearing: if this should be done in the future. That question had several assumptions/side arguments that need to be treated.

1) Should this be done to future UC nominees? Yes, but not necessarily to this extent or to this standard. Again, V is an Actual Attorney. While I would expect an UC nominee to be versed in law to some degree, I would consider a fair bit of Talossans to be qualified despite not being actual real life legal scholars. Also, V is undoubtedly a controversial figure, and may have wanted to undertake the hearing to help his cause. Finally, it is entirely possible that people might not be able to take part in such a long hearing due to work/study/personal issues.

You can see how I both don't want to set the bar too high for other nominees, and how this instance might have been different from future ones for reasons that don't necessarily pertain to the qualifications of the nominee.

2) Should this be done by law? I'm not sure, and I'm probably more towards a no. I think most of what I said earlier applies again here. V was extremely gracious in taking part in the hearing. Undertaking it was no small task and I wouldn't blame people for being discouraged, as in "No way I could withstand that many questions" - although maybe the expectations were high because V is an actual attorney.

Second: no one, sadly, can say today that we will have such a high turnout of senators and guests the next time. I still do think future governments will do well to keep submitting their nominees for a hearing instead of rushing a nomination through, even if there ends up being no hearing.

3) Should this be done to future nominees to other positions? This is, I feel, a part of my personal philosophy about the separation of powers between Cosa and Senate. I have always thought that the Cosa, the proportional house, should deal with partisan/political matters*: the vote of confidence, the Budget, etc.; the Senate, the house of somber second thought*, should deal with nonpartisan/apolitical matters: nominations to apolitical positions*, awards, the Chancellorship of the Bar, etc.

So it follows that this hearing is really in line with my thoughts: the Senate can not vote on the nomination alone*, but did take the lead in scrutinising it. And ideally, the Senate will, in the future, continue scrutinising nominees to nonpartisan positions as part of its reasons to exist, its "mission", if you wish.



1*: Incidentally, I would prefer I had not served as PM in the Senate, in hindsight; but in our system, this is presently almost (budget) irrelevant.

2*: Yes, this is not the present case.

3*: Nominations to political positions, like the Cabinet - or even the Prime Minister - shouldn't be subject to a Ziu vote in my opinion.

4*: Although the post-Reunision normal is that Cosa votes on partisan bills are mostly decided, so in effect the Senate is the only true arbiter of a Government bill, such as a nomination that is made as a result of a Coalition agreement.

[Sir Lüc]

(continues from the previous)

So, to the conclusion of all that bit. Do I suggest that every nominee, from the UC to the most lowly civil servant, receive the Marcianüs Treatment? No, I don't. In essence, providing scrutiny and insight, get a hold of what a nominee wants to be/do? Good. Holding up a largely clerical nomination as, I don't know, Burgermeister, for a month? No thanks.

What I have in mind is that future UC nominees do undertake a similar hearing, with revised rules based on feedback and opinions - luckily, future hearings would not have my conundrum of having to set rules without a precedent or any clear expectation on turnout and enthusiasm. But as I touched on before, the nominee's personal situation/schedule should always be accounted for. The hearing should be beneficial to the question-ed and the question-ers both. Flooding with questions a qualified nominee with an intense personal schedule is no way to have a hearing that is meaningful to anyone. At the same time, the mere fact that a nominee is able to answer a ton of questions rapidly and with quality should not be an excuse for more serious flaws in his qualifications.

I then propose that other nonpartisan nominations, especially those who don't require Ziu action - SoS, BoIR, Archivist, Scribe, President of the Royal Society, Chancellor of the Bar, maybe also Permanent Secretaries? - do still receive some sort of scrutiny through a "short form hearing" with much looser rules, such as:

• Only happens if requested by at least 2 senators, rather than automatically;
• Only last about a week, instead of a month;
• Guests can sign up on a list, instead of having to contact a senator;
• No set turns, senators and guests can submit questions at any time;
• Question count is limited (eg. 3 per person, or 4 per day, or whatever);
• No final vote to approve/disapprove.

This would really end up being a sort of friendly job interview, rather than a formal hearing - but would still be some much needed scrutiny. Most nominees would still need to have or provide a reason to be appointed, as I did when I became Wittmeister. What would change is that instead of giving your qualifications and objectives to the Seneschal, usually privately, you now get to discuss them during a chat with the Ziu. I don't see why people wouldn't want the opportunity to explain their agenda and their goals, even if it's pure housekeeping, because you know we aren't going to stop qualified people from taking up a position we need filled - we never have. It all goes back to giving dignity to the office and to the Ziu. As V said during the hearing, it's what any nation would do.

Finally, I want to touch on a final point, which is perhaps "why the Senate and not the Cosa, or both?" - this goes back to my philosophy, fundamentally, but I would observe that letting the Senate administer non/bipartisan scrutiny to apolitical positions does not impede the Cosa from taking part. So much is demanded to the Tuischac'h and the Cosa side of the Ziu: Terpelaziuns (usually), policing the Hopper, etc.; giving the Senate control of nonpartisan scrutiny should not be seen as bestowing a privilege. Just as opposition to the Government can be led by a party or individual in name, but exerted by a much broader set of people in practice, so can apolitical scrutiny be overseen by a branch of government without impeding the input of other interested parties, and actually facilitating it.

[Sir Lüc]

There is more I wish to say about the rules/schedule and how they fared this sort of "baptism of fire", but for now I will stop.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

4*: Although the post-Reunision normal is that Cosa votes on partisan bills are mostly decided, so in effect the Senate is the only true arbiter of a Government bill, such as a nomination that is made as a result of a Coalition agreement.

Was this not the case pre-Reunision? I.e. did the permanent RUMP majority not whip its own proposals?

[Eðo Grischun]

4*: Although the post-Reunision normal is that Cosa votes on partisan bills are mostly decided, so in effect the Senate is the only true arbiter of a Government bill, such as a nomination that is made as a result of a Coalition agreement.

Was this not the case pre-Reunision? I.e. did the permanent RUMP majority not whip its own proposals?

No. Not, really.  There was always an attitude of 'let MCs vote their conscience'.

It's only recent times that have seen cabinet level and party level whips.

Even today you'll see it happening.  Look at the Cosa voting records.  It's rare to find 100% of a party all voting identically on a Clark.