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.
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.CARP Debate said:
I think this article helps establish some of that conversation! A good step forward.
