First, I’m not entirely sure why the Assembly is in such a rush to vote. HS has asked Henn to elaborate on several key aspects their platform, but they have yet to respond. One would think that legislators would be interested in learning as much as possible about the candidates’ plans for office before deciding how they will cast their vote. And there is plenty of time before Kringle’s term concludes, so there is no logistical reason to proceed without waiting for a response.
Second, I wanted to comment on one aspect of this discussion, namely the idea that if the Chair comes into office with a legislative agenda, then there is a risk of bias or abuse of authority in the Chair’s conduct of Assembly business. (As an aside, I’m bracketing Kringle’s further objection to the Chair having a legislative agenda, which seemed to be less focused on the potential for bias and more about the potential time constraints / distraction that pursuing such an agenda would have on the Chair’s ability to discharge their administrative duties. That’s a valid concern, but is individual dependent. Certainly some individuals could have time to balance both effectively.).
It strikes me that the risk of bias associated with an affirmative legislative agenda has been greatly overstated. Certainly there is always some risk of the Chair exercising their authority in a biased manner, but that’s the case regardless of whether the Chair has campaigned on a legislative agenda. After all, every Chair will have some personal views on the necessity of desirability of particular legislative reforms, even if they haven’t publicly articulated those views as part of their platform. Indeed, the fact that a Chair has laid out their legislative goals in advance might actually make it easier to determine if they are inappropriately using their powers to further that agenda; legislators are more likely to be attuned to a series of questionable rulings if those rulings support one of the Chair’s announced legislative goals. Which brings me to my second point, namely that abuse of authority by the Chair is quite easy to catch and therefore of limited utility to attempt. Basically every decision the Chair makes is public, and I fully expect that the Assembly would notice and react to any such misconduct.
I recognize that it’s an anecdotal example, but I actively pursued a legislative agenda as Chair. I ask this seriously and not in some attempt at self-glorification: did anyone actually suspect me of bias in my rulings in order to advance that agenda? If not, does anyone seriously think I could have gotten away with it had I tried? (And if yes, why didn’t you say anything at the time?).
To be clear, if the Assembly prefers a Chair that is solely an administrative figure and whose time is entirely dedicated to the smooth functioning of the Assembly rather than legislative drafting, that’s totally fair. I’m simply suggesting that concerns about bias should not be a substantial factor in opposing a legislatively active Chair.
Third, I am interested in the idea that the government could / should have an affirmative legislative agenda. I plan to raise that with the seven PM candidates.
I’m with HS, in that I still want to see more from the nominees before voting.
Particularly, in VC you mentioned to me you had a plan around rotating clerks of the assembly, and I’d like to hear more about the structure of that idea before voting, especially given you mentioned in that same VC that you’re not going to appoint a ‘permanent deputy’. The not appointing a permanent deputy is fine with me, so long as the other plan you had the idea for sufficiently fulfills the needs I feel the assembly has when it comes to deputies/clerks. I’d like to hear more about the structure of your idea before committing to vote.
I didn’t say that I would vote against a prospective Chair just because they had a legislative agenda. On the other hand, it sounded like other legislators were prepared to vote against a prospective Chair just because they didn’t have a legislative agenda. I disagree with that reasoning.
…none of whom even have to be a legislator?
If this is (in part) a reference to my comments, I think the executive should promote activity in our community and not just activity in the executive. I don’t think that has to take the form of legislation. If it does, well, the Prime Minister can seek legislator status and propose legislation like any other citizen.
And I’m not necessarily saying I agree with it, for the reasons you mention. But it is an interesting idea that I would like the PM candidates to react to.
I don’t know if anyone has said that the issue is bias (if so then I stand corrected) but my own issue is that the Chair is ultimately the presiding officer, not a political leader, and therefore their business should be presiding over the Assembly. If they wish to pursue a political agenda that is already something they can do as a legislator and there are no added powers or privileges the Chair has that would facilitate this, so I’m not sure what’s even the point of making it a campaign point: such a candidate would be promising to do in the future that which they can already do now.
It is correct that I do not intend to appoint a single permanent deputy. If it is the wish of the Assembly that I appoint individuals to assist in the administration of votes then I would select a number of clerks from among legislators who have never held elected or appointed office and who express an interest in participating, who would be assigned to specific votes on a rotating basis such that each clerk always gets a chance to assist in opening or closing votes.