SB 2018-193: Censure Resolution (Failed)

[Lumine]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote][/quote]

Sponsor: Senator Lumine.

[Lumine]

Needless to say, I'm very disappointed at the unethical behavior of two members of this body, which can very well be described as corruption. While no puritan (and no saint either), I think the Senate deserves some minimum ethical standards, and regardless of party and friendship we should be able to act together to condemn what cannot (and shouldn't) be defended. We do have an expulsion mechanism, of course, but I think we can use the concept of censure to good use as well as an eloquent way for the Senate to publically express a "formal statement of disapproval" towards the conduct of one of us.

[Lumine]

This may surprise some people, but I'm all for having these mechanisms in place. I remember back in 2017, when then-President dfw resigned, MP Cora made inappropriate comments regarding that resignation and was censured. However, I'd urge the Senate to be very careful in how they use these mechanisms. With elections right around the corner, if a censure is needed it will be issued by the voters in the Senate races at hand, and so there would be serious concerns if the Senate opted to censure a Senator who had been re-elected, therefore making that censure an undemocratic measure. Therefore I'd recommend that, in this case, the censure be considered only if the Senator fails to win re-election, and so it can be issued as a statement by the Senate in the lame-duck period. If I lose I'd still oppose being censured but that would be separate to the democratic nature of it, if I win though censure should not be considered or used.

I certainly don't think it's undemocratic for the Senate to make their voice heard, and even if the people do elect people with ethical issues this does not mean the Senate should turn a blind eye. To use an analogy to real life (and this is in no way a comparison to you or LT), it would be like suggesting Congress should turn a blind eye to Donald Trump's (or to Hillary Clinton had she won) ethical issues just because they happen to be elected to office, which I don't find to be a solid argument. And to use a RL Senate example, it would also be like the Senate not taking disciplinary action against, say, Roy Moore had he been elected to the Senate just because he was elected.

The principle or the logic behind this assertion (that is to say, that censure is undemocratic if the voters elect said officeholder) is I believe a dangerous one even if it's not intended to be as such, because it suggests that so long as the voters endorse something then the ethical issues can be dismissed.

[Lumine]

Really? Criterias like ethics and behaviour can be very are subjective. This can turn into fake trials, influenced by popularity and partisanship, double standard. The Senate should spend its time reading and improving bills (clearly not doing it enough) rather than try to police everyone and risk go on witchhunt.

Big no from me.

I confess I'm a bit surprised by this, because while I strongly respect Poirot and his opinions, I find it excessive towards those of us who try to engage in debate and improve bills when possible (and I think this actually defines a majority, not a minority of the Senate). Furthermore, not only does censure exist in RL, it has been used against individuals outside the Senate, whereas this mechanism applies only to Senators.

At this point I believe that the scenarios involve either doing nothing and let others issue their own condemnation or take their own appropiate actions (at a time in which scandals can easily be swept under the rug), or allow the Senate to take more vigorous action if its members act in an unbecoming manner. I'm perfectly willing to go further in specification (although I would think it detrimental to being flexible), but I don't see this as an immediate road to a witch hunt.

We have expulsions after all, and I don't think I've seen a partisan motivated expulsion in years.

[Lumine]

I request unanimous consent to waive the 72-hour requirement, there will be 24 hours for objections.

[Lumine]

Thankfully, Article 3.5 states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So I'll amend it to add "or she" (same with the other bill).

[Lumine]

Right, with no objections we will now move into a final vote. Senators, please vote AYE, NAY or ABSTAIN:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote][/quote]

[Lumine]

Aye. We current have a tie, 24 hours to change votes.

[Lumine]

I will note that none of the Senators voting Nay expressed any reasons to vote against. Poirot made an argument which I respect while not sharing, but I would have wanted to see what were the arguments from the Senators against this resolution.

[Lumine]

We have a tie. I'll be contacting the Vice-President so he can cast his ballot.

[Lumine]

If this does pass I'd recommend that the House amend it so that more than a simple majority is needed for censure, Mr R makes a valid point there. Sorry Yankee.

This resolution is a change on the Senate Rules, actually, so it isn't subject to a vote by the House. That's also why Yankee introduced the Motion of No Confidence bill on its own and why it is now part of the House rules.

[Lumine]

(forgot to close this)

The Vice-President breaks the tie, this resolution has failed.