Peerage meeting minutes, a manifesto
Louis-Philippe Mitouard
Your Majesties and my lords and ladies, I write to you
directly to appeal for a very simple thing: to take and distribute minutes of
peerage circles. This is urgently needed in the Outlands.
Specifically, what I am requesting is to distribute minutes
from peerage circles, either by letter or electronic mail, to all peers of that
order. These minutes would at least include the quorum, discussion and polling
results of each meeting. Secondarily, I would urge that you allow peers of an
order to discuss candidates either by letter or electronic mail.
Simply put, the reason this is needed is to renew the trust
between peer and crown, to renew the trust between peers from different groups
and even between the crown and their successors. This trust has fallen to an
astonishing low during my years as a peer of two orders. It has progressed to
the point that during a recently past reign my orders were told bluntly that
they would not be notified in advance of the crown's decision to make a peer
since the circle could not be trusted to keep a secret.
Another symptom of the lack of trust between crown and peers
is the increasing scarcity (or complete absence in recent reigns) of conducting
a numerical polling on candidates, and even worse, the seeming failure of the
crown to keep records on who had been discussed from reign to reign or from
circle to circle.
As well, peers are to blame for playing against one another,
especially by 'lobbying' the crown outside of circle for or against the
candidacy of a candidate and by failing to insist on complete consultation of a
representative slice of the order when the crown proposes to elevate a
candidate.
One could easily dismiss these things in isolation as simple
neglect or ignorance but I believe the root cause needs to be addressed, not
simply the symptoms.
How, one asks, can a simple thing like written minutes help
enhance trust? Easily, by leveling the ground for all so that all may be
assured of the correctness, the completeness of consideration and the fairness
of the process of the discussion. Written records of discussions can be
verified; memories fail. Votes can be counted and provide some objective
measure of how much support there is for a candidate. Is it only from one
group? One person? Or is support broad-based and consistent over time? If the
votes are tallied and well known, then 'cloakroom lobbying' by one person for a
candidate can be minimized. Finally, this ensures that a large portion of the
order is fairly consulted, not simply those at a particular event (and
certainly yes, we have recently seen examples of people being brought up,
considered and passed on the strength of one circle at only one event). Of
course, the fact that there is a polling does not mean that the crown is bound
by it. Corpora merely states that the crown must consult with the peerage.
Written minutes benefit the crown by documenting that they have completely
satisfied the consultation requirements set forth in Corpora.
As well, the relationship between crowns will be enhanced.
Recent crowns stated to my circles that they are not bound by the decisions of
their predecessors. I believe this is an understatement to truly say they do
not trust the decisions of their predecessors. Of course, given the current
climate, how could they? There are no detailed written minutes to show the
content of prior reigns discussions or their outcomes. This means that crowns
are increasingly unwilling to delegate peerage creations to their successors.
So, the wheel gets reinvented every reign. This is, of course, frustrating for
the peers, who have to make the same arguments to successive crowns, but who
really suffers? The candidates do.
The candidate is the loser in this entire spat since the
practice of late is for each reign to begin considering candidates at their
first, Coronation, circle. This usually means that no elevations are decided on
in the first month of the reign. Also the Crown will tend not to give peerages
at their stepping-down Coronation, which frequently means no candidates are
elevated in the last month. So, six minus two is only four months of activity
to elevate candidates. Is this simply a math exercise? No, because for good
reason there will only be so many elevations at a single event -- one wishes to
give each candidate their time in the sun. If one also limits the number of
months in which peerages will be given this has the effect of limiting the
number of peers made, to the detriment of deserving candidates.
So, to sum up, written minutes promote clarity and fairness.
Fairness promotes trust. Trust promotes effectiveness of the system by which we
reward the worthy candidate. How could it be simpler?
Yrs,
l.
No comments:
Post a Comment