3 ms·

So an auditory branch of government [0]? It’s not that uncommon outside the Anglosphere. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#Typical_branche

So an auditory branch of government [0]? It’s not that uncommon outside the Anglosphere. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#Typical_branches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#Typical_b...

eternalban 10y ago
That's interesting. Civil monitors would engage in activity that includes more immediate attention beyond the post facto review and redress (which is the sense I got from your linked content). [p.s. For example, detach from the deliberative legislative body functions such as United States House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform.]
- thomasfoster96 10y ago
  I’m not sure moving committees, such as that one, to anther branch of government would achieve much. In the end, these committees are intended to allow the legislature to make better decisions - moving their functions away from the legislature doesn’t help. Then again, the US system of government is not exactly a model for the 21st century.
  - eternalban 10y ago
    Investigations and information sharing would be principle functions of this branch. I do not see the problem. They'll publish findings, and legislature may then deliberate on these findings to alter laws or enact new laws. If the operational branch discovers violations, it can then forward their findings Decoupling the leadership of the oversight of the executive from the dominant party in the legislative would be benefitial. This is already possible in context of executive and judiciary. As it is now, these committees are subject to partisan games. Further, the legislative permits lobbying whereas there is no room for lobbyist pressure on this body. None. > the US system of government is not exactly a model for the 21st century. I am drawing a blank imagining which existing system today would fit that bill.
- thomasfoster96 10y ago
  Additionally, there’s no reason why government auditors have to do things annually like auditors for companies do - government auditors could quite easily audit smaller parts of the government at shorter or longer intervals.

eternalban 10y ago

That's interesting. Civil monitors would engage in activity that includes more immediate attention beyond the post facto review and redress (which is the sense I got from your linked content). [p.s. For example, detach from the deliberative legislative body functions such as United States House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform.]

thomasfoster96 10y ago
I’m not sure moving committees, such as that one, to anther branch of government would achieve much. In the end, these committees are intended to allow the legislature to make better decisions - moving their functions away from the legislature doesn’t help. Then again, the US system of government is not exactly a model for the 21st century.
- eternalban 10y ago
  Investigations and information sharing would be principle functions of this branch. I do not see the problem. They'll publish findings, and legislature may then deliberate on these findings to alter laws or enact new laws. If the operational branch discovers violations, it can then forward their findings Decoupling the leadership of the oversight of the executive from the dominant party in the legislative would be benefitial. This is already possible in context of executive and judiciary. As it is now, these committees are subject to partisan games. Further, the legislative permits lobbying whereas there is no room for lobbyist pressure on this body. None. > the US system of government is not exactly a model for the 21st century. I am drawing a blank imagining which existing system today would fit that bill.
thomasfoster96 10y ago
Additionally, there’s no reason why government auditors have to do things annually like auditors for companies do - government auditors could quite easily audit smaller parts of the government at shorter or longer intervals.