The Council Of Wise Folks

The Council Of Wise Folks

(and the counsel of wise folksⁱ)

The President's Cabinet, consisting of the heads of the various agencies, is designed as a group of authorities for him, to advise him on areas about which he might not be as knowledgeable as he would like. Its members, however, are often chosen for political reasons, or because of the contributions they have already made to his election, or for future help they may offer. Expertise in the area for which they are chosen, necessary as it might be, is a less important consideration. They will follow his lead politically, or they will lose their positions.ⁱⁱ He may also have a separate group of unofficial advisors, however they, too, are aligned with him politically and their advice parallels his instincts, though it may be better informed.ⁱⁱⁱ

Some countries follow this model but others don't. In some cases – and this is often the situation when there is a plethora of political parties catering to a variety of interests – the advising council will consist of representatives of all the parties that participate in the government, since it would be impossible for any single party to gain a majority. The smörgåsbord of proposals that such a body provides is all but useless to the head of government. Each of its members is likely to pander to his own constituency, and unity is impossible. Policies may be cobbled in order to keep the government standing until the next election, but logic and consistency are often lacking.

To deal with this situation, therefore, as an addition to the presidential cabinet,^iv there could be a non-elected Council that would offer analyses and recommendations on a small number of subjects for dissemination to the public and politicians for guidance. The Council would have only moral authority, but it could set the tone for other organizations such as government panels and bureaucratic boards. ^v

Let me begin the discussion with the following highly arbitrary suggestions:

1. The Council should report to the President and to the American People.
2. It should consist of 101 members – the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, a representative of the opposing major party (ie opposing that of the Speaker), and 98 other members (7 X 14),
3. The members should represent seven Working Groups^vi (listed below) and each Group should discuss issues that fall in its purview:^vii perhaps the court system, and the death penalty would be subjects for discussion by the Law working Group, defense by Security, minority rights by Citizen needs, etc.

                                                                          a. Law

                                                                          b. Science

                                                                          c. Economics

                                                                          d. Citizen needs

                                                                          e. Security

                                                                          f. Foreign affairs

                                                                          g. Domestic affairs

4. Some issues might be raised by several different Groups (eg jobs might be discussed by the Economics Group, by Citizen needs, and by the Group on Domestic affairs – either simultaneously or at different times), and each might consider a different aspect of the problem. Unless there is a good reason to do so, however, there should be a waiting period before an issue can be re-discussed since the initial airing might result in legislation and that legislation should have a chance to take effect before it is challenged or changed.
5. The working Groups and the Council could call whatever additional experts they needed to clarify issues about which individual members were unclear.
6. The individual working Groups having met separately to discuss issues of importance to them, should then report, with majority and minority reports, to the entire Council which could then discuss the issue and prepare reports and suggestions.
7. Council suggestions should be timely and straightforward, and not require myriad regulations to effectuate them. The suggestions should be understandable to the public and, if any regulations are needed, their nature should be explained to the voters. Ideally the Council would, at a later date, report to the public the nature of subsequent legislation and regulation so that citizens would have the chance to decide if their wishes were being honored.

One of the more difficult aspects of the system would relate to the formation of the Groups and Council. How would members be chosen? It would probably be best if experts in particular areas were chosen by their peers. Examples might be the choice of members of the Law Working Group by the boards of the three largest legal associations,^viii or the decision on membership on the Science Working Group by members of the boards of the various science associations.^ix

The membership of Working Groups that dealt primarily with political issues (like Foreign affairs or Domestic affairs) would be chosen, in equal numbers, by political conservatives and liberals, each choosing from a panel offered by the opposing side. Because the membership would be limited, it would be difficult to select a Group that was representative of the entire population in terms of race, religion, sex, socio-economic groupings, etc. So be it. However, those individuals or groups who wanted their voices heard could submit documents and “Friend of the Council” briefs (with a maximum length and possibly with a copy of its mission statement so voters would understand any biases of the group) which would be published along with the decisions. Since the Working Groups would have no authority, and since all reports would be public, an even number of members (in this instance fourteen) is reasonable, and since each would choose the other's representatives a relatively middle-of-the-road Group would result, making decisions easier. The membership periods would be overlapping^x and for a single fixed term (eg fourteen years), to allow for changing views while members would not be forced to decide based on political pressures. Ideally, the members would not be in politics and would have no constituencies. The chair would rotate.

Agenda would perforce be limited, like that of the Supreme Court, and would have to be decided on by the individual Groups, although the Council could develop a procedure for referring specific issues to Groups for discussion. Perhaps there would be subgroups to review easier issues, as Jethro suggested to Moses.^xi A report (a listing including the sponsor) on private bills and pork-barrel projects should be issued regularly. It would not require discussion or debate, only disclosure. Publicizing the issue should be all that is necessary.^xii Voters would probably consider that useful. Other reports, those requiring discussion, would, ideally, be by consensus, since the Group would be relatively knowledgeable, middle-of-the-road, and free of political and constituent pressures. Nonetheless, minority reports could be issued as well. Transparency would be important and the public should have access to discussions as well as decisions. (Perhaps the public should even be made aware of its ability to amend the constitution outside of Article 5 which only presents one permissible way but doesn't exclude others. This, however, would probably frighten public officials, and cause them to nix the whole idea.)

What might be achieved? Congressional committees hold interminable hearings. Council discussions would be briefer and less political. There might be money savings resulting from the outside pressure and the opportunity of shorten or eliminate Congressional hearings. Legislation would probably be quicker. Lobbying may decrease – at least that which results in pork barrel projects which are expensive but not valuable to the public at large. Moreover, the Council, by publicizing those parts of legislative actions which seem to be intended to benefit small numbers at the expense of many – or at least bringing them to light – might have a positive effect on corruption.

It is virtually certain that such a Group (or subgroups if there are lower-level panels) will be viewed as increasing governmental cost and bureaucracy. It is similarly certain that their reports will be “spun” by those with an interest in doing so. That's the way democracy works. It is to be hoped that the general public will see through such criticisms and attempts to distort the reports. The low esteem of politicians would probably mean that the Council reports would have greater credibility than any political distortions of them. They certainly can't be worse than what we have now – either in Congress or in the President's Cabinet.

[NB: This is the first of a series of undetermined length and of irregular publication, that will deal with American Democracy and with the way our government runs. However wise and virtuous the Founding Fathers may have been, times change, and not all situations were considered by them. Nor was there a recognition that our size and status in the world might affect our choices. They left room for amending the Constitution, however, and it may be useful to discuss some of the changes that have taken place since the eighteenth century with an “eye” on modernizing our system of government.]

Next episode: “Taxing And Voting” – What could be more taxing?

i     Not wise guys nor biblical wise men.

ii    The President will praise the individual and laud the great job he's done, bemoaning the resignation, which was necessary, of course, “for personal reasons.” Those reasons, however, are related to the fact that the President would otherwise have fired the person now “resigning.”

iii    Although these individuals lack formal official standing, they usually have more influence on government decisions than the Cabinet members.

iv     Cabinet secretaries will still be necessary as administrative heads of the various departments, and for interaction with foreign officials having similar mandates.

v     The Council would not replace, but would supplement the Cabinet. It would have no legal standing, but would report quickly, and its reports would be known to be apolitical. Thus they would influence voters and, secondarily, those who wanted to be (re)elected.

vi    There is nothing sacred about the number seven or the total of about 101. Nor about the nature of the particular working Groups. The only purpose of presenting the list and numbers is to start the discussion.

vii    Issues might be brought to a working Group's attention by a small number, perhaps three of the fourteen, with discussion initiated by a larger number, say five, and then, after discussion, taken to the Council for further discussion by those interested in the topic but not in the working Group. The Council would then issue prompt reports on the subject. Issues would not be linked to legislation, although legislation might follow. They would simply require a large enough number of individuals who would want to discuss them.

viii   Which might change from time to time.

ix    This is left in an ambiguous state because it serves no purpose to prescribe the organizations that would pick Group and Council members at this time. The decision regarding the method of choice would be left to a committee of board members of scientific societies (or economic societies or whatever) designated by the Chief Justice, House Speaker, and minority party representative. Any committee would understand that if it could not choose members by a date certain – a week, for example – the three of them would choose the members.

x     For example there might be two appointed every two years. See the United States Constitution for an example of the method (see the second paragraph of Article 1, Section 3, ignoring references to resignations and replacements.)

xi    Exodus, Chapter 18, verses 19-22. Obviously there would be changes relating to size, and to the fact that the Council would be dealing with secular, not religious, issues.

xii    One way of achieving this goal would be to list all the organizations – including Congress – that are exceptions to whatever law is passed, and to list all local projects and their costs for the voters to see.