The design of Federal Councils

Using councils instead of individual executives is nothing new. A council allows a mix of opinions and perspectives, resulting in better and safer governing decisions. As you recall, at the Constitutional Convention, some including Benjamin Franklin, George Mason, and Edmund Randolph argued for a plural executive. [1]

Many forms of councils exist currently in government. Here are a few examples.

• The Supreme Court currently consists of 9 justices.

• The Federal Reserve Board has 7 members.

• The European Council is the collective presidency of the European Union made up of the heads of state of the EU member countries.

• The Swiss executive "presidency" is a council of 7.

While the above examples illustrate that councils are a proven concept, they all have one major drawback. The council members are elected or appointed, allowing political parties to have control over them.

The Supreme Court is perhaps the most well known council in the United States. The Supreme Court comes close to our concept of a federal council, although the justices are appointed by the political party in control of the President with the intent that they will be biased towards the ideology and goals of the party. Recently and throughout history, if the majority party lacks control of the Supreme Court, they sometimes try to increase the number of members to gain a majority on the court, further defeating the purpose of unbiased independence.

An example of a better council

Perhaps a better example of a decision-making council is a jury. Jury members are chosen at random so they are independent. They receive no personal benefit from their judgement except a small monetary payment for their time. They serve because of their civic duty. There is a jury qualification process to eliminate jurists with biases. Jury members hear arguments from both sides. They discuss the meaning of conflicting information and judge what is true through an equal vote, exercising collective intelligence. Influencing a member of a jury is a crime (jury tampering).

Council composition

Every Federal Council must have diverse, independent, qualified members. Equal opportunity, diversity, and independence will be achieved and politics will be prevented through random selection from a qualified pool of applicants. If the Supreme Court justices were randomly selected from a qualified pool of candidates with 9-year term limits, they would represent our concept of a Federal Council. The senior member of a council (the one who had been on the council the longest) would be the chairperson and the face of the council to the world.

Naturally resistant to outside influence

A Federal Council would be more difficult to influence than an individual might be. Influencing one council member out of nine would have little effect compared to controlling a single decision maker. Inconsistencies and influence would be easier to detect in a continuing group of multiple people. It would be difficult to influence the members financially without arousing suspicion. If a council member were removed before the end of their term, a new member would be randomly selected from the pool to replace them. Therefore, outside influence would be limited.

However, the more a council member or their individual group (such as their friends or their political party) benefits from their decision, the more biased their vote would be. For that reason, judges and attorneys must recuse themselves from a case if they have any personal interest or experience that would affect their decisions. A member of a Federal Council would do the same regarding their vote.

The number of council members

Each Federal Council would have an odd number of members. An odd number would prohibit a tie vote that would create an impasse. The number would be based on the administrative duties of the council. The Swiss Federal Council has seven members, but Switzerland is a much smaller country with a smaller federal government.

Each year, a new council member would be randomly selected from the qualified pool for that council and the senior member would exit the council and return to normal work life. Therefore, each council member would have an automatic term equal to the number of members on the council. With 9 council members, each would serve for 9 years. I propose that most Federal Councils in the US would have 9 members, similar to the Supreme Court. An 11-year or longer term seems very long and a 9-member council would be more diverse than a council with 7 members would be.

Voting

Decisions would be made after discussion from the council members' multiple perspectives. The members would each have an equal vote in all decisions. All votes and decisions would be public information.

Rules would need to be determined for how many members would create a quorum, meaning that they could make decisions if other members could not be available under defined circumstances such as illness, emergencies, or travel. I propose a minimum quorum of 7. Meeting in person would not be necessary as council members could teleconference or videoconference and vote remotely. Therefore, a quorum of 7 should be viable. Perhaps in a predefined, severe national emergency where no communication was possible, the minimum required for a quorum would be 3 or 5. However, with the ability to communicate and vote remotely, such situations would be rare.

Early termination

Whenever a council member resigned or could not serve for the remainder of their term, that member would be dismissed and a new member would be randomly selected from the council's pool of qualified applicants. For example, if a member were disabled for longer than a certain period, was ruled to be mentally or physically incapable, died, was serving special interests instead of the people, or was convicted of a crime, the member could be removed by a unanimous vote of the other council members. A formal trial or evidence would not be necessary. In addition, a council member could be recalled by a 60% vote of the people.

Term limits, not careers

If those who served on Federal Councils could climb the political ladder of power in government as politicians do now, then their focus would most likely be on their own career and in gaining more and more control and power over time. To eliminate career politicians who could be easily targeted and influenced, members of a Federal Council would be dismissed when they finished their term. They would be limited to one term of service on any given council. A member would be free to enter as a candidate in a different leadership pool if they wished. However, given the likelihood that there would be thousands and possibly tens of thousands of candidates in a pool, it is highly unlikely that they would be selected again.

Attracting good candidates

A friend from Europe asked me why anyone would be motivated to serve on a Federal Council if members were limited to 9 years, if it weren't a career position, and if they didn't receive superior retirement benefits. There are a number of reasons, but the most important reasons are to serve your country and fellow citizens and for the respect that it would earn.

Federal Council members would receive pay equivalent to similar positions in industry with normal medical insurance and a 401(k) retirement account. They would receive a 1-year transition salary equivalent to severance pay to provide them with enough time to find a new job.

In 2020, the median tenure of employment in the US was 4.1 years. It was 8.2 years for federal employees. The median for workers aged 25 to 34 was 2.8 years. The median tenure of workers over age 55 was 9.9 years. [2] Most elected positions and appointed positions only carry a 4-year term now. Therefore, a 9-year tenure should not be an issue for most people. It would be more than two 4-year terms in office.

Respect and satisfaction

Some people serve in the military and in the Legislature to make a meaningful contribution to society. All Federal Councils would be prestigious and equally respected. Wherever you served, you would be serving and bettering your country.

Such service could be very satisfying, especially if it resulted in the respect of others. A common leadership principle is that people work for respect, recognition, and appreciation more than for money. The same would be true for public service in the new citizen-focused government. The descriptor of "Federal Council member" would come with the honor and respect of a true representative of the people who dedicated 9 years to serving their country. People would be proud to have Federal Council experience on their resume.

The very first Federal Council

At the very beginning when Federal Councils were implemented, they would have no members. To fill up the council in the first year, all 9 members would be randomly selected. The first one selected would be considered the "oldest" member and the chair. The first would serve for one year only. The second person selected would be the next senior member and serve for two years. And so forth.

For certain Federal Councils (not all), one member of the previous committee, the previous court or council, or the previous individual that was serving in the executive role could stay on as the senior member of a completely new council. They would serve one year and then would be dismissed. This would provide continuity and experience where needed such as for certain committees in Congress and some agencies that use councils now. To determine if a previous person should remain for the first council, the 8 new members could be selected in order as described previously. They could vote and decide by a minimum of 5 votes which individual to retain from the previous committee.

If retaining a previous member or individual could not be worked out, then the default could be to retain no one. After all, when there is a complete major party change in the federal government, everything starts over and often things are run by politicians and political appointees with no experience in their position.

In the committees in the Legislature and in other councils that currently exist, one would like to believe that it would be advantageous for someone with previous experience in the group to remain on the first Federal Council. However, I suggest that someone who had been in Congress for longer than 2 terms or had been on their committee for more than 8 years should not be allowed to remain, as our objective is to end politics.

Primary responsibilities

Federal Councils' primary responsibilities would be to manage a government department or program and make administrative decisions just as appointed executives do now. Each Federal Council would facilitate the democratic solution process by the people through their Citizen Governance Website. They would be responsible for estimating solution costs and implementing solutions chosen by the people. If desired, the council could post a controversial administrative issue on their website for solution by the people rather than making the decision themselves.

Inoculation against narcissists and sociopaths

Federal Councils would blend the personalities, the opinions, and the wisdom of all members of the council and all members would be equal. Such an environment does not reward individuals that have sociopathic and narcissistic personality traits who thrive on competing to win, who continually lie and manipulate, and who lack empathy. These dangerous personality types would not receive the great power, attention, or personal financial gain that they crave. Consequently, Federal Councils would not attract them as politics, law, and corporate management does now. In addition, the odds of one of them being randomly selected would be very slim, less than 4%. [3] Therefore, the nature of Federal Councils would solve the sociopathic character of politics and political parties and their collusion with large corporations.

Transparency of finances

To submit their application to a Federal Council pool, all candidates would agree to complete transparency and monitoring of income and assets under their control during their application screening and their term of service.

During their term of service, if their assets increased or their income increased outside of a justifiable range, their finances would be audited to ensure there was no personal gain from "insider" knowledge or from an outside influence. Such financial transparency would not be attractive to those with shady dealings or to those who hope to personally profit from their service. Therefore, the nature of Federal Councils would prevent political corruption.

Complete transparency of decisions

Councils would make administrative decisions only, not governing decisions. Councils would be required to post important decisions that affected the public with the information used, their reasoning, and their vote on their website in a similar fashion to opinions of rulings by the Supreme Court. As governing decisions within the domain of each council would be made by the people, there would be complete transparency of both the administrative decisions and governing decisions for each council.

Lobbying would be illegal

To limit threats, bribes, and all other special influences, lobbying would be illegal. No gifts of any type would be allowed except those from family and friends under a certain value such as $100 with a limit not to exceed a specified total amount in any calendar year. Council members would be prohibited from discussing any current or upcoming decision matters with anyone outside of their council and their staff except by official, transparent channels. Council tampering would be illegal just as jury tampering is.

All information would be submitted to a Federal Council through official channels, not to individual council members. Any information obtained by or discussed by any individual council member would be disclosed to the rest of the council immediately.

Councils could meet with and plan with other government councils and officials where issues would affect both organizations. Councils could request information from individual companies or from industries. Such information would be posted on their website for all to see. For example, the information could be useful in an administration decision by the council or a governing decision by the people.

If a decision required live testimony, it would be broadcast live, recorded, and posted for all to see later as well. If expert testimony were required, the need would be posted allowing any qualified person to submit their information and their expertise with an equal opportunity of being selected. In such cases, testimonies representing alternative perspectives and evidence would be sought. As politics would no longer exist, the only interest of council members would be to obtain the most accurate and complete information possible.

Removal from office

Occasionally, there could be the need to remove someone from a council. As a failsafe, a member of a Federal Council could be removed without cause by a unanimous vote by all other council members or by a 60% vote of the citizens in a recall issue. If there were 5 or fewer members of the council, a member could only be removed by being incapacitated, for being convicted of a crime beyond a minor misdemeanor, by a unanimous vote of the council above that council, or by a 60% vote of the people.

A vote to remove a member from a Federal Council could be called by any member of any council at any time. Voting would be anonymous. A request to remove a member from a council by the people would be submitted through the democratic solution process on the Citizen Governance Website of the Recall Council. The Recall Council's website would be used instead of that of the member's council to avoid internal interference with the request.

As soon as a council member was removed (or departed), the council would continue to operate with the remaining members. A new council member would be selected randomly from the pool for that Federal Council as soon as possible. It would not take long as the pool for each council would be maintained continuously. If a council were down by one member, additional removal actions could not take place until the empty chair was filled from the pool.

Therefore, the council would not benefit from eliminating a member unless the member was incapacitated, corrupt, serving a special interest, or counterproductively working to sabotage the council. Dissenting voices, opposing opinions of council members, and diversity are an important part of the collective intelligence that makes a Federal Council advantageous over an individual decision maker and would not be grounds for removal.

The benefit of consistency

Currently, less than one percent of the voters can swing a different party into power with a completely different ideology and agenda, disrupting the administration of the country. This can happen every 4 years as a worst case. Entire programs can be undone, undermined, or unfunded based on the ideology, politics, and funders of the political party taking control.

Government leadership in Washington thrashes back and forth whenever the political party of the President-elect changes. The executives of the departments and agencies are swapped with those loyal to the party of the new President. Obviously, the President may pick a few, but his party picks 99%. Many must be confirmed by the Senate. The official list of federal appointments, The Plum Book, contains more than 9,000 Federal civil service leadership and support positions in the executive and legislative branches that may be subject to noncompetitive appointment. [4]

This lack of stability creates major upheaval for our citizens and for other world leaders. Foreign governments must be confused and frustrated as no treaty or program can be trusted beyond the next election cycle. Federal Councils could make long-range plans and strategies and provide consistency for the first time in our history.