Who Are Ombudsman And Who Holds Their Offices Accountable?
Anyone can become an ombudsman. We have to begin with the understanding that any barrier to entry constricts and ultimately atrophies the arteries that the public must pass through to enact change. To become an ombudsman, you must create an ombudsman office.
Creating an office will require drafting a proposal, which would in many ways resemble the business plan of a law firm. The proposal will identify the term that the office will operate for, the community served and the nature of cases that the office plans to work in, personnel required, and an operating budget. A statement of intended scope would be necessary to provide guidance for scenarios such as unsuitably high case loads, exceedingly long investigations, procedures for conflicts or overlaps with court circuits, and when to transfer or create new offices to handle cases that become overwhelming.
Who votes on proposals to create ombudsman offices?
There are several places where the creation and administration of a necessary office might be obstructed by those who wish to remain unmonitored and unregulated. If the creation of offices is to be approved in a majority vote, the importance of the method for selecting who votes cannot be understated. In this case, I believe the most sure method to avoid targetted corruption of votes is to select a small number of voters by random sortition.
Proposals to create offices clearly identify the industry and region they plan to operate in, and so it would also identify the pool of candidates that will be drawn from to cast votes. We create a panel by randomly selecting five representatives and six workers, from the industry and region identified. In this way the workers will always have a simple majority, if all representatives are already on one side of an issue they must still convince at least one worker. If the workers are all on one side, the representatives will be forced to offer more attractive compromises to the united workers.
What powers does the panel hold over the ombudsmen office?
The approval process progresses in stages. First, the power to approve, deny, or request revisions to the proposal to create an office. Then, a collaborative effort to draft a charter which lays out the relationship and powers of the panel to the office. The panel will continue to monitor the actions of the office through periodic hearings and reviews. The panel may create their own metrics and measures, or they may remain informal conversational meetings, or they may be conducted somewhat like the courts. It's all up to what the ombudsmen and panel can agree to.
Final thoughts on panel composition.
No one should be forced to work on a project they do not wish to participate in. Panelists should have the option to give up their position to another person. However, a voluntary mechanism for exiting the panel presents an additional opportunity for obstruction. It's not difficult to imagine a scenario where panelists become targets and are pressured to resign. Mechanisms must be in place to limit the potential benefits of such an effort. The simplest method would be to select replacement panelists randomly from the same pool the original candidates were selected from. However, I think there is also room for a mechanism to appoint a replacement directly. Approved unanimously by the other panelists, a panelist could appoint their replacement directly, again limited to choosing from the pool of candidates that was originally drawn from.
We deliberately leave room for the relationship between the office and the panel to take a form that fits the context. This facilitates both more realistic and more respectful proceedings for the people involved. In this way, structured flexibility remains the throughline for the broader system.