By Months: Pipi-Liis Siemann

The speaker is acting as the representative for the steering committee, reporting the majority's positions and procedural decisions (for example, the votes to reject the proposed bills were 5:3 and 6:4). He appreciates constructive debate, noting that the discussion within the committee was better than in the full assembly, but emphasizes that his role is primarily to relay decisions rather than to seek compromises.

The collaborative style is collegial and referential, highlighting and acknowledging the arguments made by various colleagues (such as Jaak Valge, Hendrik Johannes Terras, Anti Allas, and Helir-Valdor Seeder) during the committee discussions. The speaker accepted the mandate to serve as rapporteur, which suggests a readiness to undertake procedural tasks.

The collaborative approach is open to engaging experts, highlighting the involvement of the leadership from both the Ministry of Justice and the State Electoral Service in the discussions. While the Commission achieved consensus on procedural decisions (such as adopting the agenda), members remained divided on substantive matters (supporting draft legislation), a split evidenced by the voting results.

The style of cooperation is consensual and open. The speaker emphasizes that the commission heard all arguments, and procedural decisions—including supporting the proposal and appointing a representative—were made by consensus. This points to a willingness to compromise and find common ground within the commission.

The style of cooperation is consensual and constructive. The speaker reports on the Constitutional Committee's consensual decisions during the processing of the draft bill for the appointment of a Supreme Court justice. He/She makes proposals to improve cooperation between training institutions and employers and seeks to find solutions for reducing bureaucracy.

The speaker stressed the substantive cooperation within the committee, which included representatives from the Ministry of the Interior and the Security Police Board, and involved discussions that crossed partisan lines. They demonstrated an openness to debate, noting that the objective was understood irrespective of party affiliation. Procedural decisions (specifically, the designation of the rapporteur) were adopted by consensus, even though the committee remained divided on the matter of rejecting the draft bills.

The style of cooperation is institutional, presenting the collective decisions and positions of the Constitutional Committee, having been designated as the committee's representative. The position of the Government of the Republic is noted, which also does not support the draft bill, thus indicating a political line similar to the government on the given topic.

The collaborative style is open and appreciative, commending the presenter's local government for the "smart decisions" it has made and the knowledge shared in a mentoring capacity. The speaker actively seeks input from experts, asking how the state can better support local governments.