FD: Amendment for a Constituent Assembly

A mean old man:
Eluvatar:
I seek for the CA to include as its constituents nations not on our offsite forum.
Click to expand...
That's the one part of this idea that I've had a real issue with.
EDIT: The better plan would be to encourage more members of the region to get involved in the forums. Those that care will join, those that do not will not. THEN create a CA, but only of region members involved in the forums.
People who don't give a fuck shouldn't be included in an assembly designing the region's next Constitution.
Click to expand...
:agree:
 
Actually, I would like to hear the delegate plan to encourage more members of the region to get involved in the forums as well. He hasn't got a chance to show his vision to the region during the election so I would like to know what he plan to do during his term.

Probably going to needs separate thread for this though.

Anyway, I have no problem and preferred allowing nations that have not joined the forum to participate provided that we have a way to ensure that they are actually given full information on the process and that we can ensure that no security threat will be allowed to exist. (Puppets participation and the like)
 
I do understand the concern about the Assembly. In my view, the Constituent Assembly is a positive thing. If we extend it out to the region itself via the RMB and the WFE, I think that it would encourage those who wouldn't normally get involved to come to the forum to participate. I think the important aspect is that we extend the invitation. Those who actually care about what happens will come and will get involved. I think it'd be a Win-Win.
 
I would like to see the Constituent Assembly address, at the very least, the matter of people who are in the region but not on the forums. What is, as of yet, unclear to me is the procedure by which their opinions will be addressed. Perhaps the Party Leadership could talk about that for a bit? I'm interested in hearing the ideas.
 
Oliver:
I would like to see the Constituent Assembly address, at the very least, the matter of people who are in the region but not on the forums. What is, as of yet, unclear to me is the procedure by which their opinions will be addressed. Perhaps the Party Leadership could talk about that for a bit? I'm interested in hearing the ideas.
Click to expand...
:agree:

That, and what will happen to all the TNP laws that have been made. Will scrapping the LC and Consty mean scrapping all 32 laws?
 
Posted with Elu's permission: The following are going to be his proposed rules for the Constituent Assembly.

EDIT: UP-TO DATE VERSION

I strongly object to the plans to carry out all of the voting on the RMB. There's a reason nobody uses RMBs for votes except for poorly run, tiny UCRs; not only are they filled with extraneous conversations and spam, but there is a lot of margin for error if this is hosted in two different areas.

I'm also starting to get more and more uncomfortable with how much more complicated this ordeal keeps getting. I could see everything following the passage of this amendment to be a fiasco if it any more confusing components are added.

Also, and I'm going to be honest, here: the endorsement thing has really pissed me off. I don't tart. I'm not a delegate or a VD or a member of TNP's SC. I generally see tarting as a negative thing, of a way of gaining influence and sitting around with it, and as a threat to the security of the GCR. This is indirectly promoting people in TNP to tart, which really bothers me. Also, since I was planning on trying to be a member of this CA if the amendment was passed, this means I now have to tart like hell. I don't appreciate this short notice.
 
I am of two minds on this. I have a lot of respect for Eluvatar, and I see what he is trying to accomplish: As I've said before, I see the value of consulting off-site users. I am ready to support a plan to consult them, and take their concerns into account.

BUT... I think moving the whole CA business off-forum, including the voting, is a really bad move. Too complicated, for too little payoff.

This business is complicated enough without moving it a crappy, semi-functional forum.

Ultimately, the work of the region happens here. Voting happens here. That is true now, and in the foreseeable future. The object should be to bring people here, not to move our work elsewhere.

I also fundamentally disagree with counting endos, in any way, for any purpose (And I *have* been known to tart a little bit).

I'm also not sure whether we should even bother having elections. Waste of time, IMHO. How about a super committee? All RA members and Elected Officials (automatically) + any other legal nation who expresses an interest, and registers with the forum, before a certain deadline?
 
If there is to be a CA, it'd have to be sure to elect a chairman to oversee the draft and oversee votes on modifications to the draft.
Although we also have a RA. And a Speaker. Just sayin'.
 
A mean old man:
Posted with Elu's permission: The following are going to be his proposed rules for the Constituent Assembly.

EDIT: UP-TO DATE VERSION

I strongly object to the plans to carry out all of the voting on the RMB. There's a reason nobody uses RMBs for votes except for poorly run, tiny UCRs; not only are they filled with extraneous conversations and spam, but there is a lot of margin for error if this is hosted in two different areas.

I'm also starting to get more and more uncomfortable with how much more complicated this ordeal keeps getting. I could see everything following the passage of this amendment to be a fiasco if it any more confusing components are added.

Also, and I'm going to be honest, here: the endorsement thing has really pissed me off. I don't tart. I'm not a delegate or a VD or a member of TNP's SC. I generally see tarting as a negative thing, of a way of gaining influence and sitting around with it, and as a threat to the security of the GCR. This is indirectly promoting people in TNP to tart, which really bothers me. Also, since I was planning on trying to be a member of this CA if the amendment was passed, this means I now have to tart like hell. I don't appreciate this short notice.
Click to expand...
Thank you for changing to a link of the up-to-date version. I greatly appreciate it. :hug:

Secondly thats a draft of what I may wish to see defining the Constituent Assembly. A second draft, to be sure, but still a draft. Not what "[is] going to be [my] proposed rules".

I see no margin for error if all the votes are on the RMB, and the vote count gives permalinks to all of them. The intent of voting on the RMB is to increase linkage by attracting regional attention and to have full verifiability.

The Delegate ordaining all law by divine right is the simplest system, but hardly anyone in TNP wants that. Simplicity is a good but it is not the only good.

In the long run I wish to increase linkage between TNP government and TNP nations. Through interaction between (would-be) legislators and the WA members of TNP, we increase that linkage. Also, with endorsements, we increase the number of people accumulating influence. If the only people getting influence are the Delegate and SC, the SC ossifies and hardly ever grows. And November 1? Short notice? Come on.
 
Eluvatar:
Thank you for changing to a link of the up-to-date version. I greatly appreciate it. :hug:

Secondly thats a draft of what I may wish to see defining the Constituent Assembly. A second draft, to be sure, but still a draft. Not what "[is] going to be [my] proposed rules".

I see no margin for error if all the votes are on the RMB, and the vote count gives permalinks to all of them. The intent of voting on the RMB is to increase linkage by attracting regional attention and to have full verifiability.

The Delegate ordaining all law by divine right is the simplest system, but hardly anyone in TNP wants that. Simplicity is a good but it is not the only good.

In the long run I wish to increase linkage between TNP government and TNP nations. Through interaction between (would-be) legislators and the WA members of TNP, we increase that linkage. Also, with endorsements, we increase the number of people accumulating influence. If the only people getting influence are the Delegate and SC, the SC ossifies and hardly ever grows. And November 1? Short notice? Come on.
Click to expand...
I see plenty of margin for error. One of the reasons we use the forum instead of the RMB is because the RMB is loaded with extraneous shit: other, irrelevant conversations, spam, et cetera. I wouldn't be surprised if someone started trying to derail the CA's activity within the RMB or if "natives" simply looked on with confusion, and I wouldn't be surprised if votes on the RMB were very difficult to keep track of. What do we do if someone's vote is missed? Do they bring that up on the forum? They should have just used the forum to tally the votes to begin with.

Ugh. There's a difference between "simplicity" being a system where the delegate ordains all law and a system loaded with incomprehensible complexities. That's the reason why we're trying to change this Constitution.

Do we really want a bunch of random people gaining endorsements and influence to contest the Delegate and the SC? There are a lot of people sitting around with endorsements and influence who aren't in the government or the SC and couldn't give a shit. That's not okay, in my opinion, and I don't want to see even more of them appear. I also don't see how we could support any more linkage between the government and the nations without simply dissolving this entire government, discarding these forums, and handing everything over to the decisions of tarters and those who respond to tarting. I know (hope?) you don't agree with that purist attitude, Elu. This government is pretty TNPer-friendly, minus some of the RA's arbitrary restrictions which should be revised; all you need to join the RA and be elected as an officer is a nation in the region.

"Short notice" because we've been discussing this for ages, and I now have around half a month to endorse everyone in the region and hope I get enough endorsements back.
 
The whole proposal has a fundamental flaw that has not been addressed by its supporters.

It's reliance on WA status violates the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights prohibits the government from requiring WAs membership. So limiting the proposed CA to WAs inTNP as of any dates will fail My posts in the Progressive Party threads goes into this in more detail. Hopefully my notebook will be back tomorrow, and I'll be able to quote it then.

The other concern is that we have a system in TNP where those whose nations are in TNP can join the R'A. And participate. The proposal would exclude those nations, and this leads to a second violation of the Bill of Rights the guarantees the equality of the right to vote for all nations in TNP.

I've said before that there is not proof that a wholescale revision can't be done through the R'A. and that should be tried first. The current Constitution was adopted that way, and there's not reason not to Do it not way now. Unless there are ulterior partisan motives at foot.

Finally, these forums are the home of TNP's community, and moving such a complex task to a RMB at NS simply makes no sense in view of that fact. This is the place chosen by the community as a whole, and the move to and RMB seems.to be a back-door attempt by a self, chosen few to take control of the community for selfish political gain. Not on my watch.
 
Gross, if you could control yourself and refrain from making so many references to what you believe are attempts to take control of TNP by outsiders, you'd find more people agreeing with your concerns. Even if you think these displays of paranoia are justified, they're not helping your other arguments at all.
 
Some of us have been trying to communicate thatthee constituent assembly proposal was seriouslyflawed from the get-go.

Am I passionate about protedting an preserving democracy? You'd better bet thqt I am. It would take research for some of you, but you might want to checheck the hitorical record and see who originally proposed and drafted the Bill of Rights and presented it to the Pixiedance dictatorship in negotiations during the North Pacific Confedeation era.

One of the problems with this proposal is that we haven't been shown everything...and as we are shown more, the more flawed it becomes. I shudder to wonder what else we'll learn while there's still time to prevent this proposal from being adopted.

I call again for the advocatew of Constitutional revision to do it the right way in the Regional Assembly...with activity more resident nations will join and it will be more open and more democratic than what the proposed constituent assembly would offer.
 
The only thing you're passionate about is paranoia.

You gotta pick a pony, Gross, because you seem to complain when we do introduce changes and when we don't introduce changes.
 
There is definitely room to debate the Constituent Assembly. More room than with the amendment.

The amendment does not call for the Constituent Assembly to be elected in any particular fashion. It allows the RA to determine how the CA should be elected. Indeed, the CA could be elected by RA members electing to join it. The amendment does not dictate that.

The discussion of how the CA should work is a separate discussion from this expiration amendment. If you think November 23 is too soon, perhaps the date should be January 1, 2012.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Finally, these forums are the home of TNP's community, and moving such a complex task to a RMB at NS simply makes no sense in view of that fact. This is the place chosen by the community as a whole, and the move to and RMB seems.to be a back-door attempt by a self, chosen few to take control of the community for selfish political gain. Not on my watch.
Click to expand...

This is the place a few in TNP has choosen, the magority of the region isn't here, so to say that the community as a whole chose to be here is not true. You seem to act like the fact we have a presence in NS is just a secondary thing, and not important, when in fact it is why this place exists in the first place, and if we as a forum community forget that, then we don't deserve to hold the delegacy, or have control of the WFE.

The new constitution is not to be written on the RMB either. However the greater community of TNP should have a say so. Just how this will be done is still to be determined, and we as a party have hardly came to a consensus on the matter. Though it will hardly be a matter for our party to decide upon ourselves. It will be a matter for the RA to decide upon.
 
I'm firmly against moving it to the RMB. It's not controlled and it's too messy.

Not to mention I'm also against the idea of only having a CA of 5-7 people. I believe the CA should consist of all current RA members, government officials, and any TNP citizens that wish to join, all having equal voice, with the moderator being the RA speaker. That's a much more logical way to do it if people still want a CA.
 
Let's get back on topic for a moment. The outline for CHOOSING the CA is a completely SEPARATE law/amendment than what's in the original post, and I think we're starting to get away from that.

So I'll try to get us back on topic. I'm on the fence about Article 4. The RA membership is fine, but I don't like the idea of restricting the vote to people who have been WA member since <insert any date here>. Not sure what a better option would be, there I'm sure there is one out there.

Also, Article 5 is completely unclear: "5. If November 23 passes and the Constitution expires," It's missing a clause or something. Probably needs a "without a new Constitution having been established by the Constituent Assembly." So:

5. If November 23 passes and the Constitution expires without a new Constitution having been established by the Constituent Assembly,
 
Grimalkin:
Let's get back on topic for a moment. The outline for CHOOSING the CA is a completely SEPARATE law/amendment than what's in the original post, and I think we're starting to get away from that.

So I'll try to get us back on topic. I'm on the fence about Article 4. The RA membership is fine, but I don't like the idea of restricting the vote to people who have been WA member since <insert any date here>. Not sure what a better option would be, there I'm sure there is one out there.

Also, Article 5 is completely unclear: "5. If November 23 passes and the Constitution expires," It's missing a clause or something. Probably needs a "without a new Constitution having been established by the Constituent Assembly." So:

5. If November 23 passes and the Constitution expires without a new Constitution having been established by the Constituent Assembly,
Click to expand...
I'd be happy to let any TNP WA members vote in any such referendum, or just those who have been WA members in TNP for a week preceding the opening of the referendum. The October first restriction was not my idea and at this point I'm not prepared to defend it.

And the suggested version of clause 5 is a bit clearer. Longer but clearer.
 
I'm not even sure that I like restricting it only to WAs. You're effectively making it so that only people who've made TNP their PRIMARY home are allowed to vote. We have a lot of people currently who don't make TNP their primary home and are active in our government. I think your requirement has the potential to curb that in the future.



EDIT in bold.
 
The amendment as it stands requires one of two to be a valid voter:

EITHER an RA member OR a TNP WA member (since october 1).
 
Does the R.A. limits members to those with a W.A. in TNP? No. Does the format the sponsors of this proposal offer leave out TNP resident nations? Yes.

Therefore one has to conclude that the R.A. itself is more open and democratically accessible than what is contemplated by the proposal's sponsors, or at least some of them.

And the forums were selected by a widely open group of the TNP community. The three communities at the Constitutional Convention selected s2, and that group then approved without a negative vote to a move here as a new forum when Twoslilt became impossible to work with.

And I'll say this again that limiting it to WAs violates the Bill.of Rights, clearly and explicitly.

A better proposal would be to pass a call for the Regional Assembly to convene in extraordinary session for the purpose of discussing and debating one or more proposals to revise the Constitution and Legal Code. We don't need to amend the Constitution to do it that way....and there's nothing to prevent a deadline on which to have a vote on all proposals in the extraordinary session begin at the same time. That way, competing visions of the revision can be assured equal treatment. I would recommend that any ”drop dead” dates to start the final votes be a little later than 1 January if only because the well documented holidays lull.

And in view of the discussion elsewhere in another thread about the detrimental effect of activity clauses, that the R.A. suspend that requirement during the duration of the extraordinary session. This would not apply to cases where a member's TNP nation leaves TNP or Ceases To Exist.

If others think this may lead to a faster, fairer road to revision that puts everyone on a equal.footing, then I'll be able to do so in about a day. I should have my notebook repaired and delivered by the end of today my local time, and it would be much easier to type on that that on this screen.

fixed typos with notebook.
 
Honestly, I don't really care whether the RA does or if a Constituent Assembly (caveat: depends on how the RA decides to elect a CA) does the reform, but I don't agree with a piecemeal revision of the Constitution. I'm still all for completely throwing it out and starting from scratch.
 
And as I've pointed out before, what you say you want to do has been done before in the R.A.

And I'm not seeing any advantages to using a constituent assembly approach, since any resident can join the R.A. and join in.

I hope you can appreciate the fact that I'd rather type something like an alternative proposal on a real keyboard that doesn't create its own typos and is impossible to edit typos with. It is a limitation on tablets just as much as smartphones, apparently. One would think the technology would be better than this by now.
 
Heh, well when the two devices use (nearly) the same OS platforms....



Here's how I see the Constituent Assembly: It's purpose is to bring together a small group of people who represent every aspect of the region: citizens, RA members, government, Old Guard, whatever. It's easier to get things done with a smaller group of people debating than with the WHOLE RA foaming at the mouth at each other.

While I can see why the CA is unappealing to some, I see the advantages of it, but only if the CA is actually a sample of all the citizens in the region.


(Completely off topic, what tablet do you use?)
 
My notebook is not on Andriod. Or steriods, for that matter.

Notebook is back, but I've catching up on other things online too. But I will be pulling a draft alternative motion among them. When I don't have to worry about updates installing and wanting to re-boot.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
My notebook is not on Andriod. Or steriods, for that matter.

Notebook is back, but I've catching up on other things online too. But I will be pulling a draft alternative motion among them. When I don't have to worry about updates installing and wanting to re-boot.
Click to expand...
I think he's referring to the fact that your tablet is powered by the same OS as the Verizon Android smartphones, which use the Android OS.
 
Here is a draft of my proposed alternative to the proposed Constitutional amendment.

It is a resolution that directs the Speaker (or whoever is in the chair) to convene an extraordinary session of the RA (i.e., a special subforum of the RA forum), the most essential guidelines to how proposals will be handled, limiting removals from the RA due to inactivity and directing admissions to be handled promptly (essentially not allowing votes prior to the set of final votes to belay admissions), and allowing simultaneous proposals to be offered, debated, amended, and for final votes at the same time. A simple plurality is all that it would require to pass.

It is a draft so let's see if this can be developed into something that is faster and avoids a lot of the concerns in the proposal on the floor.

Call for an extraordinary session of the Regional Assembly to consider proposals for revision of the governing documents of The North Pacific.

1. The Regional Assembly of The North Pacific, recognizing the desire of some members to enact a revision of some of the Governing Documents of the North Pacific, hereby directs the Speaker (and any member of the Regional Assembly acting as Speaker Pro Tempore or as Acting Speaker) to convene a separate session of the Assembly to consider and vote upon one or more proposals for revision. Said extraordinary session shall convene no later than (Date), and shall endeavor to complete its work by (Date).

2. While the Assembly is in extraordinary session, no member of the Regional Assembly shall be removed due to inactivity, although the Speaker may remove those members whose nation of record departs from The North Pacific or ceases to exist.

3. While the Assembly is in extraordinary session, any applications for admission under Law 28 shall be impartially acted on so long as the applicant posts the required oath, and maintains their nation of record in The North Pacific.

4. The Speaker shall organize the debate and deliberations in such a manner so as to permit parallel proposals to be offered, considered, amended and brought to a final vote at the same time. The chair will permit informal amendments to be accepted by a proposal’s sponsor(s), or to have a vote on motions to amendments to each such proposal, to last no longer than 48 hours. Such amendments and votes shall be in order up to the time for a final vote on all such proposals.

5. Should, upon the final vote on the revision proposals, more than one proposal attain the required vote for passage, the Speaker shall appoint the sponsors of each proposal and not more than three other members to a committee to reconcile the approved proposals into a final document. The final vote on each proposal shall take place during the same period of 7 days.

6. For the extraordinary session only, revisions may include proposals to revise the Constitution and the Legal Code only, with the intention that Law 1, 2 and 23 (oath of office, regional flag and regional holidays) not be affected by the revisions.

[NOTE: This contemplates a special subforum of the RA with each proposal having separate threads, and each final vote being conducted on separate threads with the full text of each final proposal.]
Click to expand...
 
Grimalkin:
(Completely off topic, what tablet do you use?)
Click to expand...
It's a Toshiba Thrive 10.1" 32 GB tablet operating on the latest release of the Android OS.

Anything small, and I would have a lot of trouble reading and typing on it.
 
What I've done is combine elements of the de facto procedure used in the Regional Assembly that lead to the adoption of the current Constitution and repeal of Laws 3 to 22 of the Legal Code; and the procedures used at the Constitutional Convention. In both instances, multiple proposals were introduced, debated, and amended. The R.A. process took three final proposals from different sponsors to a vote.

There are probably some clarifications that need to go in, but I did want to get the basics posted as quickly as I could. (I'm having to deal with a full scan of my notebook and a slow connection at the same time.)
 
Your proposal Grosse is a perfect example of the overly wordy and redundant dialect of Legalese that makes the current law and constitution as needlessly complicated as it is. It also doesn't seem to accomplish much over all either. To wit:

The Regional Assembly of The North Pacific, recognizing the desire of some members to enact a revision of some of the Governing Documents of the North Pacific, hereby directs the Speaker[...]
Click to expand...
This is equivalent to just "The Speaker will"; the only difference is it's over 20 words longer.

any member of the Regional Assembly acting as Speaker Pro Tempore or as Acting Speaker
Click to expand...
This is redundant; if acting speakers are empowered to act under certain conditions in the Speaker's stead, then mentioning just the Speaker themselves is enough; this is a power of the Speaker and therefore already covered by those laws and procedures for acting ones.

And while we're on this, can't you just avoid all this Speaker business all together by just saying the session will be convened?

shall endeavor to complete its work by
Click to expand...
What does "endeavor" mean? They just have to try? That doesn't really carry any force.

2. While the Assembly is in extraordinary session, no member of the Regional Assembly shall be removed due to inactivity, although the Speaker may remove those members whose nation of record departs from The North Pacific or ceases to exist.
Click to expand...
"although the Speaker may remove those members whose nation of record departs from The North Pacific or ceases to exist" is redundant; barring the Speaker from removing people for inactivity in no one entails barring them from removing people for other reasons, and it therefore does not have to be said.

And why is this clause necessary at all?

3. While the Assembly is in extraordinary session, any applications for admission under Law 28 shall be impartially acted on so long as the applicant posts the required oath, and maintains their nation of record in The North Pacific.
Click to expand...
This entire clause is pointless; nothing says they wouldn't be acted on during the extraordinary session, so why wouldn't they be and why would you need to say they have to be?

6. For the extraordinary session only, revisions may include proposals to revise the Constitution and the Legal Code only,
Click to expand...
Isn't the Constitution and Legal Code everything anyway? I might be missing them but I can't find any mention in the Constitution of any other body of law.

with the intention that Law 1, 2 and 23 (oath of office, regional flag and regional holidays) not be affected by the revisions.
Click to expand...
If you've given the number of the laws why do you need to add their name in parentheses as well (unless those are supposed to be brackets)? Also, what is this with the "with the intention that [...] not be affected"? What's wrong with just saying "except"?[/quote]

Finally, overall, what does this special session actually accomplish that's significantly different?
 
I'm not really concerned about your linguistics issues. If you want to do a rewrite of the motion, do a rewrite. It is a first draft, after all.

I said I would offer a draft motion as a way to get to a revision process that does not require a constitutional amendment or a constituent assembly, and avoids the issues that violates the Bill of Rights and that is what I have put on the table.

And please, your opinions about writing are your opinions, so please stop trying to be the grammar czar, you are not qualified.
 
I'm not really concerned about your linguistics issues. If you want to do a rewrite of the motion, do a rewrite. It is a first draft, after all.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to rewrite a draft for a bill which I don't have any desire to see passed in any form. And not concerned about linguistic issues? I hate to break it to you, but laws are written using languages, there's necessarily going to be linguistic issues.
I said I would offer a draft motion as a way to get to a revision process that does not require a constitutional amendment or a constituent assembly, and avoids the issues that violates the Bill of Rights and that is what I have put on the table.
Click to expand...
How does this in particular avoid issues with the Bill of Rights? Was there every any danger of such issues to begin with?
And please, your opinions about writing are your opinions, so please stop trying to be the grammar czar, you are not qualified.
Click to expand...
Oh I'm sorry, I was under the impression that the point of this legislative discussion was for people to freely voice their opinions and argue for them. I also don't like the inference that the opinion is a trivial personal preference, because it is isn't. Laws should be as easy to read and understand as possible. When you add needless words to them you increase their size and complexity, which necessarily makes them harder to understand. That's a perfectly valid and well formed opinion.

Also, I said nothing about grammar, though I hope you're not implying that it's okay for laws to be riddled with grammatical errors.
 
There is a place for the language Grosse is using; in the preamble. Explanations for the purpose and intent of provisions belong in the preamble. If I were to write this (keeping in mind that I'm not necessarily reflecting my own views)...

WHEREAS some members of the Regional Assembly have a desire to enact a revision of the Governing Documents of the North Pacific,

AND WHEREAS this revision ought to be carried out by the Regional Assembly as a whole, and not by a constituent assembly or other committee for that purpose,

AND WHEREAS the revision must be completed in a timely and efficient manner,

1. The Regional Assembly of the North Pacific hereby directs the Speaker to convene a special session of the same Assembly to review and decide on proposals for such a revision, convening on (date), and completing their work before (date).

2. For the purposes of this special session, the Speaker is barred from removing members of the Regional Assembly for the sole reason of inactivity.

3. The Speaker shall organize the debate and deliberations in such a manner so as to permit parallel proposals to be offered, considered, amended and brought to a final vote at the same time. The chair will permit informal amendments to be accepted by a proposal’s sponsor(s), or to have a vote on motions to amendments to each such proposal, to last no longer than 48 hours. Such amendments and votes shall be in order up to the time for a final vote on all such proposals.

4. Should, upon the final vote on the revision proposals, more than one proposal attain the required vote for passage, the Speaker shall appoint the sponsors of each proposal and not more than three other members to a committee to reconcile the approved proposals into a final document. The final vote on each proposal shall take place during the same period of seven days.

5. The special session shall permit revision of the Constitution, and of the Legal Code with the exceptions of laws 1, 2, and 23.
Click to expand...

Hopefully this deals with at least some of Gulliver's concerns.
 
For the purposes of this special session, the Speaker is barred from removing members of the Regional Assembly for the sole reason of inactivity.
Click to expand...

Question, by definition does "inactivity" include non-attendance in votes? Since one can be active and not vote on matters....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top