Amendment to Proposal Procedures

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I have identified a few problems with how proposals move to vote around here:

1. The author of a proposal has little to no control over the content of it, or when it goes to vote. Other RA members can freely amend his proposal and send it to vote without so much as a "by-your-leave." This creates potential situations where the outcome of a proposal is nothing like the author envisioned. Furthermore, and more likely, it creates the potential for unfinished proposals to go to vote, before the author is done drafting it. Just because a proposal is posted in the RA does not mean the author feels it is ready to be voted upon. Often, they are posting it to seek advice and amend it appropriately. Under the current system, such a plan could be undermined by a few motion-happy assemblymen.
   
2. The moment a proposal becomes the most interesting to discuss is after it has been moved to a vote and seconded, because that is the point at which it is certain that it will be voted upon, rather than simply abandoned or forgotten about. This creates a problem, because under the current rules, when a motion is seconded, the text is finalized, and discussion no longer has much value. This has led recently to the absurd practice of moving a proposal to vote simply to get more comments on it, and then withdrawing the motion before it is actually voted upon to make further revisions. Under the current rules, this practice is not bizarre - it makes total sense. But it would be unfortunate to have an environment wherein that was the norm, and the Speaker's office (as well as the entire RA) was constantly jerked around about when a proposal would go to vote. It creates confusion.

The procedure for moving a proposal to a vote is entirely Speaker-created and Speaker-enforced. Nothing in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or RA Procedure outlines this process. Thus, if I so choose, I can change it unilaterally, until or unless the Regional Assembly creates a legal procedure for this that is superior to Speaker-made policies.

Here is my current draft of the my amendment to the proposal and voting policy. I am seeking comments and suggestions. I am going to implement this or something similar to it starting sometime on the week of June 2-8. It does not need to be voted upon - I am simply seeking advice.

1. Any member may introduce a proposal to exercise a power of the Assembly by creating a thread in or making a post in a related thread in the Meeting Chambers or Private Halls subforums.
   
2. If a proposal has associated text, it will be contained in a single quote tag. The member who introduced the proposal may alter this text at their discretion.
   
3. Any member The member who introduced the proposal may call for a vote by posting "motion to vote", "motion for a vote", "call to vote", "call for a vote" or similar or a functional equivalent in the thread. Any other member may second such a motion by posting “second” or similar in the thread.
   
4. During the five days after a vote a called for, the member who introduced the proposal may continue to amend it. This period, hereafter referred to as Formal Debate, may be shortened at the member who introduced the proposal's request. Once Formal Debate has ended, the proposal may no longer be amended.
   
5. If a motion is seconded during the two days after Formal Debate ends, a vote will be opened. the Speaker will schedule a vote. If the proposal has associated text, the vote will be held on the text as it appeared at the time of the motion to vote. end of Formal Debate. No vote will be scheduled to begin fewer than two days after Formal Debate ends.
   
6. Members may vote “aye”, “nay” or “abstain” or similar. Any member may change their vote before the end of voting by making a new post. If a member is removed or otherwise leaves the Regional Assembly during the voting period, any vote they have cast will be invalidated.
   
7. The Speaker will clearly announce when any vote is to end. All votes must be cast before the end of the announced voting period. The Speaker is not required to post to end the voting period.
   
8. No proposal may be introduced that includes changes to more than one document, except by special permission of the Speaker.
   
9. To determine the participation of a quorum, the number of valid votes will be compared to the number of assemblymen who joined the assembly before voting began, and maintained continuous membership for the entire duration of the announced voting period.

By giving the author complete control over the text of his proposal and the time at which it moves to vote, this amendment solves problem 1. By creating a process wherein a motion to vote begins a finite amount of time for further amendments, this procedure simulates the advantages created by moving a vote and then withdrawing it, without the confusion created by problem 2.

I'll be happy to answer questions, or entertain suggestions for improvement. The current (unchanged) procedure may be found here.

 

[Oriole Electronics]

...five days after a vote a called for,...

Methinks this is an error? I also think that when Part Four goes on to say that the author may amend the proposal during those five days we may want to specify that other members of the Regional Assembly and citizens (via the Citizens' Lobby) may offer counsel and advice regarding preferred changes, errors, ambiguous language, etc. -- You know, just in case someone doesn't know that they're allowed.

Any who, I support this change! After I go in and amend it all up I'll put it up for vote hehe

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Well, I certainly didn't mean to imply that others besides the author couldn't contribute to debate or help shape the final text of the proposal. I just mean that the author has creative control over the text of the proposal - other people can only make suggestions, which the author can accept or refuse.

EDIT: I'm planning to make a slimmed down, less legalistic version (think Schoolhouse Rock) of the procedure available to everyone, since this isn't as intuitive as the old procedure. I'll make sure and make that point explicit in there.

 

[punk d]

I'd like to see a procedure to expedite votes if the author makes a motion early in the process. Some things are time sensitive, perhaps leaving something like 'The Speaker Reserves the right to expedite the outlined process at his/her discretion'...maybe that's too open ended, but I'd think we'd want to maintain an ability to vote on some items that are pressing.

Overall - I believe these are changes that will help the process.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Well, there are legal provisions to expedite recall votes and NPA overrides. And the Speaker can always make special exceptions to the rules - they're his rules.

 

[Romanoffia]

This looks like an over-complication of existing traditional rules.

A simple proposal, discussion, seconding, move to vote may be a better move.

A simplification might be:

1.) A bill is proposed.

2.) 5 days for discussion and finalization of the language of the bill.

3.) Motions to move it to a vote. A simple second is required.

No need for fancy legalistic language or procedural rigmarole. A cookbook solution in as few words as possible.


Voting procedure is already covered, no need to reiterate it ad nauseum.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

This looks like an over-complication of existing traditional rules.

What parts are you having trouble understanding? I promise it's not very complicated.

A simple proposal, discussion, seconding, move to vote may be a better move.

...so we should second a proposal before it moved to vote?

A simplification might be:

1.) A bill is proposed.

2.) 5 days for discussion and finalization of the language of the bill.

3.) Motions to move it to a vote. A simple second is required.

5 days for discussion? No thanks. A lot of good proposals takes way longer to refine than that.

No need for fancy legalistic language or procedural rigmarole. A cookbook solution in as few words as possible.

Sorry that you don't like to read, but I'd remind you that I'm not actually adding very many words to the procedure, and that the fancy legalistic language was already mostly there.

Voting procedure is already covered, no need to reiterate it ad nauseum.

Who's reiterating it? I'm changing it.

 

[punk d]

344. 293.

What are those numbers? The before and after word counts (In my software the numbering is counting as words) of COE's changes.

Not sure about the rest of you all, but I feel I have the attention span to read 293 words and/or 344 words with equal aplomb.

I think Roman misses the point about the changes which COE stated was to give more control of the process back to the author of the original proposal. COE, one potential backlash I could see from this is people creating counter proposals if the original author does not like the changes. Do you see this as a potentiality and if so, do you think that's a good or bad thing?

I'll leave you with the final word tally from this post which I hope was not overly verbose as to cause some RA members to fall asleep due to its length.

152.

 

[Sanctaria]

If the Justice is worried about overly verbose passages that will bore people to sleep, perhaps he should cast his mind over the most recent judgement the Court has issued.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

I like the changes. Occasionally I am flustered when a proposal gets a motion and quick second before I've had a chance to consider it. This will definitely help. I'm for giving it a try.

 

[punk d]

You're really just not paying attention, Sanc.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Alright, let's leave the courtroom drama in the courtroom, please.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

COE, one potential backlash I could see from this is people creating counter proposals if the original author does not like the changes. Do you see this as a potentiality and if so, do you think that's a good or bad thing?

There's nothing to really stop people from doing that now, and it hasn't been much of a problem, if any.

 

[punk d]

COE, one potential backlash I could see from this is people creating counter proposals if the original author does not like the changes. Do you see this as a potentiality and if so, do you think that's a good or bad thing?

There's nothing to really stop people from doing that now, and it hasn't been much of a problem, if any.

True.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

A minor wording change (no functional difference). In 5, what previously read "No proposal will be voted on before at least two days have passed since the end of Formal Debate," now reads "No vote will be scheduled to begin fewer than two days after Formal Debate ends."

 

[SillyString]

COE, one potential backlash I could see from this is people creating counter proposals if the original author does not like the changes. Do you see this as a potentiality and if so, do you think that's a good or bad thing?

There's nothing to really stop people from doing that now, and it hasn't been much of a problem, if any.

Welp, now you've given them ideas.

 

[Livilispis]

Hmm... I'm not sure I like the fact that author gets full creative control over the proposal. Having a debate period before it goes to vote is good, perhaps it should be pragmatic depending on what the proposal is and how long it takes to iron out? We should confirm a final version of the proposal before it goes to vote. Perhaps a certain threshold of acceptances by assembly members would be enough, say 5 members accepting a final form to vote on.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Hmm... I'm not sure I like the fact that author gets full creative control over the proposal.

Do you deny that #1 in the OP is a problem? If so, for what reasons would you like to see unfinished proposals to go to vote, or proposals very dissimilar to the original idea?

Having a debate period before it goes to vote is good, perhaps it should be pragmatic depending on what the proposal is and how long it takes to iron out?

I think you might be confusing making a proposal with motioning for a vote. Under this system, the process would go like this:

1. A proposal is written and posted.
2. People debate it for an indefinite period of time, author makes changes.
3. Author moves for a vote.
4. Debate/modification to proposal ends within five days.
5. Proposal moves to the queue and one of two things happens:
   • Proposal is seconded within 2 days and a vote is scheduled OR
   • Proposal is not seconded within two days and dies.

So the length of debate on a proposal is variable based on what the proposal is and how long it takes to iron out. The difference between this system and the past system is that the author is the one that decides when it's done being ironed out, instead of any two Assembly members.

We should confirm a final version of the proposal before it goes to vote. Perhaps a certain threshold of acceptances by assembly members would be enough, say 5 members accepting a final form to vote on.

Ehh, I wouldn't strenuously object to such a requirement, but I don't see a real need for it, unless we end up frequently voting on matters that receive less than that number (in your example, 5) of Aye votes.

 

[Funkadelia]

I thank you infinitely, CoE. Now I don't have to worry about continuing that stupid way of attracting discussion to a bill.

 

[Livilispis]

Thanks CoE, that explanation helped some.
The thing is, if dissimilar ideas did go to vote and get accepted, that would mean they are popular and may be necessary anyways, right?
If what the author proposes is important enough, wouldn't you think people would accept his/her's final proposal to vote on?
If things are still missing to an idea after voted on, I guess one could amend it later but I do see that it would be cumbersome...
Although, wouldn't unfinished proposals not be a problem if we confirmed a final form of the proposal during the debate period?

 

[SillyString]

I've got one question - how do you plan to assign authorship? The person who opened a thread? The person who actually wrote the first draft? What if two people (or more) collaborated through the beginning, but came to disagree about the final direction of the bill?

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Well, #1 says any member may introduce a proposal. With that in mind, while I encourage collaboration, each proposal is only submitted by one member, and that is the member that has control over the content of the proposal. Conveniently, this is also the member who has the power to edit the opening post of the thread, where the text of the proposal is.

I've replaced references to the author with references to the member who introduced the proposal, for clarity.

 

[SillyString]

Hm, okay. What if the opening of the thread is just someone saying, "I think we should do X" but with no actual text?

 

[Great Bights Mum]

I would see that as a discussion and not a formal proposal. After the RA kicks the idea around, and it seems like there is support, then the language could be drafted and submitted as a formal proposal in a new thread.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Mum's got it right.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

The new procedures will be in effect starting now, for all proposals introduced after this post. Proposals introduced before now will proceed under the old rules - however, if the author of a proposal would like to close debate and start a new thread under the new procedure, I will entertain motions to that effect.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I've added a guide to RA procedure to the thread that was previously just a guide to the forum structure. It's pinned in this forum. Check it out!