Regional Assembly Rules Amendment Bill

r3naissanc3r

r3naissanc3r

TNPer
-
-
Regional Assembly Rules Amendment Bill

1. Rule 1, Rule 2, Rule 3, Rule 4, and Rule 5 of the Regional Assembly are repealed.

2. The following is adopted as rules of the Regional Assembly,

Rules of the Regional Assembly of The North Pacific

Section 1. Proposals

1. Any member of the Regional Assembly may bring a proposal for discussion before the Regional Assembly.

2. The Speaker may schedule a vote on any proposal being discussed by the Regional Assembly as permitted by law.

3. If at least two members of the Regional Assembly object to the decision of the Speaker to schedule a vote on a proposal, then the Speaker is required to cancel the vote.

4. If at least one-tenth of the members of the Regional Assembly, including the member that introduced the proposal to the Regional Assembly, motion that a vote should be held on a proposal before the Regional Assembly, then the Speaker must schedule a vote on that proposal to begin as soon as permitted by law.

Section 2. Voting

1. No more than two votes of the Regional Assembly may be taking place simultaneously at any time, excluding election votes.

2. Unless otherwise required by law, votes of the Regional Assembly will last for a minimum of three and a maximum of seven days.

3. The Speaker will, at the beginning of a vote of the Regional Assembly, decide its duration as permitted by law.

4. If at least one tenth of the members of the Regional Assembly object to the duration of a vote of the Regional Assembly decided by the Speaker before the conclusion of the vote, then that vote will last for the maximum duration permitted by law.

5. If at the conclusion of a vote quorum has not been achieved, then the Speaker may extend the duration of the vote to the maximum permitted by law.

Section 3. Deputy Speaker and Vacancies

1. The Speaker may, at their discretion, appoint a member of the Regional Assembly as Deputy Speaker. The Speaker may, at their discretion, remove an existing Deputy Speaker.

2. Unless otherwise specified by law, the Speaker may delegate any of their powers and duties to the Deputy Speaker. Delegation under this section does not relieve the Speaker of any of their powers and duties. Any provisions of law related to the powers and duties of the Speaker, when exercised by the Deputy Speaker under the provisions of this clause, shall apply to the Deputy Speaker.

3. When the position of Speaker is vacant, the Deputy Speaker will assume the powers and duties of the office of the Speaker for the duration of the vacancy. When the position of Deputy Speaker is simultaneously vacant, the Regional Assembly member who is available, has the longest period of membership, and is not otherwise prohibited by law will assume the powers and duties of the office of the Speaker for the duration of the simultaneous vacancy.

4. The period of membership of a Regional Assembly member is defined as the amount of elapsed time since that member's most recent admission to the Regional Assembly without an interruption.
Click to expand...
 
Before I begin, I should acknowledge the contributions by Speaker Crushing Our Enemies and Deputy Speaker SillyString in the drafting of this bill.

This is a comprehensive rewrite of the Regional Assembly rules. it replaces the entirety of the previous rules with a single document, which has been drafted with three main objectives in mind:

1) providing flexibility in the way the Regional Assembly carries out its business;

2) creating a robust set of regulations that cannot be easily abused; and

3) improving the language and technical quality of the rules.

Regarding the first, ever since the Court struck down the so-called "minor provision clause", which provided a mechanism for expedited passage of certain pieces of legislation, the Regional Assembly has had no way to fast forward any motions. Anything, from a single-word change to fix a typo, to a constitutional rewrite, takes the same seven days of voting to pass. More generally, the rigidity of the current Regional Assembly rules often causes unnecessary delays in the Regional Assembly proceedings, and hinder its efficiency.

Regarding the second, just recently we had instances where only two Regional Assembly members would clog the legislative pipeline by introducing a large number of frivolous motions, which would subsequently summarily be moved to vote.

This proposal addresses both of these issues by providing the Speaker with additional powers and discretion in administering the Regional Assembly proceedings. The Speaker can then exercise these powers to adapt the way the Regional Assembly operates to the specific circumstances of each motion. A number of checks on the Speaker, activated by fractions of the Regional Assembly membership, are put in place to prevent abuse of their new powers. The reasoning here is that, it is easier to prevent abuse of power by a single person that was elected to be entrusted with these powers, than by any arbitrary Regional Assembly member.

As to the third, the current rules have frequently been the cause of complaints from our members. The language in several places is ambiguous or unnecessarily vague, sloppy, and even of questionable legality. This proposal seeks to address these issues in a number of different ways. To the extent possible, the rules defer to other, superior legislation, for definitions and regulations. This helps avoid conflicting provisions, removes the redundancy that is very often the source of such conflicts, and reinforces consistency and uniformity across the various levels of law. Rules have been consolidated into a small set of provisions that are formulated in a straightforward way, and written to be generically applicable without unnecessary specialization.

Moving on to the details of the proposal, it consists of three sections. The first section includes provisions related to the discussion of motions, any motions, by the Regional Assembly. The second covers voting. The third covers the Deputy Speaker and Speaker pro tempore. I will go over each section separately.

In the first section, as previously, any Regional Assembly member can bring any sort of proposal before the body. The Speaker then is allowed to let the discussion continue for as long as they want, and is allowed to schedule a vote at any point at their discretion. A couple of members can prolong the debate of a motion, by objecting to the scheduling of a vote. This is to an extent the reverse of the system we are using now, where two members can force a vote on a motion before the Senate. Finally, to prevent abuse of either of these provisions, a vote on a motion can be forced by one-tenth of the Regional Assembly (a number that is usually 6-8 members).

The second section removes the fixed seven-day voting period we have been using until now. Instead, the Speaker is allowed to set, at their discretion, vote duration to anything between three and seven days. As before, to prevent abuse of this power, one-tenth of the Regional Assembly can force that the vote lasts the maximum number of days.

Finally, the third section works, in practical terms, very similar to the current set of rules. There are some important differences however, if somewhat nuanced. The definition of unavailability has been removed and instead deferred to the Legal Code, which includes one for all offices. The Deputy Speaker is now enabled to operate in parallel with the Speaker, and not only when the latter is busy, away, or one does not exist. Lastly, this section enables the Speaker to delegate, at their discretion, any of their powers to the Deputy Speaker.

This last change warrants some additional discussion. Currently it is unclear, to me at least, what exactly powers the Deputy Speaker can exercise. It has been argued in the past that, wherever the Legal Code uses the wording "office of the Speaker", the corresponding provisions are meant to also apply to the Deputy Speaker. Yet, it has also been pointed out that the Regional Assembly rules themselves provide evidence contradicting this argument. I believe it is better to legislate this explicitly, rather than rely on vague statements. Given the nature of the powers of the Speaker, all of administrative nature, I further believe it is appropriate to allow delegation of all of the Speaker powers to the Deputy Speaker. This, however, is not something that can be done through the Regional Assembly rules alone, and requires further amendments. For this reason, I will be introducing a parallel constitutional amendment to that effect shortly.
 
Who exactly has been clogging with frivolous motions? Can you name names?

I think there are some good ideas in this. I think it effectively curtails the power of minorities in the RA. I'm not really keen on that but I'm willing to let this pass to see if it works. I know people will try and tell me it's not curtailing the power of minorities at all, in any way, shape or form, but effectively (the way I see it) it is a fair bit harder to get 6 people to motion something than it is for just one person to motion something.

I can't really see that it would matter. For example, if someone was abusing their power and I wanted to recall them, it might be harder to do it, they might be able to stay in office indefinitely. Is that worth the risk? Yeah it probably is fine, because if they are worth the effort they will be removed eventually.

(And now comes the bit where you say this does not actually relate to recalls and I look stupid)
 
I like the new rules proposal, however I don't like how you need 1/10 of the Regional Assembly in order to motion things to vote, while only two may object to cancel a vote. While you are looking for a stop to clogging of the so-called legislative pipeline, I believe that being able to cancel a proposal with just two people can cause the exact opposite to happen.
 
It is my interpretation of this legislation that two people would only be able to cancel a vote under provision 3 which the Speaker moved under provision 2 - and that a movement under provision 4 would override both of the previous two.
 
Since nobody answered my question, let me ask it to Funk, have you been clogging the RA with frivolous motions? Do you think the RA has your behaviour in mind when they wrote this?

Just trying to pin down the cause of the change.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
The cause of the change is that the RA rules suck. Seriously, go look at them and then tell me they don't suck.
Click to expand...
They can be improved. I think it's great that we are changing the rules but the bit I have issue with is why exactly we want to reduce the power of tiny minorities. Under current rules, I can bring to vote a motion to recall you if I can get one person to second it. Under new rules, it will only go through at your discretion... unless I get it thirded, fourthed, fifthed and sixthed. So this is a limit being placed on individuals as part of that power is being transferred to the speaker. That is not necessarily a bad move, but can you see why it's questionable? Presumably you are bringing that change because of the frivolous and wasteful actions of individual members in recent history and I would feel better if I had a fuller understanding of the justifications for that.
 
Chasmanthe:
Crushing Our Enemies:
The cause of the change is that the RA rules suck. Seriously, go look at them and then tell me they don't suck.
Click to expand...
They can be improved. I think it's great that we are changing the rules but the bit I have issue with is why exactly we want to reduce the power of tiny minorities. Under current rules, I can bring to vote a motion to recall you if I can get one person to second it. Under new rules, it will only go through at your discretion... unless I get it thirded, fourthed, fifthed and sixthed. So this is a limit being placed on individuals as part of that power is being transferred to the speaker. That is not necessarily a bad move, but can you see why it's questionable? Presumably you are bringing that change because of the frivolous and wasteful actions of individual members in recent history and I would feel better if I had a fuller understanding of the justifications for that.
Click to expand...
Are we improved, as a legislature, if we frequently hold votes on proposals that have no chance at all of passing?

Is it really very plausible that a motion which cannot find several other members to support it would actually pass the RA?

That's aside from the fact that provision 2 does not prohibit the Speaker from regulating movement to vote as they please. These changes are completely compatible with the rules already established by the Speaker's Office, which can be reviewed here. To the best of my knowledge, the Speaker does not plan on altering these rules, and I certainly will not be doing so in his absence. As a result, motions will generally proceed to vote as normal.
 
SillyString:
It is my interpretation of this legislation that two people would only be able to cancel a vote under provision 3 which the Speaker moved under provision 2 - and that a movement under provision 4 would override both of the previous two.
Click to expand...
Can you please clarify which provisions you are referring to?

Edit: Nvm, I re-read the first section. So essentially if two members object to a vote being held, it is not a filibuster but essentially a delaying tactic since one-tenth of the RA can move to proceed.
 
Chas:
Who exactly has been clogging with frivolous motions? Can you name names?
Click to expand...

I am referring to the string of motions and votes for recall we saw in late May. I remember motions being made for at least Abbey, Punkd, Lord Ravenclaw, Hileville, and Eluvatar. At least three of them made it to vote, all of them defeated soundly.

Chas:
I think there are some good ideas in this. I think it effectively curtails the power of minorities in the RA. I'm not really keen on that but I'm willing to let this pass to see if it works. I know people will try and tell me it's not curtailing the power of minorities at all, in any way, shape or form, but effectively (the way I see it) it is a fair bit harder to get 6 people to motion something than it is for just one person to motion something.

I can't really see that it would matter. For example, if someone was abusing their power and I wanted to recall them, it might be harder to do it, they might be able to stay in office indefinitely. Is that worth the risk? Yeah it probably is fine, because if they are worth the effort they will be removed eventually.
Click to expand...
You do not need six members to motion for a recall. A single person can motion for a recall, and then the Speaker can use whatever procedures they want to decide when it is put to vote. For instance, they can keep using the same procedures already in place (I am not referring to the codified RA rules, but the procedures the Speaker decides on a discretionary basis, like these.)

The six-member requirement is there as a control against abuse of two powers: 1) the Speaker's power to move a motion to vote at any time they want (or, in this case, never); and 2) the power any two RA members have to block a motion from going to vote. It is not intended as the standard way in which things move to vote; but rather, as a measure to be used in extraordinary circumstances. In most circumstances, motions would move to vote as normal.

As to the power of the minorities. I agree that this takes away some power. That power is the power of two members to completely control what is being voted upon by the RA, when they were not elected to do so, and even when they exploit that power to overwhelm our Assembly with motions that have no chance of passing. The question then is, should this power be given in the first place? And my answer is that it should not. What we should strive for is such minorities having the opportunity to make their proposals and see them move to vote, without however complete disregard for the majority will. The proposed change to the rules provides for that. Assuming a reasonable Speaker, members will be able to make motions as before, and at the same time a set of measures against exploitation will be at the disposal of the majority. If the reasonable Speaker condition is not satisfied, we also have several measures to deal with tha situation, including recall.

Chas:
Just trying to pin down the cause of the change.
Click to expand...
In addition to the above, I mentioned two other reasons for the change in my second post. As COE said, the current rules such in many aspects and a rewrite is well overdue.

Funk:
I like the new rules proposal, however I don't like how you need 1/10 of the Regional Assembly in order to motion things to vote, while only two may object to cancel a vote. While you are looking for a stop to clogging of the so-called legislative pipeline, I believe that being able to cancel a proposal with just two people can cause the exact opposite to happen.
Click to expand...
Just to confirm, what SillyString said is correct:
"It is my interpretation of this legislation that two people would only be able to cancel a vote under provision 3 which the Speaker moved under provision 2 - and that a movement under provision 4 would override both of the previous two."

Ash:
Can you please clarify which provisions you are referring to?

Edit: Nvm, I re-read the first section. So essentially if two members object to a vote being held, it is not a filibuster but essentially a delaying tactic since one-tenth of the RA can move to proceed.
Click to expand...
The fillibuster analogy is an apt one. Two members can delay a motion going to vote if they believe more debate is necessary. But, to avoid a situation like the US Senate, where a minority of members can prevent something from ever moving to vote, one-tenth of the RA are allowed to override such delaying motions.
 
Thank you r3n and Silly for explaining more clearly. I understand a little better how it would work.

Picking up the point about individual members exploiting the RA and disregarding the majority will, I am not saying this doesn't happen, but I want to know exactly who has done it, when they have done it, why they have done it - because they have led us to the point where you felt it necessary to curtail the power of minorities and I think the RA needs to be conscious of that, so they understand when to use provision 4 to override provision 3.

Motion to recall Abbey requested by Funkadelia then retracted
Motion to recall Punk D first moved by New Kervoskia and seconded by Romanoffia, then moved by Funkadelia and seconded by John uppercrest.
Motion to recall Lord Ravenclaw proposed by Scarpanto
Motion to recall Hileville proposed by Scarpanto and seconded by Democratic Donkeys
Motion to recall Eluvatar proposed by Scarpanto and seconded by Abstain

So can you say categorically were Funk, NK, Roman, John, Scarpanto, DD and Limi abusing their power? This is the question I've been driving at for some time now.
 
Chasmanthe:
So can you say categorically were Funk, NK, Roman, John, Scarpanto, DD and Limi abusing their power? This is the question I've been driving at for some time now.
Click to expand...
How would this information affect your thought process?
 
Ash:
Chasmanthe:
So can you say categorically were Funk, NK, Roman, John, Scarpanto, DD and Limi abusing their power? This is the question I've been driving at for some time now.
Click to expand...
How would this information affect your thought process?
Click to expand...
I don't know, but it's useful to gain the ability to tell the difference, isn't it?

Most proposals are political, and by their very nature have some in favour and some against.

In a future case, someone may propose something and have it blocked by provision 3. What thought process will the RA use to determine whether an override by provision 4 is warranted? If the thought process is that a proposal lacking majority support or lacking support from the speaker is reason not to hold a vote, then the region could become less democratic. But if the thought process is that certain individuals abuse their power by forcing a vote on things that are inappropriate to hold a vote on, at certain times under certain circumstances for certain purposes, in exceptional cases that we have the ability to distinguish, then we are more informed democracy.

Edit: ^ not an argument against the proposal per se, it's a discussion on how the new rules will be followed.
 
"The RA" will not be using any unified thought process, as it does not think as a bloc. All RA members are free to apply their own best judgement as to whether provisions 3 or 4 should be implemented, and are capable of collaborating even when their motives differ - there's no requirement that the two invoking provision 3 or the 6-8 invoking provision 4 agree about why doing so is important or necessary.

The framework that r3n has laid out is one that will require RA members to take initiative and invoke if they wish to see it in action. The Speaker's office will not be asking if there are objections to moving things to vote, nor soliciting forced overrides of stalled bills.

In other words, how these rules will be followed is entirely up to you - and you, and you, and you, as individual members of the RA.
groupthinkgroupthinkgroupthink
 
I think that members who have been quick to recall, aren't abusing their power, but that they have not received the universal support their authors hoped to gain probably shows that r3n's changes to the rules will help the process.

I'm a firm believer in allowing as many proposals into the mix as possible. But, voting on items that "have no chance of passing" as some have said, does seem like a waste of time.

Under the new rules, it appears that situation will be addressed.

The only thing that's tricky for me is the 1/10 as I'm not sure when that number gets defined and where it's updated. I know we have a list of RA members and it's easy to do the math, but I thought that list was living and not beholden to specific time updates. In any event, I'd like to see this number updated monthly so the speaker wouldn't have to calculate it often.

And I assume under Section 3.3 an RA member can decline to serve as acting Speaker even if they are 'available' if they simply do not wish to serve in that capacity?
 
Chasmanthe:
Most proposals are political, and by their very nature have some in favour and some against.

In a future case, someone may propose something and have it blocked by provision 3. What thought process will the RA use to determine whether an override by provision 4 is warranted? If the thought process is that a proposal lacking majority support or lacking support from the speaker is reason not to hold a vote, then the region could become less democratic. But if the thought process is that certain individuals abuse their power by forcing a vote on things that are inappropriate to hold a vote on, at certain times under certain circumstances for certain purposes, in exceptional cases that we have the ability to distinguish, then we are more informed democracy.

Edit: ^ not an argument against the proposal per se, it's a discussion on how the new rules will be followed.
Click to expand...
I think in this instance we see that democracy will be preserved, but the rights of the minority will be curbed somewhat in order to make legislative operations more efficient. So we're moving away from a U.S. Senate model, but can anyone in their right mind say that is a bad thing?
 
In consultation with r3n, I have added some minor changes to this - specifically in 1.3, 2.1, and 3.3.

Regional Assembly Rules Amendment Bill

1. Rule 1, Rule 2, Rule 3, Rule 4, and Rule 5 of the Regional Assembly are repealed.

2. The following is adopted as rules of the Regional Assembly,

Rules of the Regional Assembly of The North Pacific

Section 1. Proposals

1. Any member of the Regional Assembly may bring a proposal for discussion before the Regional Assembly.

2. The Speaker may schedule a vote on any proposal being discussed by the Regional Assembly as permitted by law.

3. If at least three members of the Regional Assembly object to the decision of the Speaker to schedule a vote on a proposal, then the Speaker is required to cancel the vote.

4. If at least one-tenth of the members of the Regional Assembly, including the member that introduced the proposal to the Regional Assembly, motion that a vote should be held on a proposal before the Regional Assembly, then the Speaker must schedule a vote on that proposal to begin as soon as permitted by law.

Section 2. Voting

1. No more than two votes of the Regional Assembly may take place simultaneously at any time, excluding election votes.

2. Unless otherwise required by law, votes of the Regional Assembly will last for a minimum of three and a maximum of seven days.

3. The Speaker will, at the beginning of a vote of the Regional Assembly, decide its duration as permitted by law.

4. If at least one tenth of the members of the Regional Assembly object to the duration of a vote of the Regional Assembly decided by the Speaker before the conclusion of the vote, then that vote will last for the maximum duration permitted by law.

5. If at the conclusion of a vote quorum has not been achieved, then the Speaker may extend the duration of the vote to the maximum permitted by law.

Section 3. Deputy Speaker and Vacancies

1. The Speaker may, at their discretion, appoint a member of the Regional Assembly as Deputy Speaker. The Speaker may, at their discretion, remove an existing Deputy Speaker.

2. Unless otherwise specified by law, the Speaker may delegate any of their powers and duties to the Deputy Speaker. Delegation under this section does not relieve the Speaker of any of their powers and duties. Any provisions of law related to the powers and duties of the Speaker, when exercised by the Deputy Speaker under the provisions of this clause, shall apply to the Deputy Speaker.

3. When the position of Speaker is vacant, the Deputy Speaker will assume the powers and duties of the office of the Speaker for the duration of the vacancy. When the position of Deputy Speaker is simultaneously vacant, the Regional Assembly member who is available, has the longest period of membership, does not decline the position, and is not otherwise prohibited by law will assume the powers and duties of the office of the Speaker for the duration of the simultaneous vacancy.

4. The period of membership of a Regional Assembly member is defined as the amount of elapsed time since that member's most recent admission to the Regional Assembly without an interruption.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
My apologies for the absence, I have been busy in RL for the last couple of weeks.

I am glad to see that members are in support of this bill. As the Deputy Speaker mentioned, some minor edits have been made, one of them to accommodate the concern raised by Punkd about members declining to be Acting Speaker.

I move that we vote on the following version. I will be requesting that the Deputy Speaker end the formal debate period on Monday morning, so that then a vote can be scheduled. Please state any last-minute concerns you have with this bill before that time.

I will also be moving the related amendment.

Regional Assembly Rules Amendment Bill

1. Rule 1, Rule 2, Rule 3, Rule 4, and Rule 5 of the Regional Assembly are repealed.

2. The following is adopted as rules of the Regional Assembly,

Rules of the Regional Assembly of The North Pacific

Section 1. Proposals

1. Any member of the Regional Assembly may bring a proposal for discussion before the Regional Assembly.

2. The Speaker may schedule a vote on any proposal being discussed by the Regional Assembly as permitted by law.

3. If, before a vote on a proposal begins, at least three members of the Regional Assembly object to the decision of the Speaker to schedule it, the Speaker must cancel the scheduled vote.

4. If at least one-tenth of the members of the Regional Assembly, including the member that introduced the proposal to the Regional Assembly, motion that a vote should be held on a proposal before the Regional Assembly, then the Speaker must schedule a vote on that proposal to begin as soon as permitted by law.

Section 2. Voting

1. No more than two votes of the Regional Assembly may take place simultaneously at any time, excluding election votes.

2. Unless otherwise required by law, votes of the Regional Assembly will last for a minimum of three and a maximum of seven days.

3. The Speaker will, at the beginning of a vote of the Regional Assembly, decide its duration as permitted by law.

4. If at least one-tenth of the members of the Regional Assembly object to the duration of a vote of the Regional Assembly decided by the Speaker before the conclusion of the vote, then that vote will last for the maximum duration permitted by law.

5. If at the conclusion of a vote quorum has not been achieved, then the Speaker may extend the duration of the vote to the maximum permitted by law.

Section 3. Deputy Speaker and Vacancies

1. The Speaker may, at their discretion, appoint a member of the Regional Assembly as Deputy Speaker. The Speaker may, at their discretion, remove an existing Deputy Speaker.

2. Unless otherwise specified by law, the Speaker may delegate any of their powers and duties to the Deputy Speaker. Delegation under this section does not relieve the Speaker of any of their powers and duties. Any provisions of law related to the powers and duties of the Speaker, when exercised by the Deputy Speaker under the provisions of this clause, shall apply to the Deputy Speaker.

3. When the position of Speaker is vacant, the Deputy Speaker will assume the powers and duties of the office of the Speaker for the duration of the vacancy. When the position of Deputy Speaker is simultaneously vacant, the Regional Assembly member who is available, has the longest period of membership, does not decline the position, and is not otherwise prohibited by law will assume the powers and duties of the office of the Speaker for the duration of the simultaneous vacancy.

4. The period of membership of a Regional Assembly member is defined as the amount of elapsed time since that member's most recent admission to the Regional Assembly without an interruption.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
This bill has now entered Formal Debate. Formal Debate will continue, at r3n's request, for three days, until the morning of July 8th, EDT. It will then have two days to acquire a second.
 
What is going to replace the old RA rule 1?

I liked RA rule 1, absentions shall not be used to determine any matter voted on by the RA except for the determination of a quorum.

It's a pretty basic essential rule, in my humble opinion.
 
That rule was intentionally not included, as the same is already provided for by the Constitution:

7. Abstentions cast in the Regional Assembly will not be used to determine the result of any vote, but may be used for quorum and all other purposes.
Click to expand...
 
r3naissanc3r:
That rule was intentionally not included, as the same is already provided for by the Constitution:

7. Abstentions cast in the Regional Assembly will not be used to determine the result of any vote, but may be used for quorum and all other purposes.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I see. Thanks.
 
Phenomenal. This will go to vote with its sister on Sunday, July 14th or Monday, June 15th, depending on my access to a computer.
 
To allow time for the recall of Gaspo, I move to adjourn this until 23rd.

To save confusion, can I ask the deputy speaker whether a move to adjourn requires a seconder?
 
Good news Flem, if you were reading carefully the vote for this bill is occurring in the past (or maybe next summer?), which should leave plenty of time for your recall attempt. :)
 
SillyString:
A motion to what?
Click to expand...
A motion to adjourn. It is a little thing we have in democracies*. It allows the members of a group, legislature or committee to decide, by majority vote, to put off a vote on an issue until a determined or undetermined date. In this case the date in the proposal is 23rd July.

Now the proposer of the original motion can accept the motion to adjourn, in which case no vote is needed. Or (s)he may not, in which case voting on the motion to adjourn happens BEFORE the vote on the substantive motion.

Of course, as the duly appointed Deputy Speaker you may choose to rule that you do not want us to decide, and decide on our behalf.



*in the UK at least. Other countries may use different terms, like "move to table."
 
flemingovia:
To allow time for the recall of Gaspo, I move to adjourn this until 23rd.

To save confusion, can I ask the deputy speaker whether a move to adjourn requires a seconder?
Click to expand...
Coo-EEEE MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER.....​
 
1. No more than two votes of the Regional Assembly may be taking place simultaneously at any time, excluding election votes.
Click to expand...

This is too restrictive.

I think seeing what has happened recently with Gaspo, the spirit behind a recall is to allow the RA to remove an officeholder for any reason really. The new rules - imo - wouldn't allow for that to happen swiftly.

I think this law applied to 'proposals' is fine. Applied to recalls as well, I don't like it.
 
punk d:
1. No more than two votes of the Regional Assembly may be taking place simultaneously at any time, excluding election votes.
Click to expand...

This is too restrictive.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%. We had that rule in TNP once, and it was a horrible quagmire. There is a reason we got rid of it the first time, so lets not bring it back.
 
I second Flem's motion to adjourn, unless DD is correct in his observation that voting would, according to SillyString, take place on June 15th, in which case, we definitely do have plenty of time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top