I would like to first state that I am pleased to see 2 candidates for the position of Speaker. These questions will also be given to your opponent.
Are there any specific reforms/changes/policies that you would like to introduce if elected to the Speakership? If there are, in what way do you see them benefiting our government and society? Also, what potential detriments do you see if your ideal reforms are not implemented or are otherwise unable to be implemented?
Merci.
Yes, competition for positions is always a good sign.
As I noted in the first section of my campaign statement, I intend to create a set of simple informal rules governing how proposals advance:
X number of RA members supporting a bill will lead to it going into Formal Discussion, and automatically going to a vote after Y days unless during Formal Discussion it loses that support.
Not precisely sure what X and Y should be-- I'll set up some informal polls to decide that immediately upon becoming speaker. Now it would be within my power to start binding myself to those rules immediately, but it might also be wise to pass them as RA internal procedures for future speakers benefit.
If such rules are not implemented we just keep the worry of a Speaker possibly abusing their position-- both dangerous in and of itself and disruptive in the making of such accusations.
Separately, and less specifically, I would work with the Legislators in the "Leadership" role of the Speaker to find what changes they want to make and help organize that process. Obviously, as I don't yet know precisely what it is that the Legislators as a whole want, I can't say what it is that I will propose-- I intend to use informal polls to ascertain what it is.
These questions will be fielded to both Speaker candidates at this time:
1) What do you think is the legislative procedure (i.e. FD, length of discussion, length of vote, etc.) most detrimental to the legislative process at this time and why?
2) What, in your opinion, is the biggest issue facing TNP right now that the RA has the power to correct?
Thank you, and I wish you and Duchess the best of luck in your campaigns.
1 ) I think that the distinction between preliminary discussion and formal discussion is unnecessary, but that perhaps most detrimental to the legislative process is the lack of confidence that the Speaker will be fair-- with clear conditions for a bill going to discussion I intend to deal with that problem. This lack of confidence is a problem because it leads to wrangling instead of legislating, and potentially decisions not to bother proposing something out of a belief it won't get anywhere.
2 ) The RA has the power to correct the agglomerated problems with our system of government. It is the RA and the RA exclusively which has the power to make changes to improve it. As I mentioned above, I intend to poll the RA on what changes should be made, and then help the RA move forward on them.
Like the last Speaker, would you actively take part in discussions in the Regional Assembly or prefer to stay neutral?
Also, would you continue the previous Speaker's idea or PMing all RA members?
I intend to take part in legislative discussions-- however I intend to make it perfectly clear that when I state such views they are entirely
ex officio and to make each and every action I take as Speaker be based on simple guidelines I set in advance. I do not believe it necessary for me to muzzle myself upon taking the Speaker's office-- but I do believe that its powers should not be abused to further one's political agenda.
I believe that an opt-in newsletter would be better than an opt-out newsletter as there are many in the RA who do not wish to take part in legislative activities-- and who can blame them? As the Regional Assembly is effectively the 'citizens' of the Region, it would not be appropriate to require them to legislate, or bother then with repetitive mass mailings.
Thank you for the questions, I am quite ready to answer more.