Constitutional Amendment

Article I
Section 2: Amendment Procedure
3. All amendments require a quorum of either 15 members or 30% of the RA., whichever is higher.
...
Article II
Section 3: Legislative Action
6. All amendments require a quorum of either 15 members or 30% of the RA., whichever is higher.

Click to expand...

I bring this before the Committee of the Whole as I am concerned with our legislative state of affairs. While the 15/30% rule was certainly applicable to when we had 40+ Members who for the most part all participated, I am worried that at present we do not have the numbers to pass or fail bills on their merits. Instead, even if we have just barely enough members to be above 15, if a few Members are out of town, then the entire legislative process is at a standstill. Never mind if we don't even have 15 members. I am open to the idea of either increasing or decreasing the percentage depending on what the overall consensus is, and as Speaker I have no problem with constantly providing what quorum is at the 30%. I believe more in the floating percentage as it takes into account what is occurring in the RA in terms of membership than a fixed number.

Thoughts?

Sounds reasonable to me.

That change might be fine as is, so long as the RA membership remains so small. If we ever get to having 50 members in the RA again, we might have to look at re-instaing the 15 member quorum cap.

In the meantime, I wanted to point out that there is a way to address short-term issues with the current quorum requirement, especially through the last three paragraphs of the Bill of Rights:

9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of this Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.

10. Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.

11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard this Constitution or the Legal Code In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of this Constitution.

Click to expand...

Certainly the impossibility to meet the current quorum requirement would constitute some form of emergency within the language used in paragraph 11, I would think; i.e., if 30 percent of the current RA membership voted, then the spirit of a quorum would have been met.

This would be up to the Speaker to decide initially of course, but I would be hard pressed to think of a better circumstance to show that an "emergency" in the context of paragraph 11 of the Bill of Rights.

The reason why I submit this is because I don't wish to resort to a constant use of emergency provisions that, at least from my interpretation, are vague. I believe that is too dependent on who one considers to be "the governmental authorities of the region" (is that the Delegate, the Delegate and the people they appointed to aid them in their duties, the Speaker, the Judiciary, etc?). I remember while I was a member of the Cabinet under New Kervoskia that we were discussing this type of thing. Who exactly is a "governmental authority"? Would we be able to have things voted upon even though we knew that the minimum 15 would most likely not be met? Would we get away with using Paragraph 11 if, for some chance, someone claimed that we were abusing it (not that we would, but I wouldn't be surprised if some person in TNP thought that me breathing was an abuse of the air). If I am incorrect in my concerns, please feel free to provide me a link to information that will provide clarity on this issue, such as a court decision or other such official case.

If we have 50 members, then by the 30% quorum we will need 15 members. Anything above, and the percentage rule applies. Anything below, and the 15 member rule applies. I'm not sure if the words I'm going to say are necessarily going to be what I want to say (RL: Blame me for thinking in three languages right now), but I feel that it is inconsistent. As of this post, only 13 Members have signed up on the Roll Call for this month. Another 2 were admitted to the Regional Assembly and were just given masking for the RA, so we have 15. 15 out of a region that has 2281 nations (I'm not subtracting puppets, as that is a huge effort). If we had a bill at vote right now, all of those people would have to vote, and if one decided to say "no, I don't think I want to vote today" on the day the vote ends, then the legislative process is held hostage. Given the amount of complete apathy in this region, and I am not placing the blame on any one, as I myself am guilty of not being 100% concerned with the affairs of the region, can we guarantee that we have 15 members voting if we even have say 20, 25, 30 members as recognized by the Speaker?

I am certainly not arguing that if one person votes and no one else does, then laws automatically are implemented. I do believe in a quorum under the current governing structure, in order to ensure that we have a base minimum level of participation of members in terms of legislation that not only can effect this forum community, not only the region, but also interregional affairs in some cases. A quorum is a base level of required participation. A percentage of members who actively participate in the legislature, who make decisions that, when they are actually presenting legislation or hold the executive accountable, can affect the society which we all enjoy to participate in. I'm not even really concerned about the actual percentage, so long as it is not over 50% and not below 10%. Hence why I would like to hear what other Members have to say on that part, and can change my amendment if there is a rough agreement of sorts.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not opposed to your amendment proposal, but I am trying to pint out that in the meantime, we do have a way to deal with the quorum problem pending adoption of a constitutional amendment. We may not have much choice but to utilize paragraph 11 in order to avoid a deadlock in the RA and the resulting governmental paralysis.

clearly, constantly invoking vague emergency powers is a hallmark of democratic and efficient governance. commonsense legislation such as this has no place in TNP

If I misunderstood you... that was a damn waste of time I could have used on a paper . So, just so I am clear, are you suggesting that if I put this to a vote, and we don't have 15 members, we invoke the paragraph you highlighted?

Exactly; I don't see any other viable alternative in such circumstances.

Is it just me or does Paragraph 11 seem like the "LOLZ I ABOOVE TEH LAW!" clause for world domination? >_>

Grosseschnauzer:

Exactly; I don't see any other viable alternative in such circumstances.

Click to expand...

In that case, has there been any clarification as to whom constitutes a "governmental authority"?

There is no 'chain of command' in government authority established, however I would think that any elected member of government would be a government authority.

I agree that the wording is someone vague. That leaves room for wide latitude in interpretation, which also leaves room for wide disagreements about potential usage.

I do support the Amendent as presented.

Remember that th Bill of Rights predates the 2005 Constitutional Convention. "Governing authorities" was used because there was, and is, no way to precisely predict the actual structure of the government. The term was intended to convey that however the structure, any official or body who might have the legal authority to make a determination under paragraph 11 could do so. It was also worded that way because it was impossible to anticipate what type of emergencies might arise, and the exact nature and circumstances. The provision has only two requirements -- that the action taken be reasonable in the circumstances, and that the actors act as closely to the then prevailing constitutional requirements as possible. While the rule itself is a bright line as fairly easy to state, how it applies is going to vary by the situation. It requires some reasoning out of the circumstances, but that's why we elect people to make those sorts of decisions.

I moved that we put this amendment to formal discussion.

Second.

Supported.

Agreed.

If that is the wish of Members, I will bring this to a Formal Discussion.