FD: Elimination of 15 Member Quorum
- Thread starter Dalimbar
- Start date
The Palindromic Land
TNPer
I'm not sure what issues people could have with this. It's clearly needed.
Unless there is a pressing need to debate this (which people certainly can continue to do), I am interested in carrying on with the vote. Provided there is no outburst of "we need to debate this and hold off the vote!", I will start the voting thread later this evening or tomorrow.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
Second. I think I like the idea of letting this go to a vote first; assuming it passes even with special circumstances, then it'll simplify things for other proposals.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
A question was raised in the voting thread about how fractions would be handled in determining the number for quorum. A fraction of a member means you have to have a whole member to count, so the answer is you would round up to the next whole number of RA members.
And its odd that on a vote to get rid of a fixed number quorum, we get that number of RA members to appear. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
And its odd that on a vote to get rid of a fixed number quorum, we get that number of RA members to appear. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
F
Fishalamode
Guest
Where exactly is that stated in BoR, Con, or Bylaws?Grosseschnauzer:
The only place I have seen any form of specified computation was in TNP LAW 30, Section One, Sub two 2. "Members of the Council shall maintain an endorsement level of at least fifty per cent of the serving Delegate's endorsement count and no more than eighty-five percent of said count. Where the computation results in fractions, the count shall be rounded down."
My point being - if we are going through the effort of amending the Constitution, then let's amend it in such a way that it is clearly specified.
The Palindromic Land
TNPer
It doesn't have to be stated. It's how math works.
Example: 19 members. 30% is 5.7. To have at least 5.7, you must have 6. You would only need to specify if you were rounding down for some strange reason.
Example: 19 members. 30% is 5.7. To have at least 5.7, you must have 6. You would only need to specify if you were rounding down for some strange reason.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
The rule you quote is a special rule used in the TNP Security Council. That rule allows that body, on that issue to disregard fractions. The quorum requirement in the Constitution does not allow us to disregard fractions for a quorum. To disregard it would then cause the number needed for quorum to be less than the percentage that would be solely required under this amendment.
What I described is common sense. Since quorum is a minimum, a fractional member (which is an impossibility) can only be reached by it being a whole member.)
Show me how in practice you can have a fractional member participate, and then you may have a point.
Edit: The Palindromic Land and I must have been composing responses at the same time. Similar responses, too.
What I described is common sense. Since quorum is a minimum, a fractional member (which is an impossibility) can only be reached by it being a whole member.)
Show me how in practice you can have a fractional member participate, and then you may have a point.
Edit: The Palindromic Land and I must have been composing responses at the same time. Similar responses, too.
F
Fishalamode
Guest
How can I have a fraction of an endorsement?
Your point is well taken. However, a quorum is a point of law and not common sense nor mathematics. Our concept of quorum is defined is by the laws we pass - if we lived by common sense we would still need law, for what I believe is common sense may be different from you.
Current precedent, in the stated Code of Law, has established that that fractions are rounded down, regardless, of what you believe to be common sense. An endorsement is the representation of one member supporting a state. Current law states that the current representation of a member in regards to endorsements, when fractional, is rounded down. Therefore, under current law, fractional members are rounded down, and a quorum can be "legally" met with one less person than common sense dictates.
I'll restate my point - if we are going to go through the effort of amending the Constitution in defining a quorum then we should fully clarify it's computation as a point of law. An addendum to the current proposal would be a simple fix: "The computation of a fractional member, in regards to determining a quorum in The North Pacific Regional Assembly, is rounded up to the nearest whole number." Yes - it is common sense, and with the addendum, it is constitutional law.
I'm not arguing against the proposal, just the proposal's language. We have an opportunity to move our definition of quorum from a concept of common sense to a point of law. This may seem ridiculous - but it ends an exploitable aspect.
Your point is well taken. However, a quorum is a point of law and not common sense nor mathematics. Our concept of quorum is defined is by the laws we pass - if we lived by common sense we would still need law, for what I believe is common sense may be different from you.
Current precedent, in the stated Code of Law, has established that that fractions are rounded down, regardless, of what you believe to be common sense. An endorsement is the representation of one member supporting a state. Current law states that the current representation of a member in regards to endorsements, when fractional, is rounded down. Therefore, under current law, fractional members are rounded down, and a quorum can be "legally" met with one less person than common sense dictates.
I'll restate my point - if we are going to go through the effort of amending the Constitution in defining a quorum then we should fully clarify it's computation as a point of law. An addendum to the current proposal would be a simple fix: "The computation of a fractional member, in regards to determining a quorum in The North Pacific Regional Assembly, is rounded up to the nearest whole number." Yes - it is common sense, and with the addendum, it is constitutional law.
I'm not arguing against the proposal, just the proposal's language. We have an opportunity to move our definition of quorum from a concept of common sense to a point of law. This may seem ridiculous - but it ends an exploitable aspect.
If you would like to propose an amendment, I encourage you to do so. However, in the likelihood that this vote attains the 3/4 majority required for this amendment to pass, as Speaker I will be (and have done so as I have been posting the 30% quorum requirements on the RA Members and Seniority List) rounding to the nearest whole number. As mentioned before, we are trying to have a reasonable number to ensure a minimum amount of participation in votes. Although I am delighted to see at present 17 Members present and voting on this issue, two above the current quorum of 15, sadly attaining the 15 member quorum has not been a cakewalk in the recent past. One thing I can do in the RA Members and Seniority List is list the fraction and the nearest whole number, especially in cases where the fraction is greater than the nearest whole number.
Would that be reasonable?
Would that be reasonable?
F
Fishalamode
Guest
Makes sense to me 
I voted against hoping to kill the amendment - that we would not have to have yet another amendment for clarification, but just roll it into one. But, I was late to the game, and the ball was in play. . . and it's a squirrel issue that should not arise too often.
There is several discussions about amending the Const - too many say there is a true confidence in the current one.
I move that we open discussion on a Constitutional Convention. Let that body produce a work which promotes a confidence in the Constitution - a Constitution which is not endlessly harassed with numerous amendments. The need to constantly amend means the current work is faulty. We need a solid core in which amendments are rare occurrence not a monthly rite
I voted against hoping to kill the amendment - that we would not have to have yet another amendment for clarification, but just roll it into one. But, I was late to the game, and the ball was in play. . . and it's a squirrel issue that should not arise too often.
There is several discussions about amending the Const - too many say there is a true confidence in the current one.
I move that we open discussion on a Constitutional Convention. Let that body produce a work which promotes a confidence in the Constitution - a Constitution which is not endlessly harassed with numerous amendments. The need to constantly amend means the current work is faulty. We need a solid core in which amendments are rare occurrence not a monthly rite
I will be interested to hear the thoughts of Delegate Flemingovia, who campaigned on the total elimination of the Constitution and related documents. And while I personally agree with you that there should be some formal format to propose a new structure for the region (god knows we need it), at this time the Regional Assembly will be, should members wish it, making desired changes.
I would like to note my personal motives for this amendment, not as Speaker but as a regular member. I am hopeful that we as a body will be able to better amend the constitution to fit what the Delegate and the region desires. I feel that unnecessary quorum restrictions, such as this one, hinders the progress we wish to see. Although it is certainly not perfect, and I will be the first to admit that, I have utilized various means over the years to change this region from a over-bureaucratic system that hinders growth in our region to a minimalist system that will help us grow. Of course, being a rogue Delegate and helping prop up anti-constitutional governments over the years (and seeing them all fail to do the objectives they desire) have made me see that one needs to work within the system in order to achieve the results the region wishes to see. Thus, I am happy to work as Speaker to help the Delegate, if he is wishing to follow through his campaign pledges, and the region go back to its roots. So, this amendment is, in my mind, one step in that process.
I would at this time like to defer to a Member, such as Chief Justice Grosseschnauzer, on what exactly the process would be to install a Constitutional Convention.
I would like to note my personal motives for this amendment, not as Speaker but as a regular member. I am hopeful that we as a body will be able to better amend the constitution to fit what the Delegate and the region desires. I feel that unnecessary quorum restrictions, such as this one, hinders the progress we wish to see. Although it is certainly not perfect, and I will be the first to admit that, I have utilized various means over the years to change this region from a over-bureaucratic system that hinders growth in our region to a minimalist system that will help us grow. Of course, being a rogue Delegate and helping prop up anti-constitutional governments over the years (and seeing them all fail to do the objectives they desire) have made me see that one needs to work within the system in order to achieve the results the region wishes to see. Thus, I am happy to work as Speaker to help the Delegate, if he is wishing to follow through his campaign pledges, and the region go back to its roots. So, this amendment is, in my mind, one step in that process.
I would at this time like to defer to a Member, such as Chief Justice Grosseschnauzer, on what exactly the process would be to install a Constitutional Convention.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
In the preliminary discussions thread on the CLO, I've discussed the problems with a Constitutional Convention, and even with the process that led to the original adoption of the current Constitution.
The circumstances for the 2005 Constitutional Convention, which led to the last Constitution were the sort of conditions I hope we never see again. We had to set up a special forum independent of three other forums where separate regional communities had organized their own governments.
The process of trying to cobble together a majority by negotiation was the most difficult imaginable. I wouldn't even want to go that route if it can be avoided. While not as severe, the circumstances that led to the adoption of the current constitution with three different proposals on the table, also required a process that put all three proposals to a vote. The original of the current constitution barely was approved, and only because I as Speaker elected to vote and assure its passage.
Since that time, we've used the amendment process to make incremental changes. While a number of amendments have been necessary to fix the flaws, others have represented a desire to make deliberate change in the structure of the government. The key issue has been and will remain the need to assure that the checks and balances remain, and that the procedures are done in such a way that prevent paralysis. Most of the recent legislation have been of this sort.
I'm not sure that I want to go through a major process again. The last two left me exhausted, and since the RA is open to all residents of TNP who post the required oath, there would be no point in a separate body, such as a constitutional convention.
I think the number of changes needed are not many, and I think it would be more efficient to address the individual changes by amendment to the Constitution or to the Legal Code, and not by something broader which will find the region scrambling to fix all of the gaps that weren't seen in the first place.
The circumstances for the 2005 Constitutional Convention, which led to the last Constitution were the sort of conditions I hope we never see again. We had to set up a special forum independent of three other forums where separate regional communities had organized their own governments.
The process of trying to cobble together a majority by negotiation was the most difficult imaginable. I wouldn't even want to go that route if it can be avoided. While not as severe, the circumstances that led to the adoption of the current constitution with three different proposals on the table, also required a process that put all three proposals to a vote. The original of the current constitution barely was approved, and only because I as Speaker elected to vote and assure its passage.
Since that time, we've used the amendment process to make incremental changes. While a number of amendments have been necessary to fix the flaws, others have represented a desire to make deliberate change in the structure of the government. The key issue has been and will remain the need to assure that the checks and balances remain, and that the procedures are done in such a way that prevent paralysis. Most of the recent legislation have been of this sort.
I'm not sure that I want to go through a major process again. The last two left me exhausted, and since the RA is open to all residents of TNP who post the required oath, there would be no point in a separate body, such as a constitutional convention.
I think the number of changes needed are not many, and I think it would be more efficient to address the individual changes by amendment to the Constitution or to the Legal Code, and not by something broader which will find the region scrambling to fix all of the gaps that weren't seen in the first place.
The vote is now closed, and I would like to thank everyone for providing input and support into this amendment. As noted above, it's amusing that we attained the 15 member quorum for a bill to scrap that quorum, but hey, just because quorum is lower now doesn't mean Members should hide from this place.
Also, the next vote is up. Cheers!
Also, the next vote is up. Cheers!
F
Fishalamode
Guest
Just another question then, your most honorable. . .say someone drafted a new constitution, and proposed it's adoption as an amendment to the current the constitution wherein it effectively replaces the constitution. Is that possible? Would something to that effect be more feasible than a convention?
F
Fishalamode
Guest
Huzzah! On to the next vote.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
That's how the current constitution got adopted, and my experience as the chair with that process is something I would not wish on my political adversaries, much less my political friends.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
Woops - never mind. 