Regional Assembly Membership (Amendment) Bill

r3naissanc3r

r3naissanc3r

TNPer
-
-
Regional Assembly Membership (Amendment) Bill

1. Chapter 6, Section 6.1, Clause 5 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

5. New forum members who register as citizens or join the Regional Assembly must be made aware of the Criminal Code they are pledging to respect.
Click to expand...

2. Chapter 6, Section 6.1, Clause 9 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

9. The Speaker will maintain a publicly viewable roster of Regional Assembly members.
Click to expand...

3. Chapter 6, Section 6.1, Clause 10 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

10. The Speaker will promptly remove any Regional Assembly member whose removal is ordered by the Court; or whose North Pacific nation leaves, or ceases to exist; or who fails to log in to the North Pacific forum for over 30 days.
Click to expand...
 
For reference, here are the changes made to Chapter 6, Section 6.1 of the Legal Code by this bill, using BBcode annotation:

5. New forum members may who register as citizens or join the Regional Assembly must be made aware of the Criminal Code they are pledging to respect..
Click to expand...
9. The Speaker's office will maintain a publicly viewable roster of Regional Assembly members.
Click to expand...
10. The Speaker's office will promptly remove any Regional Assembly members whose removal is ordered by the Court,; or whose North Pacific nation leaves, or ceases to exist,; or who fails to log in to the North Pacific forum for over 30 days.
Click to expand...
This bill is to address an issue with the Regional Assembly Membership Act provisions that was identified by Speaker Crushing Our Enemies recently (see here), and also was discussed extensively on the regional IRC channel. The issue can be seen in Section 6.1, Clause 10, where the lack of an "or" conjunction makes the clause read as if all of the conditions listed need to apply simultaneously for a Regional Assembly member to be removed. This is against the current understanding of that clause, and how it has been applied until now.

In the process of writing this short amendment, I noticed a couple of typos in Clause 5 (an extraneous "may" and a double full stop), so I am taking the opportunity to also fix those with this bill.

Finally, I am making a change in Clauses 9 and 10, to replace "the Speaker's office" with plain "the Speaker". The current style is only used in these two clauses in the entire Legal Code, so the change is merely for stylistic consistency. If this change has any unforseen consequences1, I have no objection to removing it.

1It is possible that the form "the Speaker's office" was used here to indicate that the respective actions may be taken by some deputy or assistant to the Speaker instead of the Speaker him/herself, though I was unable to find any evidence confirming this theory by searching through the legislative archives.
 
So is this trying to make the "deputy speaker" redundant?

I do agree with bringing the legal code to the attention of new people. Whether they'll read it or not is another story but worth a shot.

Edit: You answered my question on IRC, I still don't know that the speakers office part is entirely necessary. If the Speaker is still able to delegate anyway it seems arbitrary to change it. That said, I guess it doesn't do any harm to do so.

Generally I am in favour of this change.
 
Kiwi, I will respond to your points in an order different than the one you raised them in.

Kiwi:
I do agree with bringing the legal code to the attention of new people. Whether they'll read it or not is another story but worth a shot.
Click to expand...
Note that this clause (6.1.5) is already in the Legal Code. The proposed amendment only includes it in order to fix two typos that exist in its current form.

Kiwi:
So is this trying to make the "deputy speaker" redundant?

Edit: You answered my question on IRC, I still don't know that the speakers office part is entirely necessary. If the Speaker is still able to delegate anyway it seems arbitrary to change it. That said, I guess it doesn't do any harm to do so.
Click to expand...
As I said on IRC, as well as in the second post in this thread, it is my opinion that the change from "Speaker's office" to plain "Speaker" is ineffectual, as far as the ability of the Speaker to delegate duties and powers is concerned. In fact, I believe it is ineffectual entirely. Therefore, technically speaking, the change is not necessary.

However, given that 6.1.10 needs to be amended anyway, I am taking this opportunity to enforce stylistic consistency in the Legal Code.
 
Fair enough.

I support this legislation. I would still suggest that the speaker wait a bit before bringing it to a vote but that's his call.
 
Perhaps because some folks may want to chime in on the changes....


...As I read this, I had the same concerns regarding the switch from "Speaker's Office" to "Speaker", but I do believe that delegation has been fine in other offices historically when a phrase within the legal code or document state the person in the position and not their office.

So I think we should be ok.
 
RA Procedure cannot contradict the law. The procedure specifies for actions to be taken in the Speaker's absence by a Speaker Pro Tempore if the Speaker has not appointed a deputy or that deputy is absent.

I think the use of "the Speaker's office" is essential.
 
I agree with Eluvatar - this could be interpreted as attempting to limit the actions of the Deputy Speaker and the Speaker Pro Tempore, which would make this invalid as contravening the law.
 
*rubs temples vigorously*

R3n, would you care to amend your proposal to remove the changes which you hold do not affect the meaning of the law, but other members of the assembly have a certain attachment to?
 
My apologies for the delay.

I disagree with Eluvatar and Kingborough. There is absolutely no evidence in legislative history and past practice (which are the only sources we can rely upon, given that the Court has not been asked to decide on the matter) indicating that the use of the form "Speaker's office" is anything but a wording peculiarity.

In fact, what evidence exists supports my view that the change is ineffectual.
  • I point to clauses 6.1.[2, 6-7], of the Legal Code, just above the one this bill is amending. Those authorize the "Speaker", as opposed to the "Speaker's office", to process RA applications and admit applicants to the RA. In at least three instances in the recent past, the Deputy Speaker (first, second) and Speaker Pro Tempore (three) have exercised this power in place of the Speaker themself. Under the interpretation of the law proposed by Eluvatar and Kingborough, these admissions were outside the authority of the Deputy Speaker and Speaker Pro Tempore, and therefore illegal. These are just the instances I discovered in the 30 seconds I bothered to spend researching, I am fairly sure if I search more thoroughly I will find more examples.
  • In the RA procedure, Rule 2, the term "office of Speaker" is used in clauses A and D. We, at the very least, can reasonably assume, if not arguably are compelled to believe, that this term is used identically to the term "Speaker's office" in the Legal Code clauses to be amended. In both instances, it is used to refer to the Speaker themself individually, rather than to some abstract office whose duties and powers can be carried out by either the Speaker, or their Deputy, or the Speaker Pro Tempore. This is consistent with my view and contrasts that proposed by Eluvatar and Kingborough.
Given that I am not convinced that the change has any unforeseen consequences, I am unwilling to amend my proposal. I am going instead to ask Eluvatar and Kingborough to reconsider.
 
The actions of those deputies and Speaker Pro Tempore's may very well have been illegal then, but I see no point arguing it. I'll be abstaining on this but otherwise, I won't stand in the way of you changing it from Speaker's Office to Speaker.
 
Mmm. I think it's a bit unnecessary and I disagree with specializing the Speaker. Voting nay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top