Informal Discussion: Changes to Standing Regional Assembly Procedures

[Romanoffia]

Standing Procedures



1. Any member may introduce a proposal to exercise a power of the Assembly by creating a thread in or making a post in a related thread in the Meeting Chambers or Private Halls subforums.

2. If a proposal has associated text, it will be contained in a single quote tag. The member who introduced the proposal may alter this text at their discretion during the course of discussion before a "motion to move to formal debate" is called and seconded.

3. The member who introduced the proposal may call for a formal vote by posting "motion to vote", or a functional equivalent in the thread.

4. During the five days after a vote a called for, the member who introduced the proposal may continue to amend it. This period, hereafter referred to as Formal Debate, may be shortened at the member who introduced the proposal's request. Once Formal Debate has ended, the proposal may no longer be amended. If a motion to "move to vote" is not seconded, the formal debate will continue until a "move to formal vote" is seconded.

5. If a motion is seconded during the two days after Formal Debate ends, the Speaker will schedule a vote. If the proposal has associated text, the vote will be held on the text as it appeared at the end of Formal Debate. No vote will be scheduled to begin fewer than two days after Formal Debate ends. The formal vote will last for Five to Seven days at the Speaker's discretion.

6. Members may vote "aye", "nay" or "abstain" or similar. Any member may change their vote before the end of voting by making a new post. If a member is removed or otherwise leaves the Regional Assembly during the voting period, any vote they have cast will be invalidated.

7. The Speaker will clearly announce when any vote is to begin and end. All votes must be cast before the end of the announced voting period. The Speaker is not required to post to end the voting period.

8. No proposal may be introduced that includes changes to more than one document, except by special permission of the Speaker. All bills shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title of the bill. Bills that affect changes to more than one provision of the Legal Code or Constitional Amendments shall clearly reflect those changes in the text of the bill.
There's my changes. Discuss informally.


9. To determine the participation of a quorum, the number of valid votes will be compared to the number of assemblymen who joined the assembly before voting began, and maintained continuous membership for the entire duration of the announced voting period.

 

[Icamera]

I'll read through this a few more times, but here are the two sections that stood out the most to me during the first glance:

6. Members may vote "aye", "nay" or "abstain" or similar. Any member may change their vote before the end of voting by making a new post. If a member is removed or otherwise leaves the Regional Assembly during the voting period, any vote they have cast will be invalidated.

While I recognize that there are no parts of this clause being amended, I do feel that some revision is needed for the first sentence. If TNP's legislative system is like any other I've seen, I can't really imagine any other voting stance besides "aye", "nay", or "abstain", so we should tie up that loose end by removing the "or similar".

8. No proposal may be introduced that includes changes to more than one document, except by special permission of the Speaker. All bills shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title of the bill. Bills that affect changes to more than one provision of the Legal Code or Constitional Amendments shall clearly reflect those changes in the text of the bill.

For flexibility's sake, and in recognition of the complexity of many political matters, constraining bills to a single subject doesn't sound like the best idea. If you consider everything, overlaps in the subject of a piece of legislation are quite common; for instance, the subject of a law regulating the conduct of Regional Assembly members could be the Regional Assembly, the judiciary branch, or even the criminal code.

Granted, I'm probably just nitpicking; but if the main goal of the amendment is to ensure that all broad-reaching bills clarify the areas being impacted, the second sentence (in the blue text) alone will suffice.

 

[SillyString]

I'll read through this a few more times, but here are the two sections that stood out the most to me during the first glance:

6. Members may vote "aye", "nay" or "abstain" or similar. Any member may change their vote before the end of voting by making a new post. If a member is removed or otherwise leaves the Regional Assembly during the voting period, any vote they have cast will be invalidated.

While I recognize that there are no parts of this clause being amended, I do feel that some revision is needed for the first sentence. If TNP's legislative system is like any other I've seen, I can't really imagine any other voting stance besides "aye", "nay", or "abstain", so we should tie up that loose end by removing the "or similar".

"Or similar" is intended to cover cases of "aye", "Aye", "Aye.", "aye.", and the like.

I will note... these suggestions are simply that. The RA does not have the power to set the Speaker's discretionary rules.

 

[Funkadelia]

I'll read through this a few more times, but here are the two sections that stood out the most to me during the first glance:

6. Members may vote "aye", "nay" or "abstain" or similar. Any member may change their vote before the end of voting by making a new post. If a member is removed or otherwise leaves the Regional Assembly during the voting period, any vote they have cast will be invalidated.

While I recognize that there are no parts of this clause being amended, I do feel that some revision is needed for the first sentence. If TNP's legislative system is like any other I've seen, I can't really imagine any other voting stance besides "aye", "nay", or "abstain", so we should tie up that loose end by removing the "or similar".

"Or similar" is intended to cover cases of "aye", "Aye", "Aye.", "aye.", and the like.

I will note... these suggestions are simply that. The RA does not have the power to set the Speaker's discretionary rules.

Also, as a note, the RA has, for a very long time, included "or similar" or "or functional equivalent" in its rules. It's just so I could say "Aye," "Yea," or "For."

 

[Sanctaria]

I will note... these suggestions are simply that. The RA does not have the power to set the Speaker's discretionary rules.

Since when?

Government bodies may create rules for their own governance subordinate to this constitution and the laws.

The Speaker will administer the rules of the Regional Assembly. Where no rules exist, the Speaker may use their discretion.

The Speaker only has this discretionary power when no rules on the matter already exist. I think the Regional Assembly does have the power to set these and rules and limit the Speaker's discretionary power as it sees fit.

Indeed, even in Blue Wolf v. Speaker of the Regional Assembly the Court first looked to the Constitution, Legal Code, and the RA Rules:

The Constitution, Legal Code, and RA Rules are all completely devoid of any additional reference to the Speaker's discretionary powers. Nor are there any rules outlining how the Regional Assembly's business is to be conducted, which have bearing on this matter. As such, the Constitution's grant of discretion to the Speaker in administering the Regional Assembly is the only binding law on this issue

Since RA members have the power to amend the Constitution, the Legal Code, and the RA Rules it is obvious and permitted for RA members to limit that discretionary power by putting into one, several, or all of the aforementioned sources rules surrounding the operation of the Regional Assembly and the amount of power the Speaker is given.

To suggest that the RA does not have the power is simply disingenuous. It could be inserted into the Legal Code rules regarding debate and then, since rules exist, the Speaker's ability to use his discretion would be reduced dramatically.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Standing Procedures



1. Any member may introduce a proposal to exercise a power of the Assembly by creating a thread in or making a post in a related thread in the Meeting Chambers or Private Halls subforums.

Why shouldn't people be able to make use of the private halls for that purpose?

 

[punk d]

What Sanc said.

The Speaker's rules are subordinate to any rules within the Constitution or Legal Code.

 

[SillyString]

Yes, they are, and that's not what I said at all. The RA may set its own rules for the Speaker's office, but the Speaker's discretionary rules it only has the power to comment on.

I would note, the Speaker did open up a discussion on exactly these rules and the changes he was making a month and a half ago, and received feedback from some of the people posting in this very thread. For example:

Overall - I believe these are changes that will help the process.

 

[Icamera]

Ah, that makes sense. My first reaction was that we were talking about a whole 'nother category for voting.

 

[Romanoffia]

The idea is to simplify the the whole procedure and eliminate convoluted and tortuous circumambulations of procedural BS.

We could go even simpler:

1.) Open an informal discussion on a proposed bill, etc.,

2.) Discuss the matter until a final draught of legislation can be arrived at

3.) Move to a formal discussion of the final bill, propose amendments, etc.,

4.) When the final bill is ready for a vote, move it to a vote.

Limiting the number of items in the queue for voting or at vote at the same time is shear idiocy. It will result in a log-jam in which very little legislation can ever be accomplished. Oh, wait, that may not be a bad thing.

 

[punk d]

Yes, they are, and that's not what I said at all. The RA may set its own rules for the Speaker's office, but the Speaker's discretionary rules it only has the power to comment on.

I would note, the Speaker did open up a discussion on exactly these rules and the changes he was making a month and a half ago, and received feedback from some of the people posting in this very thread. For example:

Overall - I believe these are changes that will help the process.

I said that then, sure.

I wasn't thinking of recalls but simple legislation. In that sense I do believe these changes will should help the process.

But I think the Speaker needs to create separate rules for recalls. If that doesn't occur, I feel fairly certain that the RA will create a more expeditious route for those to come to the voting floor than what is possible under the rules today.

 

[Romanoffia]

We need to simplify the legislative process rather than restrict it by implementing idiotic things like limiting the number of bills up for a vote at any given time.

We can even reduce the rigmarole by simply using this minimalist process:

1.) A bill is introduced for discussion.

2.) A final draught is produced that satisfies enough people that it should be moved to a vote.

3.) Goes to a formal vote.

That easy.

 

[SillyString]

We need to simplify the legislative process rather than restrict it by implementing idiotic things like limiting the number of bills up for a vote at any given time.

This restriction is in place in order to protect RA members from being unfairly stripped of their status.

 

[Romanoffia]

We need to simplify the legislative process rather than restrict it by implementing idiotic things like limiting the number of bills up for a vote at any given time.

This restriction is in place in order to protect RA members from being unfairly stripped of their status.

And that is why I earlier suggest a better means of 'purging' inactive members.