Urquhart For Speaker of the Regional Assembly

[James Urquhart]

Hello.

I intentionally tried to keep my platform fairly simple and straight forward.


A few goals in mind:

1. Create an Assembly Digest- one hasn't been released since August. I plan on tackling the issue and keeping the digest rolling out.
2 Citizenship Applications- This will have top priority. It is the most important task of the Speakers Office and full attention and detail should be paid to this. To fulfill this I want at least 3 Deputies assigned to this with frequent check ins on the Citizenship app thread and relevant areas.
3. Minimum Activity levels- Deputies will keep a minimum Activity level of about 3 hours a week during the remainder of the term.
4. A sense of Urgency - Any recipe of success seems futile unless Deputies and the Speaker implement any action or duties quickly and effectively. Thus I hope to instill an attitude where duties are carried out actively and promptly.

I will put everything I have into this role and I hope you cast your vote on Election Day. God bless TNP!

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Hello, I have a few questions and a number of scenarios which I would like you to address.

What role do you see the RA Digest as having? What changes, if any, would you make to it?

Why do you feel that applications requires three deputies assigned to it alone? Would you have any other deputies and, if so, roughly how many and with what responsibilities?

What do you mean by activity level? How will this be measured and enforced?

Now, onto the scenarios. In essence, I would like you to explain, in relation to each scenario, what actions you would (or would not) take and why; most of them don't have a wrong answer, to my mind. (note, I may ask follow-up questions based on the responses)

1. A proposal has been put before the Assembly to amend the Constitution to remove elections for the office of Delegate and to name the member proposing the Bill as permanent Delegate. It is clear that the proposal does not enjoy support from other members. Nonetheless, the proposer has motioned for a vote on the proposal. Another member has motioned that the proposal be tabled (in the American sense, that is, that debate on it be ended and no further consideration given), this motion has been seconded by a number of members.

2. A proposal has been put before the Assembly to make significant changes to a number of areas of the Constitution and the Legal Code. It has been before the Assembly for less than a day and the proposer has motioned for a vote. Two other members have objected, saying that the proposal has not been before the Assembly for long enough to have had proper consideration.

3. A proposal has been put before the Assembly to make significant changes to the chapter of the Legal Code dealing with cultural declarations. A number of members disagree very strongly with the proposal and debate on it has been fractious and has necessitated some intervention by forum moderation. One of the members who opposes the proposal has introduced a proposal of their own, designed to mock the proposer of the changes and with several clearly unconstitutional provisions. There has been only limited reaction to this counter-proposal so far, but it has been highly negative and tended towards the sort of debate that had warranted intervention.

4. It is election season, the incumbent Delegate is running again and is being challenged by a newcomer with a groundswell of support, but it is clear that the result will be narrow as between them. During the voting period, you notice that a citizen's nation had ceased to exist shortly before voting began and refounded (and moved back to TNP) after the start of the voting period. Also, near the end of the period, the Delegate ejects their opponent, saying it is urgently necessary for the region's security.

5. There is an ongoing NPA operation occupying a region, the operation was disclosed to the Assembly. A motion has been put forward by a member opposed to the operation, the motion requires the NPA to cease its operation. The proposal has been made in a thread in the Regional Assembly sub-forum and the member has motioned for a vote. A number of other members have stated that if a vote is scheduled, they will object to it.

 

[James Urquhart]

Hello, I have a few questions and a number of scenarios which I would like you to address.

What role do you see the RA Digest as having? What changes, if any, would you make to it?

Why do you feel that applications requires three deputies assigned to it alone? Would you have any other deputies and, if so, roughly how many and with what responsibilities?

What do you mean by activity level? How will this be measured and enforced?

Now, onto the scenarios. In essence, I would like you to explain, in relation to each scenario, what actions you would (or would not) take and why; most of them don't have a wrong answer, to my mind. (note, I may ask follow-up questions based on the responses)

1. A proposal has been put before the Assembly to amend the Constitution to remove elections for the office of Delegate and to name the member proposing the Bill as permanent Delegate. It is clear that the proposal does not enjoy support from other members. Nonetheless, the proposer has motioned for a vote on the proposal. Another member has motioned that the proposal be tabled (in the American sense, that is, that debate on it be ended and no further consideration given), this motion has been seconded by a number of members.

2. A proposal has been put before the Assembly to make significant changes to a number of areas of the Constitution and the Legal Code. It has been before the Assembly for less than a day and the proposer has motioned for a vote. Two other members have objected, saying that the proposal has not been before the Assembly for long enough to have had proper consideration.

3. A proposal has been put before the Assembly to make significant changes to the chapter of the Legal Code dealing with cultural declarations. A number of members disagree very strongly with the proposal and debate on it has been fractious and has necessitated some intervention by forum moderation. One of the members who opposes the proposal has introduced a proposal of their own, designed to mock the proposer of the changes and with several clearly unconstitutional provisions. There has been only limited reaction to this counter-proposal so far, but it has been highly negative and tended towards the sort of debate that had warranted intervention.

4. It is election season, the incumbent Delegate is running again and is being challenged by a newcomer with a groundswell of support, but it is clear that the result will be narrow as between them. During the voting period, you notice that a citizen's nation had ceased to exist shortly before voting began and refounded (and moved back to TNP) after the start of the voting period. Also, near the end of the period, the Delegate ejects their opponent, saying it is urgently necessary for the region's security.

5. There is an ongoing NPA operation occupying a region, the operation was disclosed to the Assembly. A motion has been put forward by a member opposed to the operation, the motion requires the NPA to cease its operation. The proposal has been made in a thread in the Regional Assembly sub-forum and the member has motioned for a vote. A number of other members have stated that if a vote is scheduled, they will object to it.

Thank you for your questions.

I want the RA Digest to have a continuing and permanent role in our region. I think it provides an essential service mainly to the Residents who don't take as much of an active role on our Forum. I think for the time being I would keep the format generally the same as the edition but would stay open to any suggestions for change. Just releasing the next edition is going to be a fairly large endeavor just based off of the amount of time it has been since the previous edition in August came out.

As far as Deputies are concerned I think I would have no more than 5-6 in total. Some people may be surprised by that but I think it's necessary. 3 would be devoted almost exclusively to Citizenship applications and the remaining number would be writing the Digest or any other miscellaneous duties, of course I would help where needed. The reason I feel the need for the number is proposing for the Citizenship apps ties in to an number of points I made in my platform.
1. Citizenship apps are top priority for obvious reasons.
2. A sense of Urgency is needed.

Ideally I would hope that the Speakers Office would be working to get applications processed literally most hours of the day. Having 3 active people would simply increase the speed at which the apps are processed and increase any possible delays.

By activity level im simply setting a basic minimum for activity in the RA. Of course I can't definitively measure who has been doing what for such and such amount of time. This would be used initially to give prospective Deputies an idea of what will be expected of them upon any possible appointment. I will throughout the term personally keep track of if individual Deputies have logged in recently or not and will notify them if I notice any in activity that may hurt implementation duties.

#1:
I feel that in general when approaching any legislative situation the Speaker should maintain a basic level of impartiality and objectivity.

In this situation I would actually let it just go to the vote. This is a Democracy regardless of what the community feels is outrageous. Of course I would hope no one tried to do something like that.
In my view it should be up to the proposer to table the bill if they don't want to continue to a vote and if they are a new member I would point this out. If the Region doesn't want it as law then they simply wouldn't vote for such a thing.

#2:
The Rules state that if 3 people object the Speaker must cancel any scheduled vote. Since only 2 have objected I would simply let the issue continue on it's current course. It would be up to the proposer -unless 3 objections are made- what to do.

#3:
Unless 3 people have objected to any scheduled vote it will likely continue to such a vote. Whether it is defeated or not is ultimately up to the region via vote. Besides any Admin or Mod intervention I would gently remind the member to honor basic principles of decorum-depending on just what happened exactly. I may or may not point out something unconventional. If it clearly is unconventional or unconstitutional I'm sure it will likely be pointed out by another member. Beyond general debate it's not up to the Speaker if something is unconstitutional or not. That would be up to the Court.

#4:

Since the nation lost Citizenship before the voting began they could simply come back and reapply for Citizenship. They would obviously be removed from the Registry during this time.

On the point about the Delegate I would remove the opponents name from the Registry. Any questions of constitutionality or law are up to the Courts.

#5:
First of all the members would actually have to object individually to a vote there would be no stopping the scheduled vote by saying that they may or may not object to it.

On the point of the motion it would be unrealistic in my view that a motion -unless it had any support- would be able to prevent anything. NPA does operations during an update. Unless this is some long term military policy then trying to stop an update at midnight would be unrealistic. As far as an ongoing military activity there isn't anything that could stop that. That is up to the Executive and the Army leadership. I'm sure if people have enough disagreement then there will be 3 objections and then any scheduled vote would stop or if a objection wasn't forthcoming then it would likely be tabled or defeated by vote.

I should note that any talk of a military op outside proscribed forums is a sensitive issue and the member should probably not post it in the subforum. Any misplacement of classified information should be handled promptly.

 

[Clean Land]

On the point about the Delegate I would remove the opponents name from the Registry. Any questions of constitutionality or law are up to the Courts.

28. If during any voting round for a given race a candidacy becomes invalid, then the voting round for that race will be promptly restarted with any invalid candidacies excluded from the new ballot.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

1. If you win, do you intend to run again in January for a full term? Does your answer change if you don't win?

2. Will you keep existing deputy speakers? Why or why not?

3. Scenario! The delegate proposes a treaty with The Black Hawks in the RA forum, which has already been accepted by The Black Hawks. After some debate, the delegate moves for a vote on December 1st. What is the earliest day that the treaty could be put into effect? The latest?[note]Assume that no one objects to a vote being scheduled, and that the treaty passes when it goes to vote.[/note] Please show your work.

 

[James Urquhart]

On the point about the Delegate I would remove the opponents name from the Registry. Any questions of constitutionality or law are up to the Courts.

28. If during any voting round for a given race a candidacy becomes invalid, then the voting round for that race will be promptly restarted with any invalid candidacies excluded from the new ballot.

I figured I missed something in the Legal Code. I only gave it a cursory look early this morning. I would obviously be more cautious about something as outlined in the scenario.

I also appreciate your due diligence of looking into the things stated.

Clean Land I have also noticed your promise in the WA Ministry. You seem somewhat active and willing to learn the nuances of everything. I look upon Deputy postings as a way for people to learn about TNP basic workings as long as a fair amount of activity is returned towards the region.

If you would be up to it I would be willing to speak with you depending on the outcome of the election to see to see if you would be active enough to become a Deputy.

 

[James Urquhart]

1. If you win, do you intend to run again in January for a full term? Does your answer change if you don't win?

2. Will you keep existing deputy speakers? Why or why not?

3. Scenario! The delegate proposes a treaty with The Black Hawks in the RA forum, which has already been accepted by The Black Hawks. After some debate, the delegate moves for a vote on December 1st. What is the earliest day that the treaty could be put into effect? The latest?[note]Assume that no one objects to a vote being scheduled, and that the treaty passes when it goes to vote.[/note] Please show your work.

Thank you.

#1:

This is honestly not a thought right now. There is a lot of work ahead and the term will be out in under 2 months. It would look extremely lax if we didn't have a Digest complete by end of term and if I have Admins coming to me about apps. I couldn't in good conscience, if I won, ask for another term if either of those things happen. I don't want to have the job simply for the sake of having it and not return a service.
If I lose, notwithstanding the unforseen, there is a possibility I will consider a run in January.

#2:

First of all I will, coming in, keep the current staff. However I will be asking about activity commitments. I will also be hiring extra staff as I outlined earlier. Regardless of what happens I'm determined to have a minimum of 5 Deputies.
Your activity in the Citizenship app areas was noted.

#3:

"Duringthe five days after a vote is called for, the Delegate, or the Executive Officer, may make amendments to the treaty being considered. This period, hereafter referred to as Formal Debate, may be shortened at the request of the Delegate, or the Executive Officer. Once Formal Debate has ended, the treaty may no longer be amended, and the Speaker will schedule a vote to begin no fewer than two days hence."

Taking into account the 3 day minimum and 7 day maximum under the current rules.

The range would be about December 4-10th for passage.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Thank you for your answers, I have some follow-ups.

By activity level im simply setting a basic minimum for activity in the RA. Of course I can't definitively measure who has been doing what for such and such amount of time. This would be used initially to give prospective Deputies an idea of what will be expected of them upon any possible appointment. I will throughout the term personally keep track of if individual Deputies have logged in recently or not and will notify them if I notice any in activity that may hurt implementation duties.

What do you mean by activity in the RA?

#1:
I feel that in general when approaching any legislative situation the Speaker should maintain a basic level of impartiality and objectivity.

In this situation I would actually let it just go to the vote. This is a Democracy regardless of what the community feels is outrageous. Of course I would hope no one tried to do something like that.
In my view it should be up to the proposer to table the bill if they don't want to continue to a vote and if they are a new member I would point this out. If the Region doesn't want it as law then they simply wouldn't vote for such a thing.

What do you make of the motion to table from the other member?

#2:
The Rules state that if 3 people object the Speaker must cancel any scheduled vote. Since only 2 have objected I would simply let the issue continue on it's current course. It would be up to the proposer -unless 3 objections are made- what to do.

I should, perhaps, clarify. When I say a proposer has motioned for a vote, I do not mean to say that you have recognised the motion as yet. With that in mind, what is the "current course" for this proposal?

#3:
Unless 3 people have objected to any scheduled vote it will likely continue to such a vote. Whether it is defeated or not is ultimately up to the region via vote. Besides any Admin or Mod intervention I would gently remind the member to honor basic principles of decorum-depending on just what happened exactly. I may or may not point out something unconventional. If it clearly is unconventional or unconstitutional I'm sure it will likely be pointed out by another member. Beyond general debate it's not up to the Speaker if something is unconstitutional or not. That would be up to the Court.

You say the Speaker does not determine constitutionality of proposals, what role, if any, does the Speaker have in ensuring that proposals meet some standard of legality and quality?

#4:

Since the nation lost Citizenship before the voting began they could simply come back and reapply for Citizenship. They would obviously be removed from the Registry during this time.

On the point about the Delegate I would remove the opponents name from the Registry. Any questions of constitutionality or law are up to the Courts.

How did the nation lose citizenship?

#5:
First of all the members would actually have to object individually to a vote there would be no stopping the scheduled vote by saying that they may or may not object to it.

On the point of the motion it would be unrealistic in my view that a motion -unless it had any support- would be able to prevent anything. NPA does operations during an update. Unless this is some long term military policy then trying to stop an update at midnight would be unrealistic. As far as an ongoing military activity there isn't anything that could stop that. That is up to the Executive and the Army leadership. I'm sure if people have enough disagreement then there will be 3 objections and then any scheduled vote would stop or if a objection wasn't forthcoming then it would likely be tabled or defeated by vote.

I should note that any talk of a military op outside proscribed forums is a sensitive issue and the member should probably not post it in the subforum. Any misplacement of classified information should be handled promptly.

As with earlier questions, when I say that the proposer has motioned for a vote, I mean just that, not that you have recognised that motion. The scenario posits an occupation, not a single update operation.

What do you mean when you say that there isn't anything that could stop ongoing military activity? How would you "handle" the placement of the proposal?

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

3. Scenario! The delegate proposes a treaty with The Black Hawks in the RA forum, which has already been accepted by The Black Hawks. After some debate, the delegate moves for a vote on December 1st. What is the earliest day that the treaty could be put into effect? The latest? Please show your work.

#3:

"Duringthe five days after a vote is called for, the Delegate, or the Executive Officer, may make amendments to the treaty being considered. This period, hereafter referred to as Formal Debate, may be shortened at the request of the Delegate, or the Executive Officer. Once Formal Debate has ended, the treaty may no longer be amended, and the Speaker will schedule a vote to begin no fewer than two days hence."

Taking into account the 3 day minimum and 7 day maximum under the current rules.

The range would be about December 4-10th for passage.

Sorry, you did not answer correctly. Your current score is 0.

Even if formal debate were waived entirely and the vote was scheduled immediately, the standing procedures state that a vote won't begin until at least two days afterward. Treaties take effect immediately after passage, so the earliest would be December 6, after a three day vote. If formal debate was not shortened, it would end on December 6th, and the vote would be scheduled for December 8th. A seven day vote would conclude on December 15th. That response would be enough to earn the point. A bonus point would be awarded if you also pointed out that the two day waiting period, as part of the standing procedures, can be waived at the speaker's discretion, and that there is no defined limit to how far in the future the Speaker can schedule a vote to begin. So, in theory, the treaty could take effect as soon as December 4th, and there is no definite limit to how late it could take effect.

Next Challenge! There are 100 legislatively active members of the Regional Assembly. On a proposal to recall the Delegate, 14 vote aye, 5 vote nay, and 14 vote abstain. What is the result? Would anything be different if 20 voted aye, 11 voted nay, and 6 abstained?

EDIT: An earlier version of this post had different numbers in the new challenge. If you started working on it before the timestamp of the edit, start over.

 

[James Urquhart]

Thank you for your answers, I have some follow-ups.

By activity level im simply setting a basic minimum for activity in the RA. Of course I can't definitively measure who has been doing what for such and such amount of time. This would be used initially to give prospective Deputies an idea of what will be expected of them upon any possible appointment. I will throughout the term personally keep track of if individual Deputies have logged in recently or not and will notify them if I notice any in activity that may hurt implementation duties.

What do you mean by activity in the RA?

#1:
I feel that in general when approaching any legislative situation the Speaker should maintain a basic level of impartiality and objectivity.

In this situation I would actually let it just go to the vote. This is a Democracy regardless of what the community feels is outrageous. Of course I would hope no one tried to do something like that.
In my view it should be up to the proposer to table the bill if they don't want to continue to a vote and if they are a new member I would point this out. If the Region doesn't want it as law then they simply wouldn't vote for such a thing.

What do you make of the motion to table from the other member?

#2:
The Rules state that if 3 people object the Speaker must cancel any scheduled vote. Since only 2 have objected I would simply let the issue continue on it's current course. It would be up to the proposer -unless 3 objections are made- what to do.

I should, perhaps, clarify. When I say a proposer has motioned for a vote, I do not mean to say that you have recognised the motion as yet. With that in mind, what is the "current course" for this proposal?

#3:
Unless 3 people have objected to any scheduled vote it will likely continue to such a vote. Whether it is defeated or not is ultimately up to the region via vote. Besides any Admin or Mod intervention I would gently remind the member to honor basic principles of decorum-depending on just what happened exactly. I may or may not point out something unconventional. If it clearly is unconventional or unconstitutional I'm sure it will likely be pointed out by another member. Beyond general debate it's not up to the Speaker if something is unconstitutional or not. That would be up to the Court.

You say the Speaker does not determine constitutionality of proposals, what role, if any, does the Speaker have in ensuring that proposals meet some standard of legality and quality?

#4:

Since the nation lost Citizenship before the voting began they could simply come back and reapply for Citizenship. They would obviously be removed from the Registry during this time.

On the point about the Delegate I would remove the opponents name from the Registry. Any questions of constitutionality or law are up to the Courts.

How did the nation lose citizenship?

#5:
First of all the members would actually have to object individually to a vote there would be no stopping the scheduled vote by saying that they may or may not object to it.

On the point of the motion it would be unrealistic in my view that a motion -unless it had any support- would be able to prevent anything. NPA does operations during an update. Unless this is some long term military policy then trying to stop an update at midnight would be unrealistic. As far as an ongoing military activity there isn't anything that could stop that. That is up to the Executive and the Army leadership. I'm sure if people have enough disagreement then there will be 3 objections and then any scheduled vote would stop or if a objection wasn't forthcoming then it would likely be tabled or defeated by vote.

I should note that any talk of a military op outside proscribed forums is a sensitive issue and the member should probably not post it in the subforum. Any misplacement of classified information should be handled promptly.

As with earlier questions, when I say that the proposer has motioned for a vote, I mean just that, not that you have recognised that motion. The scenario posits an occupation, not a single update operation.

What do you mean when you say that there isn't anything that could stop ongoing military activity? How would you "handle" the placement of the proposal?

I'm meant activity in reference to the Deputies in the RA.


#1:

In theory a motion to table would be used to put the bill aside and amend it. I have used it in this manner before. Of course a motion to table would imply that there is some form of disagreement with the bill.

#2:
Until a motion is acknowledged requesting a vote the bill still essentially under discussion.

I should note that Section 1 clause 4 of the Assembly Rules could come into effect:

" If a number of citizens equal to or exceeding one third of the number of votes required to achieve quorum for any legislative vote, including the citizen that introduced the proposal to the Regional Assembly, motion that a vote should be held on a proposal before the Regional Assembly, then the Speaker must schedule a vote on that proposal to begin as soon as permitted by law."

#3:

I will of course read every bill before the Assembly. If there are any constitutional mistakes or any other conversation seems to be of low standard then I will point them out. I was among some who disagreed with a proposal for instance changing the motto of the Region.

I also point out that there will also inevitably be those 6-12 people in any Community who will list and point out that 101 reasons why something is right or wrong. Of course this is furthered by Citizens having a right to automatically be included in the Assembly.

#4:

I believe you said that it CTE'D.

#5:

In this scenario all information related to a military op would be placed in the Private forum area of the RA. If I found any post outside of that then I would place it in that Forum where it should go.

 

[James Urquhart]

3. Scenario! The delegate proposes a treaty with The Black Hawks in the RA forum, which has already been accepted by The Black Hawks. After some debate, the delegate moves for a vote on December 1st. What is the earliest day that the treaty could be put into effect? The latest? Please show your work.

#3:

"Duringthe five days after a vote is called for, the Delegate, or the Executive Officer, may make amendments to the treaty being considered. This period, hereafter referred to as Formal Debate, may be shortened at the request of the Delegate, or the Executive Officer. Once Formal Debate has ended, the treaty may no longer be amended, and the Speaker will schedule a vote to begin no fewer than two days hence."

Taking into account the 3 day minimum and 7 day maximum under the current rules.

The range would be about December 4-10th for passage.

Sorry, you did not answer correctly. Your current score is 0.

Even if formal debate were waived entirely and the vote was scheduled immediately, the standing procedures state that a vote won't begin until at least two days afterward. Treaties take effect immediately after passage, so the earliest would be December 6, after a three day vote. If formal debate was not shortened, it would end on December 6th, and the vote would be scheduled for December 8th. A seven day vote would conclude on December 15th. That response would be enough to earn the point. A bonus point would be awarded if you also pointed out that the two day waiting period, as part of the standing procedures, can be waived at the speaker's discretion, and that there is no defined limit to how far in the future the Speaker can schedule a vote to begin. So, in theory, the treaty could take effect as soon as December 4th, and there is no definite limit to how late it could take effect.

Next Challenge! There are 100 legislatively active members of the Regional Assembly. On a proposal to recall the Delegate, 14 vote aye, 5 vote nay, and 14 vote abstain. What is the result? Would anything be different if 20 voted aye, 11 voted nay, and 6 abstained?

EDIT: An earlier version of this post had different numbers in the new challenge. If you started working on it before the timestamp of the edit, start over.

"Section9.4: WA Delegacy
13. The resignation, recall, or loss of World Assembly membership of the legal or acting Delegate, or any capture of the delegacy of The North Pacific by any nation not the legal or acting Delegate, shall be considered an actual emergency, and does not require a declaration by the RA."

You specifically mentioned a recall in your query.

"Section9.1: Emergency Powers
1. The Regional Assembly may declare an actual emergency by majority vote. Votes on declaring emergencies must be expedited, and may last no longer than three days.
2. Concurrent with the declaration of an emergency, or anytime afterward while the emergency is ongoing, the Regional Assembly may, by majority vote, make both binding and nonbinding recommendations related to the ongoing emergency to government officials regarding an appropriate course of action, enforcement of regional laws, or other similar matter."

Even if it was a proposal for an actual emergency Declaration it wouldn't pan out.

The first figure you provide wouldn't fall under a majority vote if there are 100 members. 14 wouldn't be a majority so the item wouldn't pass. But one could attempt to argue quorum under the Constitution.

Even under the second scenario by 20 voting aye you would still come to only 20 out of 100. Clearly not a majority. One could argue for quorum.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

That was actually referring to the power of the RA to recall government officials (you can find it in the constitution, chapter 2, clause 5). It requires a 2/3 majority of votes cast (not the entire RA), which both scenarios meet. However, there is a quorum which has to be met for all votes, and it's 1/3 of the legislatively active members of the RA. With 100 legislatively active members, you would need 34 votes to achieve quorum, which the first scenario fails. So, in summary, in the first scenario, the motion would not pass because of failure to meet quorum, and in the second scenario, the delegate would be removed from office.

If you like, I can keep giving you procedural scenarios, but at this point, it doesn't seem like these are up your alley. Let me know if you want more.

 

[James Urquhart]

That was actually referring to the power of the RA to recall government officials (you can find it in the constitution, chapter 2, clause 5). It requires a 2/3 majority of votes cast (not the entire RA), which both scenarios meet. However, there is a quorum which has to be met for all votes, and it's 1/3 of the legislatively active members of the RA. With 100 legislatively active members, you would need 34 votes to achieve quorum, which the first scenario fails. So, in summary, in the first scenario, the motion would not pass because of failure to meet quorum, and in the second scenario, the delegate would be removed from office.

If you like, I can keep giving you procedural scenarios, but at this point, it doesn't seem like these are up your alley. Let me know if you want more.

I appreciate it. I did notice the constitutional provision but it was hard to tell if you were talking about the recall specifically in the Legal Code or the "removal" in the Constitution.

The Court Justice ones I have liked better.


It's easier to make decisions when the adrenaline is going etc..

 

[James Urquhart]

I should also note that I will be out traveling much of the day tomorrow and might not be able to be active on here.

Thank you for your support.

 

[Pallaith]

James, it's always nice to see a newcomer pursue such an important office, and to do so with so much professionalism. By my reckoning you could very well be precisely the sort of person who should be working in this office. Doesn't it seem like a bit of a leap to pursue it this quickly though? You haven't even been here a month, and this thread has demonstrated that your lack of experience does affect your understanding of RA procedure and the legislative process. Most of the time the job is citizenship checks and communication, but the votes are a crucial part of the job and they can quickly get into the weeds. Deputies especially have had trouble with them, because there aren't enough actual cases to work to build experience. You will be expected to teach the vote counting and scheduling process to your deputies, but you don't even know it all that well yourself. Can you evaluate your comfort level with these things, and maybe give us a sense of how soon you will have it down or how much more you need to get a working knowledge of it? This will also tie into the subsequent questions.

Speakers in the past, including myself, have found training the new deputies to be the hardest part. Some people have a knack for it, others do not. The approach I tried, of course, was establishing a staff under the deputies so prospective deputies could learn the ropes before getting appointed. It's hard to just throw someone into a role that in practice mirrors everything the Speaker can do and expect them to figure it out, as you yourself can probably attest. In some cases, this has led to unfortunate oversights and errors. What did you have in mind for training and preparing the deputies in the office?

Another thing I had hoped to see from the Speaker's office after my departure was further involvement by the Speaker's office in making it easier for newcomers to understand RA procedure and the legislative process in general, to hopefully encourage more legislative input from our citizenry. I figured this could be in the form of a workshop or an FAQ thread or something, building on existing material we had in past forum threads. Is this a project you think you would be willing to explore at some point, or at least agree should be something the office does in the future, should this brief half-term just be spent on getting things in order?

Finally, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on communication between the speaker's office and prospective citizens? Telegrams already go out when citizenship status is changed, but a lot of people fall through the cracks when the checks take a while, or they do not realize that they are missing a piece of information or further clarification was needed. Do you think the Speaker's office is doing all it can in this area, and the current setup is adequate, or could we be reaching out more effectively and directly to citizens? Would that make new prospective citizens more likely to make it all the way and stick around, or do you think it wouldn't change current retention rates and completed citizenship apps?

 

[James Urquhart]

James, it's always nice to see a newcomer pursue such an important office, and to do so with so much professionalism. By my reckoning you could very well be precisely the sort of person who should be working in this office. Doesn't it seem like a bit of a leap to pursue it this quickly though? You haven't even been here a month, and this thread has demonstrated that your lack of experience does affect your understanding of RA procedure and the legislative process. Most of the time the job is citizenship checks and communication, but the votes are a crucial part of the job and they can quickly get into the weeds. Deputies especially have had trouble with them, because there aren't enough actual cases to work to build experience. You will be expected to teach the vote counting and scheduling process to your deputies, but you don't even know it all that well yourself. Can you evaluate your comfort level with these things, and maybe give us a sense of how soon you will have it down or how much more you need to get a working knowledge of it? This will also tie into the subsequent questions.

Speakers in the past, including myself, have found training the new deputies to be the hardest part. Some people have a knack for it, others do not. The approach I tried, of course, was establishing a staff under the deputies so prospective deputies could learn the ropes before getting appointed. It's hard to just throw someone into a role that in practice mirrors everything the Speaker can do and expect them to figure it out, as you yourself can probably attest. In some cases, this has led to unfortunate oversights and errors. What did you have in mind for training and preparing the deputies in the office?

Another thing I had hoped to see from the Speaker's office after my departure was further involvement by the Speaker's office in making it easier for newcomers to understand RA procedure and the legislative process in general, to hopefully encourage more legislative input from our citizenry. I figured this could be in the form of a workshop or an FAQ thread or something, building on existing material we had in past forum threads. Is this a project you think you would be willing to explore at some point, or at least agree should be something the office does in the future, should this brief half-term just be spent on getting things in order?

Finally, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on communication between the speaker's office and prospective citizens? Telegrams already go out when citizenship status is changed, but a lot of people fall through the cracks when the checks take a while, or they do not realize that they are missing a piece of information or further clarification was needed. Do you think the Speaker's office is doing all it can in this area, and the current setup is adequate, or could we be reaching out more effectively and directly to citizens? Would that make new prospective citizens more likely to make it all the way and stick around, or do you think it wouldn't change current retention rates and completed citizenship apps?

Thank you Delegate I appreciate your words.
I do realize that lack of experience is probably the largest turn off for people that view this campaign.
I should note that I never actually declared candidacy but instead was nominated by a Minister. I had hoped that a more experienced Deputy would run. I really had no plan to immediately run for office.

On a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the highest I would say I'm at a 7 or 8. As far as training is considered I think I'm capable of getting the basics of what a Deputy is supposed to do across to a new Deputy. I had planned on keeping the current Deputies which would help additionally with this. I also want Deputies to have clearly defined boundaries. 3 solely dedicated to Citizenship applications and 2-3 to the RA Digest and miscellaneous duties.

Much of this term , if I am elected, would go towards getting the RA house in order. Indeed that's the main reason I ran. During this term I would be willing to make a preliminary step towards training or FAQ. There is no doubt a mountain of work needed to be done.
In my view Deputy Speaker positions provide deep insight to new citizens or any citizen in general about the workings of regional government. Not just the Speakers Office but that there is much more that goes into the government than a few forum's on a website.

There are so many Ministries involved with Citizens that I doubt the Speakers Office alone could possibly make any initial change in retention rates on it's own. The best way is obviously to make sure that we do our part in citizenship applications after the Admin and VD have done theirs. People's registering for Citizenship want it done quickly. I think the longer you take approving an application the less interested that person will initially be of the Region.
I think that by approving applications quickly, eventually making some learning environment for Deputies and also releasing a more timely and update RA Digest are probably right now the best things we can do. The retention is only going to be better and higher based on how immersive and responsive the environment is.

I hope my response was helpful.

 

[Clean Land]

Your reactions uncovered a lack of (necessary) experience or at least knowledge. I cannot support you right now. Sorry. Maybe get some more training and try again? Your ideas on how to proceed are good.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Thank you for your answers, I do have further follow-ups.

I'm meant activity in reference to the Deputies in the RA.

I had presumed, but what "activity" do you mean? Discussing proposals? Introducing proposals of their own? Dealing with motions?

#1:

In theory a motion to table would be used to put the bill aside and amend it. I have used it in this manner before. Of course a motion to table would imply that there is some form of disagreement with the bill.

And what action would you take as Speaker in consequence of it?

#2:
Until a motion is acknowledged requesting a vote the bill still essentially under discussion.

I should note that Section 1 clause 4 of the Assembly Rules could come into effect:

" If a number of citizens equal to or exceeding one third of the number of votes required to achieve quorum for any legislative vote, including the citizen that introduced the proposal to the Regional Assembly, motion that a vote should be held on a proposal before the Regional Assembly, then the Speaker must schedule a vote on that proposal to begin as soon as permitted by law."

Indeed it is the case that a motion to vote must ordinarily be acknowledged to be effective, would you acknowledge it? Why or why not?

#4:

I believe you said that it CTE'D.

Does this mean that it has lost citizenship? If so, why?

#5:

In this scenario all information related to a military op would be placed in the Private forum area of the RA. If I found any post outside of that then I would place it in that Forum where it should go.

This answers the part of the question relating to the location of the information, but you appear to have missed "What do you mean when you say that there isn't anything [in terms of a motion] that could stop ongoing military activity?"

 

[James Urquhart]

Your reactions uncovered a lack of (necessary) experience or at least knowledge. I cannot support you right now. Sorry. Maybe get some more training and try again? Your ideas on how to proceed are good.

Thank you. I appreciate your input.

 

[James Urquhart]

Thank you for your answers, I do have further follow-ups.

I'm meant activity in reference to the Deputies in the RA.

I had presumed, but what "activity" do you mean? Discussing proposals? Introducing proposals of their own? Dealing with motions?

#1:

In theory a motion to table would be used to put the bill aside and amend it. I have used it in this manner before. Of course a motion to table would imply that there is some form of disagreement with the bill.

And what action would you take as Speaker in consequence of it?

#2:
Until a motion is acknowledged requesting a vote the bill still essentially under discussion.

I should note that Section 1 clause 4 of the Assembly Rules could come into effect:

" If a number of citizens equal to or exceeding one third of the number of votes required to achieve quorum for any legislative vote, including the citizen that introduced the proposal to the Regional Assembly, motion that a vote should be held on a proposal before the Regional Assembly, then the Speaker must schedule a vote on that proposal to begin as soon as permitted by law."

Indeed it is the case that a motion to vote must ordinarily be acknowledged to be effective, would you acknowledge it? Why or why not?

#4:

I believe you said that it CTE'D.

Does this mean that it has lost citizenship? If so, why?

#5:

In this scenario all information related to a military op would be placed in the Private forum area of the RA. If I found any post outside of that then I would place it in that Forum where it should go.

This answers the part of the question relating to the location of the information, but you appear to have missed "What do you mean when you say that there isn't anything [in terms of a motion] that could stop ongoing military activity?"

I'm mean activity of the Deputies carrying out their duties as I outlined previously. Of course they can present their own legislation if they wish.

#1:
We have been talking about this so long I have nearly forgotten what the original question was. If 3 citizens haven't object and you have a citizen who wants to continue and one that wants to table then that up to the citizen who made the bill. I would defer in this instance to the citizen who made the bill, unless they are inactive and can't reach a consensus and then a motion to table from another citizen would be considered.

#2:
If a citizen motioned to vote and they haven't had the bill out for long I would suggest lengthening it's up time before motioning for a vote. However if the citizen insists or has had enough time with the bill before going to a vote then I would obviously honor their motion.

#4:

Yes they lost Citizenship. If your nation ceases to exist during any period you have citizenship then you have lost Citizenship. You did say originally that the Nation was refounded which hints at this.


#5:

I was referring in general terms that military activity is largely up to the Executive including the Army command and control. That's what I'm leaving it at on that point.

 

[Darcania]

Best of luck to you in voting as well.