Page 9 of 54
Posted:
Mon Jan 04, 2016 7:11 amby Dashgrinaar
Ok. The motion passes.
I vote YES
The Amendment passes 3 - 0 - 0.
I will alert the court of it's passing.
Posted:
Mon Jan 04, 2016 7:51 pmby Dashgrinaar
Vancouvia wrote:Increasing Representation Amendment (2015)
“An amendment to decrease the number of vouchers it takes to become a Senator"
(1) Changes all mentions of "five" in Article IV, Section 4 to "three"
Long overdue, in my opinion. I thought about four, but I think three will enable even more representation, allowing groups with more different opinions to actually be represented. This will also hopefully increase the overall activity and involvement of nations in our politics.
Shouldn't this be 2016?
Posted:
Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:53 pmby Vancouvia
Dashgrinaar wrote:Vancouvia wrote:Increasing Representation Amendment (2015)
“An amendment to decrease the number of vouchers it takes to become a Senator"
(1) Changes all mentions of "five" in Article IV, Section 4 to "three"
Long overdue, in my opinion. I thought about four, but I think three will enable even more representation, allowing groups with more different opinions to actually be represented. This will also hopefully increase the overall activity and involvement of nations in our politics.
Shouldn't this be 2016?
Yes sorry, left over from copy paste
Has this been submitted to the court yet?
Posted:
Tue Jan 05, 2016 3:31 pmby Dashgrinaar
Yes, it has. I TG'ed Linaviar and posted in the Court Region. I think you could change the title though, just for formatting. I did call it "Increasing Representation Amendment (2016)."
Posted:
Sun Jan 10, 2016 7:41 pmby Vancouvia
Officer Accountability
“A law to hold officers accountable for their action and inaction."
(1) Officers are required to carry out their duties as outlined in the Constitution, and also must carry out all reasonable duties assigned to them by the President.
(2) As visible representatives of our region, officers must display a high standard of professionalism and tact in all forums and locales.
(3) On or before the first day of each month, executive officers are to present to the region documentation and a summary on what they have accomplished, fulfilled, executed, or otherwise done in the realm of their office over the previous month's time. This information shall be compiled by the Secretary of Information, who shall publish a complete dispatch no later than noon on the first day of each month. This dispatch is recommended to be utilized during elections.
(4) Executive officers who will knowingly be temporarily absent are to proactively forward their summary before the deadline.
(5) Any executive officer who fails to send in their summary, or fails to adequately send in an informative, readable, and quality summary, or fails to display a high standard of professionalism and tact, shall be recommended for dismissal by the President, as provided in Article VI Section 1.
Posted:
Sun Jan 10, 2016 7:58 pmby Dashgrinaar
Are senators held accountable to this? Sometimes the wording 'are considered officers' confuses me - are we officers or are we not, that would be much more simple if we just put that... But past that, I don't think there is much wrong, it holds people accountable for their actions and is very concise and to the point... The reports are a good idea.
Following Senatorial Procedure I endorse the above bill and we now move to debate the bill and it's formatting.
Posted:
Sun Jan 10, 2016 11:00 pmby Vancouvia
Dashgrinaar wrote:Are senators held accountable to this? Sometimes the wording 'are considered officers' confuses me - are we officers or are we not, that would be much more simple if we just put that... But past that, I don't think there is much wrong, it holds people accountable for their actions and is very concise and to the point... The reports are a good idea.
Following Senatorial Procedure I endorse the above bill and we now move to debate the bill and it's formatting.
Section 1 of the three branches clarifies who is officers. It's everyone except Founder and WA Delegate. But if you notice, this is mostly aimed at Executive Officers, since they are the ones with actual duties (and our Court wouldn't have much to report).
Posted:
Tue Jan 12, 2016 7:16 pmby Vancouvia
Do you, Verdon or Dash, have anything you want to bring up?
Posted:
Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:27 pmby Dashgrinaar
No, not really. I have no issues with it, but I think we should wait for Verdon to post.
Posted:
Thu Jan 14, 2016 6:27 pmby Verdon
Yeah, what's the driving idea behind mandating the reports? Seems unnecessary extra work that I think will be difficult to enforce.
The senate keeps track of everything that it does already, so this doesn't really effect us.
Posted:
Thu Jan 14, 2016 7:56 pmby Vancouvia
Verdon wrote:Yeah, what's the driving idea behind mandating the reports? Seems unnecessary extra work that I think will be difficult to enforce.
The senate keeps track of everything that it does already, so this doesn't really effect us.
It's to hold executive officers accountable for what they have done. Senators and Justices don't need it because all of our duties are conducted on public threads. The Secretary of the Interior for example, on the other hand, may do a lot of behind the scenes work.
This will help in two ways:
1. During elections, the incumbent will have a track record
2. If an officer is acting poorly, then there will be significant pressure on the President to remove them
Posted:
Sat Jan 16, 2016 3:44 amby Franco-Albion
Vancouvia wrote:Verdon wrote:Yeah, what's the driving idea behind mandating the reports? Seems unnecessary extra work that I think will be difficult to enforce.
The senate keeps track of everything that it does already, so this doesn't really effect us.
It's to hold executive officers accountable for what they have done. Senators and Justices don't need it because all of our duties are conducted on public threads. The Secretary of the Interior for example, on the other hand, may do a lot of behind the scenes work.
This will help in two ways:
1. During elections, the incumbent will have a track record
2. If an officer is acting poorly, then there will be significant pressure on the President to remove them
Define "pressure". What sort of scenarios would involve someone's removal by executive order?
Would a President be required to make a case for someone's removal or literally just swiftly push them out?
Posted:
Sat Jan 16, 2016 9:40 amby Vancouvia
Franco-Albion wrote:Vancouvia wrote:It's to hold executive officers accountable for what they have done. Senators and Justices don't need it because all of our duties are conducted on public threads. The Secretary of the Interior for example, on the other hand, may do a lot of behind the scenes work.
This will help in two ways:
1. During elections, the incumbent will have a track record
2. If an officer is acting poorly, then there will be significant pressure on the President to remove them
Define "pressure". What sort of scenarios would involve someone's removal by executive order?
Would a President be required to make a case for someone's removal or literally just swiftly push them out?
The scenarios outlined in the law. Either failing to provide an adequate monthly report, or failing to display a high standard of professionalism and tact.
The President can already remove an officer any time they wish "in the most extreme situations." They wouldn't be required but they would be urged to do so. If they don't remove them then that would shed poorly on the President.
Posted:
Sun Jan 17, 2016 10:40 amby Verdon
Vancouvia wrote:1. During elections, the incumbent will have a track record
Hadn't considered that, yeah that would be immense.
Alright I'm sold on this one.
Posted:
Sun Jan 17, 2016 7:43 pmby Dashgrinaar
Ok, we all seem to think that the bill is good. I would wait for Senator Grand Imperialonia to speak before move on to the voting process.
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2016 10:36 amby Great-Imperialonia
I think this is very usefull and an improvement to our regional politics. At the moment we don't hear much of the executive officers because they don't need to. It will really 'wake up' the officers because the always need to keep in mind their activity.
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2016 1:30 pmby Dashgrinaar
I move to vote.
Just to clarify, to go through with a motion, we still only need one second.
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:25 pmby Vancouvia
Second and yes
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:41 pmby Dashgrinaar
Ok. Motion passes, etc.
I vote yes
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:49 pmby Great-Imperialonia
I vote yes as well
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2016 4:14 pmby Dashgrinaar
A.S. #17: "Officer Accountability" (2016) has passed, 3 - 0 - 0.
Senator Verdon may still lodge his vote to be counted overall.
Posted:
Wed Jan 20, 2016 7:02 pmby Verdon
Think the voting period elapsed so you'll have to put me down as abstained
Posted:
Wed Jan 20, 2016 8:53 pmby Dashgrinaar
Yeah, it has. Thanks. I'll update it once I get a chance.
Posted:
Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:54 pmby Vancouvia
Legislation Placement
“A law to ensure legislation goes into effect in the correct venue, and to balance the power between the Executive and Legislative branches"
(1) Any legislation should be passed into the correct venue: either as a law, an amendment, or an executive order. Laws are legislation passed by the Senate that do not materially alter the Constitution. Amendments are legislation passed by the Senate that do materially alter the Constitution. Executive orders are mandates written by an executive officer. Executive orders must be written by the most appropriate officer as outlined in Article II Section 2 of the Constitution.
(2) Any member may, at any time either during the drafting process of legislation or after its enactment, call for the Supreme Court to determine if the legislation is in the correct venue. If this call is placed during the drafting process, the legislation should not go to vote until after the Court has made its decision.
(3) The Senate should refrain from legislating in areas under the scope of executive officers and instead petition the appropriate officer to create an executive order.
Posted:
Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:56 pmby Vancouvia
Repealing Outdated Legislation
“A law to repeal two outdated laws"
(1) Repeals the Formatting and Procedures Act (2015)
(2) Repeals the Reference Information Act (2015)
(3) The Formatting and Procedures Act has not been adhered to for several months. This is evidence of its lacking utility. All necessary Senate procedures are established in the Constitution and/or are not needed for the Senate to conduct its business. The Senate has established itself through patterns of conduct and this act has been defunct and antiquated for some time now.
(4) The Reference Information Act regulates an area that should be under the authority of the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary of the Interior is encouraged to issue an executive order revitalizing these rules if deemed necessary.