NATION

PASSWORD

[TWI ONLY] The Senate of the Western Isles

Where nations come together and discuss matters of varying degrees of importance. [In character]

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Dashgrinaar
Minister
 
Posts: 2001
Founded: Apr 30, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Dashgrinaar » Mon Jan 04, 2016 7:11 am

Ok. The motion passes.

I vote YES

The Amendment passes 3 - 0 - 0.

I will alert the court of it's passing.
Dashgrinaar
Proud Member of The Western Isles
Speaker Pro Tempore and Senator Emeritus
Vice President of The Western Isles

User avatar
Dashgrinaar
Minister
 
Posts: 2001
Founded: Apr 30, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Dashgrinaar » Mon Jan 04, 2016 7:51 pm

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?
Dashgrinaar
Proud Member of The Western Isles
Speaker Pro Tempore and Senator Emeritus
Vice President of The Western Isles

User avatar
Vancouvia
Minister
 
Posts: 3043
Founded: Sep 19, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Vancouvia » Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:53 pm

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?
Last edited by Vancouvia on Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dashgrinaar
Minister
 
Posts: 2001
Founded: Apr 30, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Dashgrinaar » Tue Jan 05, 2016 3:31 pm

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)."
Dashgrinaar
Proud Member of The Western Isles
Speaker Pro Tempore and Senator Emeritus
Vice President of The Western Isles

User avatar
Vancouvia
Minister
 
Posts: 3043
Founded: Sep 19, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Vancouvia » Sun Jan 10, 2016 7:41 pm

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.
Last edited by Vancouvia on Sun Jan 10, 2016 7:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Dashgrinaar
Minister
 
Posts: 2001
Founded: Apr 30, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Dashgrinaar » Sun Jan 10, 2016 7:58 pm

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.
Last edited by Dashgrinaar on Sun Jan 10, 2016 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dashgrinaar
Proud Member of The Western Isles
Speaker Pro Tempore and Senator Emeritus
Vice President of The Western Isles

User avatar
Vancouvia
Minister
 
Posts: 3043
Founded: Sep 19, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Vancouvia » Sun Jan 10, 2016 11:00 pm

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).

User avatar
Vancouvia
Minister
 
Posts: 3043
Founded: Sep 19, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Vancouvia » Tue Jan 12, 2016 7:16 pm

Do you, Verdon or Dash, have anything you want to bring up?

User avatar
Dashgrinaar
Minister
 
Posts: 2001
Founded: Apr 30, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Dashgrinaar » Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:27 pm

No, not really. I have no issues with it, but I think we should wait for Verdon to post.
Dashgrinaar
Proud Member of The Western Isles
Speaker Pro Tempore and Senator Emeritus
Vice President of The Western Isles

User avatar
Verdon
Diplomat
 
Posts: 679
Founded: Apr 27, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Verdon » Thu Jan 14, 2016 6:27 pm

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.

User avatar
Vancouvia
Minister
 
Posts: 3043
Founded: Sep 19, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Vancouvia » Thu Jan 14, 2016 7:56 pm

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

User avatar
Franco-Albion
Envoy
 
Posts: 345
Founded: Jun 04, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Franco-Albion » Sat Jan 16, 2016 3:44 am

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?
Liberal-Conservative | Imperial Federalist | Humanist | Pixel Artist | Twitter Addict
"And thus we shall conquer."
[0] Days since the last scandal (and the subsequent tax-cut).

User avatar
Vancouvia
Minister
 
Posts: 3043
Founded: Sep 19, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Vancouvia » Sat Jan 16, 2016 9:40 am

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.

User avatar
Verdon
Diplomat
 
Posts: 679
Founded: Apr 27, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Verdon » Sun Jan 17, 2016 10:40 am

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.

User avatar
Dashgrinaar
Minister
 
Posts: 2001
Founded: Apr 30, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Dashgrinaar » Sun Jan 17, 2016 7:43 pm

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.
Dashgrinaar
Proud Member of The Western Isles
Speaker Pro Tempore and Senator Emeritus
Vice President of The Western Isles

User avatar
Great-Imperialonia
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 354
Founded: Feb 05, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Great-Imperialonia » Mon Jan 18, 2016 10:36 am

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.
Proud member of The Western Isles

Former Secretary of Defence of The Western Isles
Former Senator of The Western Isles

User avatar
Dashgrinaar
Minister
 
Posts: 2001
Founded: Apr 30, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Dashgrinaar » Mon Jan 18, 2016 1:30 pm

I move to vote.

Just to clarify, to go through with a motion, we still only need one second.
Dashgrinaar
Proud Member of The Western Isles
Speaker Pro Tempore and Senator Emeritus
Vice President of The Western Isles

User avatar
Vancouvia
Minister
 
Posts: 3043
Founded: Sep 19, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Vancouvia » Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:25 pm

Second and yes

User avatar
Dashgrinaar
Minister
 
Posts: 2001
Founded: Apr 30, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Dashgrinaar » Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:41 pm

Ok. Motion passes, etc.

I vote yes
Dashgrinaar
Proud Member of The Western Isles
Speaker Pro Tempore and Senator Emeritus
Vice President of The Western Isles

User avatar
Great-Imperialonia
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 354
Founded: Feb 05, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Great-Imperialonia » Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:49 pm

I vote yes as well
Proud member of The Western Isles

Former Secretary of Defence of The Western Isles
Former Senator of The Western Isles

User avatar
Dashgrinaar
Minister
 
Posts: 2001
Founded: Apr 30, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Dashgrinaar » Mon Jan 18, 2016 4:14 pm

A.S. #17: "Officer Accountability" (2016) has passed, 3 - 0 - 0.

Senator Verdon may still lodge his vote to be counted overall.
Dashgrinaar
Proud Member of The Western Isles
Speaker Pro Tempore and Senator Emeritus
Vice President of The Western Isles

User avatar
Verdon
Diplomat
 
Posts: 679
Founded: Apr 27, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Verdon » Wed Jan 20, 2016 7:02 pm

Think the voting period elapsed so you'll have to put me down as abstained

User avatar
Dashgrinaar
Minister
 
Posts: 2001
Founded: Apr 30, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Dashgrinaar » Wed Jan 20, 2016 8:53 pm

Yeah, it has. Thanks. I'll update it once I get a chance.
Dashgrinaar
Proud Member of The Western Isles
Speaker Pro Tempore and Senator Emeritus
Vice President of The Western Isles

User avatar
Vancouvia
Minister
 
Posts: 3043
Founded: Sep 19, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Vancouvia » Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:54 pm

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.

User avatar
Vancouvia
Minister
 
Posts: 3043
Founded: Sep 19, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Vancouvia » Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:56 pm

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.
Last edited by Vancouvia on Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to NationStates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads