SENATE BILL: Queue Sanity OSPR Amendment (Passed)

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Too many bills are held over from the last session, or sometimes even the session before last, and only a portion of bills are able to be acted upon in the session they are introduced. This is a way of addressing that in a way that also makes the queue more equitable to each senator in terms of allowing them to put their legislative priorities forward.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

friendly

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I am going to say hostile. 

I'm wary of it since it seems like it will lead to a huge race between members to introduce all their bills at the very beginning of the session so that the Senate has a chance to get to them during the session, and so could just lead again to a few Senators monopolizing the queue by other means than currently.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Nay

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

AYE.

Can we at least pass an amendment stating that bills sponsored by a former Senator will removed from the queue and have to be reintroduced by another Senator unless a cosponsor already exists to take up the bill?

That sounds like something I can support.
Also, I'm up for reducing "10" in this bill to a lower number if there is interest in that.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'll put forward this amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

AYE

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Giving the PPT or the President direct control over more legislative slots would be an easier way of solving this problem than introducing more rules and quotas, wouldn't it?

It would be a mistake to give up in-order slots in this fashion.

Yet this bill is an indirect way of achieving exactly that. The only problem that it addresses is that a certain Senator has introduced more legislation than this Senate's majority coalition would like.

I thought you wanted to reduce the ability of incumbent Senators to clog up the queue?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Giving the PPT or the President direct control over more legislative slots would be an easier way of solving this problem than introducing more rules and quotas, wouldn't it?

It would be a mistake to give up in-order slots in this fashion.

Yet this bill is an indirect way of achieving exactly that. The only problem that it addresses is that a certain Senator has introduced more legislation than this Senate's majority coalition would like.

I thought you wanted to reduce the ability of incumbent Senators to clog up the queue?

Yes, as long as we're trying to run the Senate in a neutral fashion and allow every member the same chance to have his or he legislation debated.

But this Senate rejected that premise and is pushing through with your original proposal, which doesn't achieve that at all. You might force TNF to hand some of his bills off to other Senators who will become sponsors in name only, but the only real effect of this will be to add yet another complication to the Senate's arcane rules.

Allowing every member to have their bills debated is exactly what I am aiming for.  Removing the roll-over of any bill into the next session does not do this as well as an individual cap because of the ability for a member to reintroduce all of their bills before other members can get out the gate, while those other members also lose their place in line at the same time.   What I am putting forward is not a perfect solution, but it's the best that I have come up with.   If a senator finds that something written by another senator is among their legislative priorities enough to take it over, then I can accept that as their prerogative.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I support open¹ partisan administration of the Senate, and have for over a year. This has never been a secret.

Yet that would require a complete revision of the rules, and this is only a minor change - and as long as a complete revision is not under discussion, my preferences are as I describe them in this thread. 

The rules for introducing legislation are complicated enough, and already include provisions for ignoring frivolous bills and anti-clogging rules for preventing a single Senator from monopolizing the floor. I can't imagine why we would want to add to this by effectively placing a cap on the number of ideas that a Senator is allowed to have in a single session.

This bill does not cap that.  A Senator could still introduce as many bills under this as they can now, it just gives other Senators more of a chance to have theirs brought to the floor.  We will still get to as many of each Senator's bills as time allows.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It's ironic - when I introduced this amendment to my bill I thought I was moving it a bit closer in the direction of Nix and Talleyrand.  Why that now is supposed to mean I'm putting forward some sort of partisan power grab is beyond me.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It's ironic - when I introduced this amendment to my bill I thought I was moving it a bit closer in the direction of Nix and Talleyrand.  Why that now is supposed to mean I'm putting forward some sort of partisan power grab is beyond me.

You might be well-intentioned here, but I think your amendment, as Nix pointed out, would cap off a Senator's ideas unfairly. I was hoping that we'd get less frivolous bills or those with no real base of support in the Senate less than we do so now.

how does this cap off a senator's ideas more than completely stopping anything from moving into the next session?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What is this anti-clogging rule you are talking about?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What is this anti-clogging rule you are talking about?

Come on, you were here in 2011 when I resintated it and catched hell for doing it. You might even have voted against it, but I cannot remember offhand.

Without it, every slot would have TNF bills in them.

I was aware of the rule though I don't remember the occasion of its passage or if I was in the Senate, but it is the sort of thing that I would have supported.  It is effective somewhat, though still very easy for a couple of senators to monopolize the queue so I wasn't sure if there was something else I was missing.

If someone wants to call this the anti-TNF rule they should add X's name too given the situation when I introduced it.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I think so.

I would be willing to see if there's some sort of other compromise moving a bit more in the direction of restarting the queue at each session, but I get the sense such wouldn't be supported by a majority of senators.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

friendly, just like the last time you offered this amendment back on page 1.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

AYE

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

This is the final text:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

AYE