SENATE BILL: Amending our Expulsion Process Resolution (Passed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Maxwell

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Okay 24 hours you know the drill, Maxwell.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Actually, my next OSPR amendment inserts a process to strip sponsorships into Section 1 of Article 4, a much better place for doing so because that is where the process for the assumption of sponsorships is established. https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=98481.msg3907012#msg3907012

If we finish this one quick enough, my plan was to bring that one up next.

And explusion isn't that difficult to accomplish if they meet the standard set out in the rules, all you need is a 2/3rds vote of the Senate and we have never failed to get it when such has occured.

Also the President wanted us to add more approved usages of explusion to the rules.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Also we need to change the second reference of 14 days to seven at the bottom of the text.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nothing specific. I PMed him about this but he hasn't responded or posted as of yet unfortunately. He just wanted some more approved usages beyond just the singular activity standard. I figured he would thus like your idea of having one centered around the number of bills a Senator had offered.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Wait, I thought my amendment was accepted as friendly? Either someone is deleting posts or I'm trippin'.

That is my fault for trying to do sh**t in the arly morning which is when I finally got in the tracker.

I was going to call 24 hours on it and that way if we decided to go ahead with it, it would already be done.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well, the problem is, Yank's explanation is good, and I'm not sure I want to create a double inconsistency. I was originally sure of it as a friendly suggestion, but his point made me wonder.

It is not a bad idea at all. However My thought woudl be that it would be more suitable in Article 3 of the OSPR then inserted in the middle of the Expulsion procedure. So if I were to object it would only be because of its current placement not because of what it is.

So basically just take this new procedure in Tmth's amendment, create another section of this Resolution that would insert it as say Article 3, Section 1, Clause 7 of the OSPR, with all existing clauses renumbered accordingly.

My proposal for Article 4.1 wouldn't necessarily have to be inconsistent. For instance if a bill is on the floor and a Senator disappears but hasn't been expelled yet, we could strip the sponsorship and thus reassign it. Mine is more aimed at once they are already on the floor whereas his aimed at the queue.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So, would you be game for moving it to Article 3, man?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well this way they wouldn't have to, because their bills could be removed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also shouldn't there be like a vote or at least a seconding requirement attached to this process?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I haven't offered any amendments yet.

I was referring to Tmth's process. Since it isn't really explusion at all  but a process to remove bills from the queue belonging to an inactive Senator, it would require it's own standalone procedures regardless of where it was placed in the OSPR.

I am placing a temporary objection on 57:48 while we sort this all out.

I would like to have these matters settled by tomorrow and all amendments offered by then, if possible.

Also, I forgot to bold section two in text I posted.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Isn't five days of absence taking care of that part though?


I meant the process by which it is motion for and voted on? Where is that to take place for instance?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would prefer not to tie anything into sponsorships with expulsion in this resolution. Let's just set it to five days and address stripping sponsorships in Article 3.

We wouldn't be tying them together, just copying the same process for how it is to be done (Motion Thread, 2/3rds Vote etc).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How does this look process wise (Red Italics at the bottom of the quote box)?

I decided to go ahead and remove the numbers specificied in Clause 3 of Article 12, which I missed in my lists of voting procedures in the Fix the Region's Amendment. Though the reference to thE consitution two lines above would solve any problems post consolidation, we might as well remove the specified numbers now while we are here.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object to the above amendment.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I find your changes agreeable Yankee, but my only change would be the 120 Hour vote go to 72 Hour vote, if only for the reason I think we should start to universalize vote times.

I would tend to agree - we did this a while back in the Mideast and it greatly simplified things.

We should definately keep that in mind as we continue to reform the OSPR.

Also Final Vote once this amendment finishes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendment has been adopted.

Senators this is now at final vote, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Incredibly frustrating.

How so?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yea, I suppose they have other priorities.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This has enough votes to pass, Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

Personally, I'd prefer a three-day minimum absence for revoking sponsorship and a five-day minimum absence for expulsion, but even this would be a massive improvement over the toothless rules under which the Senate has been operating for years.

I wouldn't call it toothless. We did expell Worms, BK (twice as I recall), Barnes and MoPolitico in the last two years or so.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

True, but in each case the absentee Senator was only subject to expulsion long after everyone knew that they were gone for good.

And thus why they weren't partisan votes. Remember you still need 2/3rds vote to be expelled and the shorter the time the more likely it become a party or clique thing shielding them. Which would be toothless.

Now that ole style way, the one that nabbed DWTL. Now that was teeth. You msised the days and no LOA, you were just gone. No vote, nothing.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on the Amending our Expulsion Process Resolution:

Aye (7): bore, Gass3268, Maxwell, NC Yankee, Tmthforu94, TNF and Xahar
Nay (1): Napoleon
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (2): TJ in Cleve and sbane  I'd hate to be these two in about five minutes

The Resolution has passed the Senate.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.