The Imperial Dominion of the South's Legislature

[Velasco]

Well, I see no debate on the first article and points 2.1, 2.1.1 and 2.1.2.  As for the 2.2, I guess that 72 hours are enough to give legislators a chance to sponsor a bill made by a former member. However, if any legislator wants to rescue some old bill from the oblivion, there's always the chance of writing a new text inspired by the previous one. No debate on point 2.3.

[Donerail]

Y'all ready to move on this? I support it. Only thing I'd change is:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because the Almanac is pinned at the top of the board and will be easier to find (and it's shorter, so an individual post would be easy to find as well).

[Hash]

Well, I'd love to see more debate on it since Zanas had a few objections/concerns, but he seems to have gone AWOL.

I don't care much for the stricter timing and requirements in the bill as a whole, but I really think this legislature needs to be kicked in the ass to get moving a bit quicker. This bill is an attempt to do that, if anybody has better ideas to accomplish the same/similar goal, I'm willing to hear them.

[Zanas]

You were right Hash, but I turned AWOL to... well, AWOL, in this post.

Sorry to let you down like that people, life in Paris in Spring can be soooo time-consuming... We'll have to have a new election for Speaker, and I'll still participate in the debate till our next election when I won't be running for reelection.

Anyway, just before I officially resign, let's bring sections 3 to 5 here to debate :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh and on article 2.1 : I feel we really should either : find the original author of the thread (tb75) and ask him to change the thread's title, or open a new thread correctly titled.
It can be a pain in the ass when you're a fresh young IDS Legislator finding where the hell is the "IDS Legislation introduction thread" or "South region (...)" etc.

[Dereich]

If we pass this I think we'd need a new main thread as well as any change we make to the legislation introduction thread. I'm not entirely sure how it works, but I don't THINK anyone but the thread's creator can change its title. If we keep this (entirely sensible) provision in we'd either need to create a new thread or bring back someone who has been gone for a long time. Its kind of sad to abandon this old, long thread but if we're going through with lots of changes I suppose this is a good place to start. I think Sjoyce's idea of having the stickied almanac be the legislation introduction thread is a good idea and I'll sponsor his proposed amendment. I really like this bill and again see nothing I object to.


Also, as Speaker Zanas is stepping down, I guess I'll throw my hat in the ring and run for the speakership. If elected I'd try to keep us going without too many delays and I'd do my best to work in a fair and unbiased manner.

[Velasco]

Probably we'll need a new main thread for our old Legislature, as Dereich says. I'm prone to pass Section 3, if nobody has objections. We really need to move forward and start the discussion on Constitutional reforms, though I think that SJoyce should take the initiative here.

I feel sad for Zanas' resignation. Being the remaining Labor member, I'm not going to throw my hat right now so, unless Hash wants to run for the post, I think Dereich might be a good and reasonable Speaker.

[Dereich]

Is there any objection? Hash? Jerry?

[JerryArkansas]

I already said I have no objection

[Dereich]

Ok then, I'll bring up the rest of the bill for debate:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Velasco]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think the problem is when the Speaker is absent for several days and don't declare a leave of absence. Should the Legislator with the longest serving time assume the Speaker's functions? How much time should pass then?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The issue of vacancies came to my mind several times. Even if a Gubernatorial appointment is more practical than calling for a by-election, don't you think that in this case the appointed  Legislator should be approved by the Legislature? What are your feelings about it?

[JerryArkansas]

I really think that any appointments should be made by the governor, with approval from us.

[Donerail]

The issue of vacancies came to my mind several times. Even if a Gubernatorial appointment is more practical than calling for a by-election, don't you think that in this case the appointed  Legislator should be approved by the Legislature? What are your feelings about it?

I dunno how much sense it makes to have the Legislature determine who the next Legislator is - just IMO, if it's an awful appointee the Legislature already has the Constitutional power to judge the qualifications of its members and can give them the boot if they're inactive.

[Dereich]

I think I agree with Sjoyce on this. Getting legislative approval for appointments seems time consuming and mostly pointless when elections are so frequent anyway. As long as future Emperors continue to appoint people who are more or less similar ideologically to the legislator who is leaving I don't think its necessary. The only problem is if some future Emperor decides to throw that precedent out.

I agree with Velasco that a clarification of 8.1.4 is in order, voting for a new speaker seems a bit excessive for, say, a two day absence.


My biggest problem with the bill is that it forces too many formal procedures on what has always been a less formal process. It'll be difficult to adapt to using motions and introducing cloture and I'm not sure if the benefits from the change are worth it.

[Velasco]

I think I agree with Sjoyce on this. Getting legislative approval for appointments seems time consuming and mostly pointless when elections are so frequent anyway. As long as future Emperors continue to appoint people who are more or less similar ideologically to the legislator who is leaving I don't think its necessary.  The only problem is if some future Emperor decides to throw that precedent out.

But this is the point, what happens if the Governor/Emperor/Whatever decides throw the precedent? It might be a delicate point if we are debating some controversial agendas. When Duke left the Legislature when he was appointed Vice President, PiT replaced him with Gamecock, a Federalist member. I don't think that there was bad faith from PiT's side, but Duke was elected in The People's Party ticket, though I don't remember if TPP was still an existing party by that time. Gamecock didn't intervene in the debate in the brief period of his appointment but, if you remember well, we were discussing that nuclear bill and there was a lot of controversy and even polarization around it.
 
I believe that we must clarify the procedure in these cases. As it's gathered in the article 2.10 of our Constitution, it's not written anywhere that a Governor/etecetera appointed legislator  have to be more or less ideologically similar to the legislator who is leaving. On the other hand, procedural issues are more appropriate to be included in bills like this we are discussing right now than in our Constitutional text, at least this is my opinion. The approval by the Legislature might be only a formality to prevent appointments in discordance with precedents ruled by that unwritten law. If you have other ideas, please, discuss. All of we need a kick in the ass, as someone has said before in this Chamber.

I agree with Velasco that a clarification of 8.1.4 is in order, voting for a new speaker seems a bit excessive for, say, a two day absence. 

Well, my point is that we need to determine how much time is an absence tolerable in the case of the Speaker. The 15 days for simple legislators (9.1) is a period of time flexible enough, but the Speaker has more duties and responsibilities.

Don't forget that we have to make changes to our Constitution and until we solve this point, it will be hard to see the legislative work going forward.

[Dereich]

An overly partisan legislature nixing an Emperor's suggestion on partisan grounds is just as bad as an Emperor appointing someone on partisan grounds. As for suggestions, perhaps change it to allow the appointment to go through automatically unless the legislature voluntarily rejects it? I just don't want to add unnecessary extra votes to a legislature that already takes time to get things moving.

As for the time period, since legislation under this bill is required to be discussed for at least 72 hours maybe that should be the timeframe? If a speaker introduces something and is away for longer then that the problems would really start.

[Velasco]

Well, I'm interested in that we reach an agreement on these procedure topics and I would like that we were including the question of the appointments in this bill. Though I'm not sure what do you mean with an overly partisan Legislature, I guess that's enough with giving legislators the chance of rejecting an appointed member, if the appointment is perceived as partisan (i.e. breaking the precedents and the unwritten law of choosing persons with similar ideological profile to fill the vacancies). However, I think it might be necessary to specify that a voluntary rejection by legislators is only acceptable if the appointed member comes from another party or his/her known stances differ greatly from the replaced legislator. I guess that 3 of the 4 remaining members would be needed to reject a candidate, because 3 is the quorum of the Legislature.

As for the timeframe, perhaps we should reduce it to 48 hours, in the case that Speaker introduces a bill and is away (without leave of absence), to replace him/her automatically with the eldest of legislators in office, temporarily and while the bill is under discussion. In other cases (there are bills in the queue and legislators want to debate them) 72 hours might be enough. What do you think?

[Donerail]

Well, I'm interested in that we reach an agreement on these procedure topics and I would like that we were including the question of the appointments in this bill. Though I'm not sure what do you mean with an overly partisan Legislature, I guess that's enough with giving legislators the chance of rejecting an appointed member, if the appointment is perceived as partisan (i.e. breaking the precedents and the unwritten law of choosing persons with similar ideological profile to fill the vacancies). However, I think it might be necessary to specify that a voluntary rejection by legislators is only acceptable if the appointed member comes from another party or his/her known stances differ greatly from the replaced legislator. I guess that 3 of the 4 remaining members would be needed to reject a candidate, because 3 is the quorum of the Legislature.

Okay, to give an example: let's say the Legislature is made up of three Seatowns and two Dereichs. One of the Dereichs gets a new job or girlfriend or whatever and resigns from the legislature to go do that. I nominate a Jerry to replace the missing Dereich, but one of the Seatowns, true to form, calls for a vote on it, and they, being Seatowns, reject the new Jerry despite his party/ideology being similar, because it's advantageous for them to have that majority.

[Velasco]

I think it might be necessary to specify that a voluntary rejection by legislators is only acceptable if the appointed member comes from another party or his/her known stances differ greatly from the replaced legislator.

You didn't read well this part, SJoyce. In any case, you don't need to mention personal examples when discussing about proposals.

[Donerail]

However, I think it might be necessary to specify that a voluntary rejection by legislators is only acceptable if the appointed member comes from another party or his/her known stances differ greatly from the replaced legislator.

I don't see how you would codify that - people could just switch parties for the appointment and then switch back, and I certainly don't see how you quantify how someone differs greatly on their known stances.

[Velasco]

It's not a bad point, certain people might switch parties just before the appointment. However, a trick like that is easily detectable, especially if you switch the opposite party in the political spectrum. We might include a provision for that, mentioning strategic party switches on near dates. On the other hand, it's unlikely to see someone switching from Labor to Feds or viceversa; have you seen anybody doing that? As for the other question, this is a political forum and everybody knows (more or less) each other. For example, you have switched parties several times, but it's not difficult to guess your stances on issues or your alignments. Also, we can go into the party registration history of a certain citizen. See, my intention is to prevent arbitrary appointments; if you have another idea, expose it.

I guess that 3 of the 4 remaining members would be needed to reject a candidate, because 3 is the quorum of the Legislature.

My apologies, where I said that 3 votes are needed to reject an appointment, change "reject" for "approve" (in the case that the appointment has been challenged, of course).

[Dereich]

I still like the idea of giving the option to the legislature to object instead of requiring it, but I don't think that any more assurances are necessary. We won't get "3 seatowns" in the legislature anytime soon and I'm sure we can always count on one or two to not inject unnecessary partisanship into an appointment like this. So, other then that and an amendment clarifying the length of a speaker's absence do we have anything else we want to amend?

[Velasco]

Not by the moment, I'd like to hear the opinion of other legislators on the bill as it's worded right now.
As for my thoughts about appointments, given that Dereich and I agree on giving the Legislature the option to object an appointment, I'd like to make the proposition formal. I'm not sure which is the best way in terms of procedure to submit it. Should I make an amendment or perhaps what in my country is know as "additional disposition"? I'm not sure, can you tell me something, Mr. Speaker? On the other hand, my apologies for not having been lately too active in the Forum. I'd like to stay in the Legislature until we start to discuss some important issues, but we're going too slow and I'm not going to be legislator forever

[Dereich]

Yes, it has been a bit slow and dull here. Procedure issues don't exactly make for lively debate. Amendments are just as you think, submitted in a quote box like so:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which can either be accepted by Hashemite as friendly or treated as hostile in which case it is voted on by the legislature. I could have a detail or two wrong, I haven't really checked the current procedures, but if you're intent is clear it'll be accepted.

[Dereich]

On another note, looking at Zanas's old docket what seems to be remaining is:

-Consolidated IDS Legislature Rules and Procedures
-Safe and Inclusive Schools Act
-Annexation of the states of Coahuila and Tamaulipas : kept in the back of the queue
(As sponsor of the Creating Job Opportunities Act of 2013 I'm removing it from the docket)


So if you have a new bill to put forward we don't have that much remaining to discuss. Also, Sjoyce has a few proposed amendments that are looking for a sponsor if anyone wants to do it.

[Velasco]

OK, I propose this addition this regarding the Speaker

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...and this one regarding appointments

You must be logged in to read this quote.