SENATE BILL: Committee and Oversight OSPR Amendment (Passed)

[ilikeverin]

I don't have any problem with the sponsor-originated amendment, but I wonder whether the original bill is strictly necessary.  Is there enough activity to justify it?  And what, exactly, is an "Investigative Hearing of the Whole Senate"?

[ilikeverin]

It is what I put into the OSPR back in 2009, renamed. Basically the entire senate sets up a hearing to grill an official.


The modifications to the section from the underlying bill create the ability to establish standing committees. The amendment I offered establishes procedures with which to do that. I am still looking to simplify this, but I wanted to make sure all the procedural gaps were filled first.

Ah, I think I misread it as somehow being an investigation of the entire Senate rather than an investigation by the entire Senate.  All good now

[ilikeverin]

With no objections, the amendment passes.

I don't think that's your job.

[ilikeverin]

As Yankee explained

At most there would be two, perhaps three. With three members on each. And they would be purpose driven.

This bill would be a great way of creating a more active Senate and reforming part of the game without doing anything drastic or unnecessary.

Except, you know, they're unnecessary, because we're a group of 10 and don't have all that much business to take care of in the first place...

[ilikeverin]

As Yankee explained

At most there would be two, perhaps three. With three members on each. And they would be purpose driven.

This bill would be a great way of creating a more active Senate and reforming part of the game without doing anything drastic or unnecessary.

Except, you know, they're unnecessary, because we're a group of 10 and don't have all that much business to take care of in the first place...

Committees would create business to take care of.

Ah, yes, that argument.  And how?  Why would they create anything that hasn't already been created?

[ilikeverin]

As Yankee explained

At most there would be two, perhaps three. With three members on each. And they would be purpose driven.

This bill would be a great way of creating a more active Senate and reforming part of the game without doing anything drastic or unnecessary.

Except, you know, they're unnecessary, because we're a group of 10 and don't have all that much business to take care of in the first place...

Committees would create business to take care of.

Ah, yes, that argument.  And how?  Why would they create anything that hasn't already been created?

Ah, yes, this argument. Wait. What argument? Exactly.

"By mindlessly creating this new level of bureaucracy, the new level of bureaucracy will create activity.  As such, activity levels will go through the roof!"

Rather than, you know, the new level of bureaucracy simply distributing the activity we have across more channels of government (and, in this case, making it so less individuals can influence policy discussions).

[ilikeverin]

ILV, these committees won't be passing any laws. That is and will remain the whole Senate's job. They will explore issues and create the impetus for the creation of laws.

On top of that no committees will be created by this OSPR amendment. It merely gives the Senate the ability to do so if it chooses, and lays out a process to do that.

Well then what's the point at all?  These will be optional committees without any power... so they'll just bicker endlessly without any result?  (Sounds like the Senate in general )

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Has this section ever been used?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That proposal has very little to do with activity, except indirectly, and I'm not sure I ever said it did have something to do with that.  In fact, I'm not sure I have ever really articulated my reasons for supporting a switch from regional to district seats at all.  Instead, it has to do with fairness: Northeasterners are systematically underrepresented, and the rest of us are hindered by having a smaller pool of potential candidates for half of our seats.

As Yankee explained

At most there would be two, perhaps three. With three members on each. And they would be purpose driven.

This bill would be a great way of creating a more active Senate and reforming part of the game without doing anything drastic or unnecessary.

Except, you know, they're unnecessary, because we're a group of 10 and don't have all that much business to take care of in the first place...

Committees would create business to take care of.

Ah, yes, that argument.  And how?  Why would they create anything that hasn't already been created?

Ah, yes, this argument. Wait. What argument? Exactly.

"By mindlessly creating this new level of bureaucracy, the new level of bureaucracy will create activity.  As such, activity levels will go through the roof!"

Rather than, you know, the new level of bureaucracy simply distributing the activity we have across more channels of government (and, in this case, making it so less individuals can influence policy discussions).

It's not bureaucracy, it merely gives the Senate another task so that it actually does more than just debate bills.  You are making a very weak case against this bill and I would like to know how you think this would harm the game instead of helping it and promote activity, which this game severely lacks.

I just don't see how this bill will help anything.  The problem with Atlasia isn't that it isn't complex enough, nor is it that the Senate doesn't have enough to do.  We have plenty to do if we get around to it.  Just look at all the bills we're debating now.  But how will this make the affiars of the Senate more salient for the average Atlasian?  How will this get more people running for office?

[ilikeverin]

Nope