Northeast Assembly Thread II

[Goldwater]

So does this mean I have to take over Alfred's duties while he's gone?

[Poirot]

I don't know if there is a written rule on who takes over Speaker duties when he is on leave but I am fine with the Lt. Governor taking the role of Speaker.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I might be wrong, but I don't think that's lawful...

[Goldwater]

I might be wrong, but I don't think that's lawful...

Yeah, I wasn't sure if it was, that's why I asked...

[Poirot]

There is a rule against Lt. Governor being Speaker? I didn't know that. Our Lt. Governor is a representative who got the most first preference votes, he is not elected to that specific office and not a representative.

Do we take a break, or do we proceed to name another speaker if there is no line of succession for this. If we have to take a formal vote of 24 hours, it will take some time.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

The Constitution says that the Lieutenant Governor takes over the Governor, but not the Speaker.  Yes, he opens the session, but that's all, unfortunately.  I think we might have to take a break, but I wish Alfred had put the farm bill to a vote before he left.

Now might be a good time to consider new legislation to propose.  Maybe we can review the SOAP like bore suggested.

[Goldwater]

So the Speaker leaving puts the whole assembly on hiatus? That seems like an inefficient system. What are everybody's thoughts on amending the Constitution so that the Lt. Governor takes over for the Speaker if he has to leave temporarily?

[Poirot]

I don't care who replaces the speaker in case of short absence. It could be Lt. Governor or have a line of succession on seniority, but with seniority we would need to keep track of it.

If we did a quick vote for interim speaker, with 4 representatives left we need three votes for majority.

It is strange that the assembly is paralyzed and someone just can't step in, even just informally to keep things going like put a bill to a vote.

To clarify who takes over Speaker role, do we need to amend the constitution or we can put it in the SOAP. As it happens bore wants to discuss SOAP.

[Napoleon]

That can just be amended into the SOAP.

[Goldwater]

Wait, we can't have the Lt. Governor replace the Speaker because they're sometimes the same person... Yeah, we need to have a line of succession based on seniority or something similar.

[bore]

Where would the amendments about an acting speaker go in the SOAP?

Anyway, here are my proposed changes to the SOAP

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Poirot]

I had noticed two things that we didn't do so I agree with the proposed changes. In number 1 about opening a new legislation thread each session. At the end of the soap, the protest and analysis thread. I don't think it was ever used. We either creat that thread or remove this from soap. I don't know if there was such a thread if there would be more citizen participation and comments. Maybe we should invite citizens to come in the Assembly thread.

I still have to read changes to point 2 and 3 more carefully.

 
 

[Napoleon]

It's rather insulting to remove the People's priority.

The Protest and Analysis thread has been created, it probably just hasn't been used in quite a while.

[bore]

It's rather insulting to remove the People's priority.

The Protest and Analysis thread has been created, it probably just hasn't been used in quite a while.

I'm not wedded to that edit, but, especially as we very rarely get citizen's legislation and
we don't have month long waits anyway, it makes life somewhat easier and simple.

I'm not opposed to the Protest and Analysis thread either, but I'm not sure it's necessary to have it in the SOAP. If you ask me we should be having the simplest SOAP possible. As well I kind of like the simplicity of having all assembly discussion in the one thread.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I feel like there should be a way for the citizens to make their voices heard, but I suppose they can already do that with the Assembly thread (as I don't believe it excludes non-Representatives) and by contacting members of their government, so I don't think it matters a whole lot whether we keep it in there, especially since I'm sure no one would be interested in digging it back up.

[Poirot]

Wheter we keep the protest and analysis thread in the soap or not, we could make it a friendlier place by changing its name to NE coffee shop or corner store, to represent where citizens meet and discuss current events.

[bore]

I'm certainly not opposed to a thread, but I don't think its necessary to have it in the SOAP.

[Poirot]

The protest thread is not directly how the assembly works, it is accessory like the Miscellaneous category seems to indicate.

The crossing of the word nay in 2 c) and 3 k), is it only stylistic but doesn't change the vote requirement, that is what it seems to me.

The 168 hours in 3 g), I imagine that is what we voted on a couple months ago.

[bore]

The protest thread is not directly how the assembly works, it is accessory like the Miscellaneous category seems to indicate.

Which is why I want it out of the SOAP, as it does not have any relevence to the rest of it, and takes up unnecessary space

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That basically means abstentions don't count as anything at all, so it's a substantive change.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm proposing extending the time limit to 168 hours, and I can't remember any change recently (although I might be mistaken). Perhaps you were thinking of the budget extension?

[Poirot]

Ah yes, it must have been memories from budget extension hours.

Increasing debate time to 168 hours brings flexibility. I can support that. It happens rarely but if there was a bill with many proposed amendments and debates and votes that come with them, we could need time.

About the vote requirement change in 2c) and 3k), I think I get it now. It was a majority of the number of representatives and the change would make it become the majority of those voting.

The positive I see is in case of absences it's easier to move along, it doesn't create an obstacle in those votes. The negative is it's easier for a small number to do as they wish, for example the vote could pass with a count of 2-0. I have to think of the context. A motion to move legislation to top of queue doesn't seem that hurtful. Someone not looking within the 24 hours might miss it since we can't know in advance there will be a motion like this proposed.           

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

What do you guys think of abolishing the Budget Committee and reserving unlimited debate time for the tri-annual budget, instead?  Then the Assembly could vote to invoke cloture by a simple majority after discussion ceases.  I think that's a better idea than creating a four-person committee to handle these matters, anyway.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I'm back!

[bore]

Maybe I'm reading this wrongly, but surely the capital amendment has passed, as it got three quarters of the voting members of the assembly (as hockeydudes vote was out of time).

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Maybe I'm reading this wrongly, but surely the capital amendment has passed, as it got three quarters of the voting members of the assembly (as hockeydudes vote was out of time).

I checked the Constitution on this last night and interpreted it differently, but as I look at it now, it looks like you could be right.  It passed with 2/3 of voting members supporting it and a majority of the body as a whole, so unless there's a problem with how we're reading it, I think I'll be able to put it on the ballot next month...

[Simfan34]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, do remember while the first to propose moving the capital, I favoured a greenfield site, one near Walden, NY if I recall correctly. I have always been hesitant about using the capital for purposes of economic revitalisation; such a move would likely displace, not empower, the local people. In an extreme case like Camden, we'd see mass displacement, the intensification of local tensions, and several areas of uneven development. For a city like Buffalo, which is healthier economically, it would supplement and stimulate local businesses, because they're mature and complex enough to interact with the sort of climate an administrative center.

Also remember we've already begun to relocate several government institutions to Buffalo, such as the regional university and the Governor's School. New York is far too expensive a city to maintain our government in-we're best off selling our properties for the inevitable windfall.