NE1: Amendment to the Constitution

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Cincinnatus

Cincy, you have 24 hours to speak on this. Debate time will last 72 hours total.

[Goldwater]

Cincinnatus, is this your way of trying to kick me out of the assembly?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I want to know what Cincinnatus would have in mind to substitute "simple expressions of agreement or disagreement."  What if a Representative doesn't have any objections or questions related to a bill and plans to support it, or if there's a bill on the floor (maybe relating to, say, abortion) that violates his principles and he plans to oppose it without compromise?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I strongly support this amendment. The Assembly is awfully boring and unproductive when expressions of agreement or disagreement dominate the discussion.

Maybe we could clarify the language in Section 9 to address Governor Scott's concern, but by my understanding of the section the situation that he describes would constitute more than a "simple expression of disagreement." In that case, the Representative would have expressed 1) his disagreement with the proposal, 2) his level of disagreement, 3) why he disagrees, 4) his willingness to compromise, and 5) what he intends to do about it. Thoughts?

I certainly think incorporating that criteria into the bill ought to be considered.  First, however, I think Cincinnatus should advocate for his proposal and give his input on that idea.

[Poirot]

I am against putting this amendment in the constitution. I don't know what the final proposal on the definition of simple agreement or disagreement will be, but the application of it will be difficult unless a representative only votes and writes nothing at all during debate time.

Some legislation topics favor debates but some others less so (like anti human trafficking legislation). You could arrive in debate and already two or three representatives have explained why they agree with the proposal and there is nothing to add.

I think it is more the responsibility and duty of representatives to contribute to debate. I don't mind friendly reminders if debate becomes too thin. Representatives have to run in elections in short cycles so if citizens are not satisfied by someone's work they can signal it in their voting and we also have recall petition if a representative is doing an awful job. 

[Cincinnatus]

I strongly support this amendment. The Assembly is awfully boring and unproductive when expressions of agreement or disagreement dominate the discussion.

Maybe we could clarify the language in Section 9 to address Governor Scott's concern, but by my understanding of the section the situation that he describes would constitute more than a "simple expression of disagreement." In that case, the Representative would have expressed 1) his disagreement with the proposal, 2) his level of disagreement, 3) why he disagrees, 4) his willingness to compromise, and 5) what he intends to do about it. Thoughts?

This is exactly why this bill was proposed.  No Goldwater, I'm not trying to directly kick anyone out.  However, agree or disagree, simply saying "I agree with this"..the end, or "I'll be voting Nay".. blah blah, is ridiculous.  I understand that people can completely agree with a bill, and that's fine.  However, there was WAY to much of this last session. 

It's been my experience that Representatives know not to miss 3 consecutive votes, and often vote at the very last minute, on the third bill to save their ass.  This happened often when I first joined, and luckily, has improved, if only slightly.  The MOST annoying occurrence here though, is those of us who run for election after election, and rarely contribute to debate.  The only reason they remain is because they chose to write three word posts in support, or disagreement.

And to Poirots point, sometimes there isn't something to add.  But Dear God, an entire month with nothing to add?  Shouldn't we hold our Representatives to a higher standard?

[bore]

First things first, I'm proposing this amendment to avoid someone who declared a leave of absence being expellled:

8a. Vacancies in the Legislative Assembly shall be filled in a manner specified by Law, and until such determination is made, by Gubernatorial appointment. Vacancies occur upon resignation, recall, impeachment, failure to swear in within one week of the legislative session’s opening, failure to vote on three consecutive pieces of legislation without publicly declaring absence, or failure to participate in the debate of three consecutive pieces of legislation without publicly declaring absence

8b. For the purposes of Article II, subsection 8a, debate excludes one word posts, and simple expressions of agreement or disagreement
[/quote]

As well 9 should probably read 8b or something, otherwise we'll have two nines.

On the actual substance of the bill, I support the intent, but I think three sessions is a little harsh, because often there will be three noncontroversial bills in a row. I'd support this bill were it extended to 5. Finally do tabled bills count fo the purposes of this amendment?

[Cincinnatus]

I will accept the amendment if it reads "without publicly declaring absence for said consecutive pieces of legislation", or something to prevent someone from saying I declared an absence last year!

As to your suggestion of 5, I'd be willing to compromise on 4 consecutive.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I don't think it should be hard to write down a coherent, logical post (though I may have trouble when I'm on one of my LSD-fueled rants). I just did it right there.

[bore]

I'm proposing a new amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Cincinnatus]

Friendly

[Poirot]

I still have reservation in amending the constitution for this. This could be a guideline for representatives and have a warning if there is always no more contribution than I agree/disagree.

If someone would really only want to do the minimum he would have to write one sentence every 3 or 4 bills. It wouldn't change the situation much.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I still have reservation in amending the constitution for this. This could be a guideline for representatives and have a warning if there is always no more contribution than I agree/disagree.

If someone would really only want to do the minimum he would have to write one sentence every 3 or 4 bills. It wouldn't change the situation much.

Maybe we should add it to the SOAP?

[Cincinnatus]

I still have reservation in amending the constitution for this. This could be a guideline for representatives and have a warning if there is always no more contribution than I agree/disagree.

If someone would really only want to do the minimum he would have to write one sentence every 3 or 4 bills. It wouldn't change the situation much.

Maybe we should add it to the SOAP?

The requirements already exist in the amendment.  This is just a stricter amendment to that Section of the constitution.  So no, we shouldn't add it to the SOAP.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Extending debate time for 24 hours so we can continue to deal with this pressing matter.

[Cincinnatus]

Funny how the most debate this Assembly has seen in some time is on a bill regarding the lack thereof.

I'm tabling this.  I'll save my opinions on activity levels for next election.  Be warned!   

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Tabled.