NE2: Maximum Legislative Efficiency Act (Law)

[cinyc]

Maximum Legislative Efficiency Act

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Representative Deus naturae

Debate on this bill will be open for 72 hours, or until around 9:45PM on Saturday, February 8, unless modified or extended.  The sponsor, Rep. Deus, is encouraged to speak on behalf of the bill within the next 36 hours.  If he does not, the bill will be tabled, as there is other pending legislation in the queue.

The floor is open for debate.

[Deus Naturae]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This bill will vastly improve the speed at which things get done by allowing us to debate four, rather than two, pieces of legislation at one time. There is little else to say about it.

[Cincinnatus]

As a Representative who has spent countless times amending, reconfiguring, and collaborating on new ways to increase efficiency within our SOAP, I completely oppose this legislation.  Five bills significantly reduces the priority placed on each legislation, and creates a significant proposition.  How do we handle activity requirements moving forward?

Also, we almost never have an assembly this good, and most people don't introduce a plethora of bills that would make Marokai blush.  I'm completely comfortable with the current text, and fear that five concurrent bills on the floor is more than necessary.   

[cinyc]

Well, as Speaker, I have a little bit to say about it.

It's hard enough trying to be around to efficiently move 2 bills at the same time.  I can't imagine trying to move 4 at the same time (other than the budget) without having more freedom in scheduling so every bill starts and ends around the same time.

I could possibly agree to debating a total of 3 non-budget bills simultaneously, but 4 is simply too much to handle logisitically.

[Deus Naturae]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Cincinnatus]

Well, as Speaker, I have a little bit to say about it.

It's hard enough trying to be around to efficiently move 2 bills at the same time.  I can't imagine trying to move 4 at the same time (other than the budget) without having more freedom in scheduling so every bill starts and ends around the same time.

I could possibly agree to debating a total of 3 non-budget bills simultaneously, but 4 is simply too much to handle logisitically.

I think any Speaker who has worked under this new SOAP would agree with that assessment, myself included.  Honestly, we don't need more than two bills at a time.  One slot is left at the Speakers discretion, and there are procedures for ensuring important bills get placed ahead in the queue.  I understand where the sponsor's motivations lie, however, I feel those of us who have experience here would agree, though I don't speak for anyone except myself.

 

[Napoleon]

I wouldn't mind being able to move stuff faster, especially since I might not be here long enough to do anything with knlytwo slots but as Cinci said the Assemblies have historically been much slower and the legislative cupboards more bare. Were pprobably running out of laws to repeal as it is.

[Lincoln Republican]

As a former Speaker myself, and as a Representative, I will not support this bill.

I agree with the general consensus that five bills on the floor at the same time is simply too many.

I am perfectly happy with the current policy.

Concentrating on two bills at the same time is much more practical than trying to juggle five bills all at once.

I believe business in the Assembly would suffer under this proposal, rather than becoming more efficient.  I do not believe there will be many Representatives who will be concentrating on five bills at once.  The quality of debate and discussion will go downhill as Representatives would be spread pretty thin.

   

[bore]

As another former speaker, I'd just like to chime in to agree with cinci winfield and cinyc. I've been involved in the region since august 2012 and barring maybe two sessions (this one and the one from I think october to november 2012) it has always been a struggle to keep two bills on the floor simultaneously- if the northeast had 3 or 4 slots on the go at once the session would be over by the first 2 weeks. Having said that, it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a third slot which could be opened if there was a massive backlog in the queue.

[Deus Naturae]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How about this? With this amendment, we can debate three bills at a time if there are a bunch in the queue, but we can also leave the slot empty if we don't have that many bills in the queue.

[Napoleon]

I'm supportive of that, it helps deal with backlog without creating too much work.

[Cincinnatus]

I can vote in favor of this, though I would hope moving forward this slot isn't used excessively. 

[cinyc]

I can vote in favor of this, though I would hope moving forward this slot isn't used excessively. 

It would be useful for time-sensitive things like constitutional amendments.  Regardless of whether this passes, breaking from my tradition of placing bills in order, I will be putting my proposed constitutional amendment in the NE2 or NE3 slots next because it needs to pass by next Friday to get on the ballot this month.

[sentinel]

I am in favor of this bill. I was actually thinking about it today, and I thought that giving the Speaker discretion on an additional slot was a great idea.

[Napoleon]

4/5 representatives have been Speaker...kind of cool.

[Lincoln Republican]

4/5 representatives have been Speaker...kind of cool.

Not only that, but 4/5 Representatives, plus the Governor, are from New York.

[cinyc]

The debate period is over.  It is now time to vote on final passage of the bill, as amended:

Maximum Legislative Efficiency Act
Section 2(a) of the SOAP is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This vote will remain open for the earlier of 48 hours or when all representatives have voted.

[cinyc]

Aye

[Deus Naturae]

Aye

[Cincinnatus]

Aye

[Napoleon]

Aye

[Lincoln Republican]

Aye

[cinyc]

By a vote of 5-0, the bill passes and goes to the governor's desk for his signature or veto.

[Napoleon]

By a vote of 5-0, the bill passes and goes to the governor's desk for his signature or veto.

Governor doesn't need to approve SoAP amendments.

[cinyc]

By a vote of 5-0, the bill passes and goes to the governor's desk for his signature or veto.

Governor doesn't need to approve SoAP amendments.

According to Cinicnnatus, under recent practice, he does.  The next proposed amendment to the SOAP in the queue changes that.