Senate resolution: Improve the Senate Rules (Final vote)

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article III, clause 3 and 4 shall be amended to read

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article VI, Clause 1 shall be amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article VII shall be amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article X shall be added to the Senate rules:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor: Windjammer

[windjammer]

I'm going to explain everything tomorrow. If you do have any question, please let me know.

[Cranberry]

I find striking the part allowing only the Speaker to post on the FG board sensible, and since we break this rule very often, it's kind of an adaption to reality, I would say.

Why would you reduce the number of bills possible to be on the floor, though?

[Senator Cris]

I have some doubts about this.
Why reducing the number of bills on the floor?
And also... I have a lot of doubts about Article X. The tiebreaker is the VP and so I think you should explain that "If the VP is absent or the position is vacant...". But the 6 potential tiebreakers are Senators or simple citizens? It's strange that a Senator is the first tiebreaker because he is a "former Senator"...

[Cranberry]

I have some doubts about this.
Why reducing the number of bills on the floor?
And also... I have a lot of doubts about Article X. The tiebreaker is the VP and so I think you should explain that "If the VP is absent or the position is vacant...". But the 6 potential tiebreakers are Senators or simple citizens? It's strange that a Senator is the first tiebreaker because he is a "former Senator"...

Article X deals with seniority, not with breaking the tie at Senate votes. Tiebreaker here means that if two Senators start their term at the same day, these tiebreakers are used in that order to determine which Senator is considered more senior. For example, Windjammer and I both started our current, continuos Senate tenure in November 2014. However, as I had been already been a Senator once prior to that - in August and September 2014 - and this is of higher grade here than any of the offices Windjammer had held, I am considered officially more senior than Windjammer.

[windjammer]

Well my goal was to simplify and to improve the current senate rules.
-The

You must be logged in to read this quote.

part is simply unconstitutional because it would violate the right of the senators to file a lawsuit against anyone.

- The 2 current most senior senators: TNF and Polnut aren't interested by the administration of the senate, and that's their right. That's why they shouldn't be forced to spend their time to administer the senate until the election of a new speaker. With this senate change, they would be able to appoint someone else for these duties.

-I deleted the

You must be logged in to read this quote.

, not a big deal but just to make sure no one believes this is exclusively a VP duty (it can be a Speaker's duty when the VP is absent). Just to clarify.

-Cranberry, I decided to reduce the number of slots by 1 because often during my tenure as Speaker and as VP a long time ago there was a risk that no bills anymore would be debated because all the queue would have disappeared. As speaker, during a time, I was literally forced to slow down the administration of the senate because of this risk. By the way, I would like to remind everyone that the 2 presidential slots have almost been both empty, and 1 of them has always been empty. So if really there is a problem (like me now asking bore to use one of these slots for this reform because I risk to be elected Governor), 2 additional slots can be used.

-Cris, you misunderstand Article X: this is an article about seniority. The senate rules always talk about "the most senior senator". That's fine. But what happens when the 2 longest serving senators have been elected at the same time senator? That is currently the case with me and Cranberry. So this article basically ends this problem. If 2 senators have been elected at the same time, the tie breakers would be:  1) if they have been before a member of the senate (as Senator and then as VP, who is the President of the Senate), 2) if they have been before a legislator in a local assembly 3) if they have executive experience (president and then governor) and finally 4) the username.

For example, I'm behind Cranberry for seniority because he has been a former senator before being elected senator 6 months ago (1st tiebreaker) while I was only VP before (2nd tiebreaker).


-And finally, the regions I believe passed the 21st amendment, so fortunately senators can't be impeached anymore. But the constitution still allows the senate to expulse its members. The article about expulsion of a senator has never been updated. The current senate rules still speak about a "PPT" for example. So basically, I believe it was time to write something new. With this article, the senate would be able to expulse its members:
- if 5 senators sponsor the article of impeachment for any reason. (5 is really a high number in order to make sure it doesn't happen often).
-And like before, if a senator doesn't post anything for a week: possibility of facing expulsion procedures.

The President of the senate would administer that because I don't like the idea of a senator administering that. If there is no VP, it would be the Speaker except if it is against himself. Some things added to that: the presiding officer shall not be able to debate in order to make sure this is the fairest possible. Anf if this a senator who administers that, he would have to vote only if his vote matters and in this case, the last senator to vote.

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I do believe this is important to be spelled out. Indeed, the senate rules allow greater flexibility and I used it as speaker, like when I suspended  a rule, making sure a bill wouldn't be withdrawn. However, I was able to do that because I was the presiding officer. If we don't know exactly who is the presiding officer, the "exceptionnal powers" of the presiding officer couldn't simply be used. For example, if the most senior senator at the beginning of the senate session has a problem with a tornado, he wouldn't be able to start the spearkership election, no one else could with the former rules. Basically blocking the senate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You mean TNF vs Windjammer and Averroes vs TNF?
Well, the problem was the tie breaking vote power. The fact that the VP is the president of the senate and that the PPT is acting as president of the senate during the VP's absence has never been a subject of controversy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here are the current rules on expulsion, obviously needed to be updated:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, Cranberry and myself are 2 pinko two-term senators. So it can happen I guess???

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Total side note, but while we're discussing the rules, I want to bring up the following.

I know this was a sensitive issue with some members not so long ago, but I believe the vice president should have more authority in one important instance: the transition between speakers. We had basically a week where nothing really happened because we were electing a speaker. It is possible my unfamiliarity with the rules is showing here (and that the VP was supposed to do something and didn't ), but I think the vice president should have been keeping things going in the debate threads. That short hiatus has thrown a lot of us off... and it strikes me as an unnecessary occurrence.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

All right. Didn't mean to accuse, but I thought I'd cover my ass.

In that case, I do think it is worth looking into whether the vice president should not have that power during the transition.

[Blair]

I don't support cutting the number of bills that have been debated-I put forward a bill a month ago and I'm still waiting for it to come up

[Talleyrand]

Certainly not a fan of this; most of the changes seem unnecessary besides the provision to remove the ridiculous prohibition on senators other than the speaker being able to post threads here.

[bore]

Two things:

I think the issue Nix is referring to is that seniority is decided by the time stamp on the swearing in thread, and, as that measures to the second, it's very very unlikely that two senators swear in at the same time.

It's a very good idea to change the expulsion section, but I'm not clear either why the president of the senate when they're a senator don't get a vote, and, even if they're not, don't get to participate. I'm also not sure why a senator needs to hire an attorney, or what the attorney would do.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

67th Senate
TNF  July 2013
Polnut Sept 2014
Cranberry  Nov 2014
Windjammer Nov 2014
Cris  Jan 2015
Lief   Jan 2015
Talleyrand Mar 2015
HagridoftheDeep Mar 2015
Blair Mar 2015
NC Yankee May 2015

^ Present Senate by Senority.

[Talleyrand]

Even if two Senators swear in at the exact same time, one's post is going to precede the other's. Not a real issue I think.

[windjammer]

Well,
I didn't know it was that the seniority because it was never mentioned in the senate rules.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It was in the old rules if I recally correctly.

[bore]

Well as Talleyrand says, due to the way the forum works there has to be one post after another even if they were sent at the same time, so we can just put a sentence along the lines of "Seniority shall be determined by the length of continuous service" to the first mention of it, which is in Article II Section II

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Indeed, even if it is not in the old rules, senority was defined in the old rules as being "longest continuously serving Senator" for the purposes of defining who the Dean was (who was not PPT of course). That doctrine was applied to senority overall since the only real purpose behind having it is identify who the dean of the Senate is for whatever power or responsbility he has so it can be completed.

I swore in on July 3rd, 2009 for my first stint. Hashy and MaxQue swore in the same day, but my time stamp was the oldest of the three so I was in office orior to them (Thank Jedi, he explained it to me beforehand).

[Talleyrand]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article X shall be added to the Senate rules:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

My alternative amendment which I am now proposing.

[Senator Cris]

I'm supporting Senator Talleyrand's amendment, because if a Senator can't open a thread in the Fantasy Government board, he can't post a LOA. So I'm supporting it.

[Cranberry]

Amendment supported by me as well, makes the whole thing shorter and easier to work with.

[windjammer]

Just a question,
Does it get rid of the senate rules regarding expulsion?


(oh and senators have 36 hours to object)

[bore]

Windjammer's right here. Whatever else we do here (and I don't want to get too involved, this not really being about me) we need to change the expulsion part, because it refers exclusively to an office that no longer exists.

[Talleyrand]

My apologies about that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article VI, Clause 1 shall be amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article VII shall be amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article X shall be added to the Senate rules:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

I withdraw my first amendment and introduce this one.

[windjammer]

Senators have 36 hours to object, amendment is friendly.