Federal Government Accountability and Oversight Reform Bill (Law'd)

[MasterJedi]

Federal Government Accountability and Oversight Reform Bill

The OSPR is amended as follows

Article 3 Section 2 Clause 2 is amended as follows.

There shall be nine slots available for debating legislation on the Senate floor. Of these slots, three shall be available for any purpose; two shall be available for any purpose except the debating of Amendments to the Constitution; one shall be available only for legislation that the PPT considers to be related to forum affairs or emergency legislation which can be introduced pursuant to Article 7, Section 1 of this resolution; one shall be available for any piece of legislation, regardless of its location in the queue, at the PPT's discretion; one shall be available for debating veto overrides pursuant to Article 5, Section 3; and one shall be available for the conducting of all investigative hearings and the debate and passage of subpoena resolutions. 



Article: 7 Senate Oversight Powers

Sections 1. Hearing Rules

1. The Senate shall have the power to conduct investigative hearings for the purpose of government oversight and accountability.

2. Senators are not to slander the official they are questioning.
 
3. The officials should answer all questions as honestly as they possibly can.

4. Officials can be held in contempt of the Senate if they knowingly lie or refuse to answer a question. The one exception to this would be that if there is a current or potential court case that is related to the subject matter of the hearing and in answering the question, the official may refuse to answer a question asked of them on the grounds that it may incriminate him or herself.

5. If an official cannot take part in the hearing at the present time they should post this in the hearing thread and inform the Senate of the earliest possible time of compliance.

6. If an official refuses to acknowledge the hearing, he or she may be held in contempt of the senate.


Section 2. Process to Convene an Investigative Hearing

1. A resolution that subpoenas an official may be introduced in the Legislation Introduction thread. In order for the Resolution to be taken up for a vote it must be co-sponsored by two Senators.

2. Once introduced in accordance with clause one, the PPT will bring it to the floor as soon as an appropriate slot opens up.

3. The resolution must have at least 48 hours of debate after which, the resolution comes up for a final vote. However if there is a broad consensus that the hearing should occur the PPT shall move it too a final vote within 24 hours.

4. Only a simple majority shall be necessary to subpoena a public official.

5. Once the Senate has passed a subpoena resolution, The PPT shall open up a thread in the Hearings slot for the hearing to take place. The PPT is also charged with informing the official that he/she has been subpoenaed, how long they have to respond, and that they may be held in contempt for not complying with the subpoena.


Section 3. Closing an Investigative hearing

1. If either the Senators are satisfied with the officials answers or the PPT feels the Hearing has gotten off task, the PPT may call for a vote to adjourn which shall need only a simple majority to pass.


Section 4. Contempt of the Senate
1. If a senator feels that an official shall be held in contempt, he may introduce a contempt of the Senate resolution. The Resolution must have two co-sponsors in order for the PPT to bring it up for a vote.

2. Once the PPT brings it to the floor for a vote the Senate must debate it for no less the 72 hours. A vote will be open if no debate has occurred within 24 hours and it must pass by a three-fourths majority.

     
All subsequent Articles are renumbered accordingly
Spon: Sen. NC Yankee

[Marokai Backbeat]

As someone who hasn't memorized the OSPR word for word, what are the major changes here?

[Associate Justice PiT]

As someone who hasn't memorized the OSPR word for word, what are the major changes here?

     It adds a whole new article, granting the Senate oversight powers over other federal officials.

[Purple State]

Okay, now that this is on the floor I have a few questions. First, what exactly do you envision the uses of such investigations being? Also, what would "contempt of the Senate" entail? That's a start.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I envision two uses for this.

1. Questioning an official as to why they have not or will not do something.


2. Give officials an opportunity with which to put forth ways in which the Senate can improve the way there position operates or like lets say the SoFA finds a poorly crafted section in an electoral law, that could be improved. I would prefer however that small things be done outside this process, but use this proces for large overhauls of positions or changes that are very essential to them being able to perform there duties.

As for Contempt of the Senate, that would basically be intentionally lying or providing false information to the Senate via one of these hearings, or refusing to answer any questions at all(do note there are exceptions in the case of self incrimination), this is defined in Section 1 clause 4. I did not define punishments for Contempt as I would prefer to leave such a thing up to more experienced Senators and if someone offers an amendment defining this I will glady except it as friendly.

Also if there are any other simple non controversial changes that any Senator wants to make to the OSPR that is not included, such as shortening debate before PPT elections, I will except that as friendly as well.

[Purple State]

Amendment offered as friendly:

Federal Government Accountability and Oversight Reform Bill

The OSPR is amended as follows

Article 3 Section 2 Clause 2 is amended as follows.

There shall be nine slots available for debating legislation on the Senate floor. Of these slots, three shall be available for any purpose; two shall be available for any purpose except the debating of Amendments to the Constitution; one shall be available only for legislation that the PPT considers to be related to forum affairs or emergency legislation which can be introduced pursuant to Article 7, Section 1 of this resolution; one shall be available for any piece of legislation, regardless of its location in the queue, at the PPT's discretion; one shall be available for debating veto overrides pursuant to Article 5, Section 3; and one shall be available for the conducting of all investigative hearings, including the debate and passage of subpoena resolutions. 



Article: 7 Senate Oversight Powers

Sections 1. Hearing Rules

1. The Senate shall have the power to conduct investigative hearings for the purpose of government oversight and accountability.

2. The PPT or designated chair of any investigative hearing shall have the necessary power to ensure that Senators do not slander officials or citizens questioned before the Senate. Said power may include dismissing the Senator from the remainder of the hearing procedure.

3. Officials shall, by a majority vote of the Senate, be held in contempt of the Senate for willfully lying or refusing to answer a question or attend a hearing in a timely fashion. Those being questioned may refuse to answer a question asked of them on the grounds of self-incrimination.


Section 2. Process to Convene and Conduct an Investigative Hearing

1. A resolution establishing a temporary investigatory hearing may be introduced in the Legislation Introduction thread. Such a resolution may only be considered on the Senate floor when it has been co-sponsored by at least two Senators.

2. Once introduced in accordance with clause one, the PPT shall bring it to the floor as soon as an appropriate slot opens on the Senate floor. The resolution must have at least 48 hours of debate after which the resolution may be brought to a final vote. Upon passage of the resolution, a hearing thread shall be opened and all proceedings shall be conducted by the PPT unless he shall designate a presiding official in his stead.

4. Additional resolutions and subpoena motions may be filed within the hearing. Said resolutions and motions shall have at least 24 hours of debate before they may be brought to a final vote and they shall require a simple majority of votes to pass. Discretion in hearings shall be given to the PPT or a Senator so appointed by the PPT for the duration of the hearing.

5. The presiding official of the hearing shall be charged with informing all relevant participants that he or she has been subpoenaed, how long they have to respond, and that they may be held in contempt for not complying with the subpoena.

6. At any time during a hearing, upon request by two Senators and at the discretion of the presiding official, a vote may be brought to conclude the investigation. This shall require a simple majority of the Senators to pass.

7. The President of Atlasia shall be exempt from all subpoena, contempt and investigatory resolutions.

Section 4. Contempt of the Senate
1. At any time during a hearing, upon request by two Senators and at the discretion of the presiding official, a resolution may be brought to hold a subpoenaed official or member in contempt of the Senate. Debate on said resolution shall last for no less than 48 hours, after which the presiding official shall bring the resolution to a vote.

2.Upon passage of a contempt of Senate resolution, the individual held in contempt shall be suspended from all official positions, whether appointed or elected, until such a time as the presiding official deems their response adequate.
     
All subsequent Articles are renumbered accordingly

[MasterJedi]

^^ Might you please tell us what you changed?

[Purple State]

^^ Might you please tell us what you changed?

I fixed the wording to make it sound better, defined contempt, exempted the President, and better outlined how hearings should be conducted.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I suppose I see no reason to oppose this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I guess I will accept the amendment as friendly. However since Article 7 Sections 2 and 3 have been combined, wouldn't Section 4 be renamed Section 3?

[Purple State]

I guess I will accept the amendment as friendly. However since Article 7 Sections 2 and 3 have been combined, wouldn't Section 4 be renamed Section 3?

Yes my mistake.

[Franzl]

sounds alright.

[MasterJedi]

I hereby open up a final vote on the bill below. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Aye

[Franzl]

Aye

[Hash]

aye

[Marokai Backbeat]

No reason not to, Aye.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

[MasterJedi]

With 5 Ayes, 0 Nays and 0 Abstentions this Resolution has passed and becomes law.

[MaxQue]

Aye, for the record.

[Purple State]

Aye ftr

[tmthforu94]

Crap, I missed a lot of votes, since i was at Drivers Ed...

Aye, ftr