Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Mar 6, 2016 10:57:48 GMT -6
I actually think it does not matter generally, and that we should remain flexible in the Assembly, since our Assembly is quite small at the moment. If we see a steady rise in provincial and provinciopolitical activity, we may think about codifying and determining an exact procedure by which laws are passed. But right now, it would just be too much fuss about... well, nothing. My concern is that someone (not anyone currently in the assembly) may put a bill up for a vote, and declare that voting ends one minute afterwards. That shouldn't even be possible, but there is no law currently preventing it!
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 7, 2016 19:08:59 GMT -6
I have no objection to passing some basic rules. I know that this term I won't have time to advance my online rules of order project I began in the tenth assembly, so no harm done there.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Mar 7, 2016 20:21:18 GMT -6
Here's something I whipped up as a rough draft;
VOTING PROCEDURE ACT
WHEREAS there is currently no official procedure for passing bills, and
WHEREAS this situation could be easily exploited if we are not careful, and
WHEREAS to demonstrate my point, I could propose this bill to the Assembly and then close the voting one minute afterwards, and I would not have broken any laws
THEREFORE the following procedure shall be used by this assembly to pass bills;
Any member of the Assembly of Maritiimi-Maxhestic may put a bill up to a vote of the Assembly by publicly providing the text of the bill accompanied by a notice that voting on the bill has begun. Voting on a bill will last for two weeks after the notice is given, and only those votes which have been cast during that period will be counted.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Mar 13, 2016 14:29:30 GMT -6
Comments? I might have to put it up to a one-minute vote
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 13, 2016 16:06:17 GMT -6
It's fine.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Mar 15, 2016 16:36:27 GMT -6
Ok, I put it up to a vote
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Mar 17, 2016 16:01:23 GMT -6
Here is a proposal to clarify vote closings and being able to change a vote
THE VOTING PROCEDURE ACT II
WHEREAS It is a little unclear as to whether or not vote changes are allowed, and
WHEREAS If everyone votes in a couple days, it is pointless to keep the voting open for two weeks
THEREFORE the following text is added to the Voting Procedure Act;
Assemblypersons may change their vote on a bill before the voting period expires. If, before the allotted two weeks for a vote has elapsed, all assemblypersons have voted, the voting period shall expire at that time.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Mar 24, 2016 19:16:29 GMT -6
Feedback?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 24, 2016 19:45:04 GMT -6
Looks good.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Mar 25, 2016 7:19:04 GMT -6
Agreed.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Mar 25, 2016 17:46:26 GMT -6
So, I've been thinking about current efforts to trim down the OrgLaw, and was thinking that the MM constitution has some fluff in it that doesn't really need to be there. Changes I have in mind;
A good suggestion, but better suited for a statute rather than the Constitution
What does this mean?
I don't think the second sentence is necessary, as it is not really enforceable
First, the language of this section makes it sound like referendums could include bills other than changes to the constitution. Is this how it is supposed to read? I think we should make a new section titled "Changes to the constitution" with a clearer version of this text.
|
|
Brad Holmes
Cunstaval to Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Atatürkey, and flying by the seat of my RUMP
Posts: 1,014
Talossan Since: 3-16-2006
|
Post by Brad Holmes on Mar 30, 2016 5:50:18 GMT -6
Greetings to M-M's 12th General Assembly from your friendly sort-of-neighborhood Cunstaval!
Just stopping by to say howdy! Let me know if you need anything!
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Apr 7, 2016 13:30:27 GMT -6
Any input on my suggestions?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 8, 2016 4:58:09 GMT -6
I'm biased, because I wrote the thing. We have a sort of de-facto legal code in the body of law act, though -- maybe we should move some of these things to that law and consolidate everything there? So, I've been thinking about current efforts to trim down the OrgLaw, and was thinking that the MM constitution has some fluff in it that doesn't really need to be there. Changes I have in mind;
A good suggestion, but better suited for a statute rather than the Constitution
What does this mean?
I don't think the second sentence is necessary, as it is not really enforceable
First, the language of this section makes it sound like referendums could include bills other than changes to the constitution. Is this how it is supposed to read? I think we should make a new section titled "Changes to the constitution" with a clearer version of this text.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Apr 8, 2016 8:22:46 GMT -6
I'm not for trying to cram new provisions into an old law, unless you are proposing we combine all current laws into a legal code similar to el Lexhatx.
|
|