Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on May 21, 2016 16:37:48 GMT -6
Whereas I don't know whether I will clark this yet, but if I do, the deadline for hoppering is today, and
Wherease the deadline for the RCOR to submit its final report has been extended two times already, and
Whereas the continuation of the RCOR puts the Ziu in a an awkward position where newly elected MC's have to wait for a commission set up by a previous Ziu, and
Whereas the purpose of the RCOR was to create consensus of OrgLaw reform, and
Whereas paradoxically the RCOR might get in the way of passing actual reforms, and
Whereas deadlines become very soft if extended all the time and hopefully a hard deadline might motivate the Commission to release its report soon, and
Whereas PMs should be used for uncontroversial issues, not to circumvent the Ziu, now
Therefore the Ziu urges the government to issue no further extensions of the RCOR deadline past July 1st, unless approved by the Ziu.
Uréu q'estadra så: Glüc da Dhi (MC, MRPT)
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on May 25, 2016 7:22:53 GMT -6
Any thoughts on this?
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on May 25, 2016 7:48:31 GMT -6
I don't know when the deadline should be, but I agree we need a hard deadline now.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on May 25, 2016 10:31:45 GMT -6
No need to soft-pedal. I would suggest that you revise this proposal to prohibit further extensions and provide that the RCOR is dissolved if it fails to produce a report by 1 July.
The RCOR was a good idea, the problem is that several of the members are simply not participating. This is very unfortunate, but I don't know how to change that fact, and your point that OrgLaw reform initiatives of the current Ziu should not be blocked indefinitely by an initiative of a previous Ziu is well-taken.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on May 25, 2016 16:33:55 GMT -6
The RCOR is a great idea, if members that were selected and appointed were more active in participating.
Another reason we have so many extensions is because the extensions, and the time period written into law itself, wasn't really long enough to go through and completely rewrite large sections of OrgLaw. Have we had several extensions? Yes. But let's remember that the RCOR has only been meeting less than a year, and it is given a huge task.
I am very much opposed to this resolution (or bill, should it be changed to one in order to amend the bill which creates the RCOR), but I recognize that whether we pass this or not, it is the purview of the Seneschal to issue, or not issue, another extension.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on May 26, 2016 16:08:38 GMT -6
So do you agree with your party's policy of not supporting amendments before the RCOR finishes?
You may be right about a completely rewritten orglaw needing more than a year, but that is the mandate given by the Ziu. We don't know if the Ziu had even approved of the commission in the first place if MZs knew it would take so much longer than that, (or that future Zius would be expected to not pass any amendments).
The RCOR chair thought it would be possible before July first. That would leave the Ziu just enough time to do something with the results. A further extension would probably mean we'd have to wait untill next Cosa term, and even then there's no guarantee the commission will be finished, or that the proposed legislation will be adopted by the Ziu. The difference between the composition of the Ziu that formed the commission and the composition of the actual Ziu will only get larger. Already we have one major party (the TNC) not being represented in the RCOR at all.
PD's should not be meant for controversial issues. A new Ziu has been elected, which has not gotten any say in whether the Commission should be allowed to continue.
I think the best way to go would be for the PM to rule out a further extension by PD now, but allow a bypass for an extension bill to be clarked next month if anyone believes that to be neccesary.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on May 26, 2016 19:36:10 GMT -6
I do agree with the policy of not supporting amendments before the RCOR finishes, because of what would happen should both an amendment and a RCOR report with a conflicting amendment pass in the same Cosa. It would just unnecessarily complicate matters, so while we have the RCOR, let's wait for its reports before we start firing in all these competing amendments. That being said, I'll continue to offer my thoughts on proposals in the Hopper, such as AD's proposed immigration amendment, which I would otherwise completely support if not for the RCOR.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on May 27, 2016 17:40:48 GMT -6
The RCOR was a good idea, the problem is that several of the members are simply not participating. Let's rephrase that: several of the RUMP and Royal appointees are simply not participating. This is shiftiness from the Seneschál trying to hide the fact that it is the right-wing forces who are sabotaging the RCOR. The RCOR would have no problem if the Seneschál and his cronies did their jobs. The FreeDem and ModRad members have done their jobs. For the right-wing, anti-change forces to not do their job and then say "the RCOR should be disbanded because SOME PEOPLE won't do their job" is the height of dishonesty and bad faith. If the RCOR fails it's because it was sabotaged by the conservative-monarchist forces. We will pin the blame precisely where it belongs.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 27, 2016 23:06:49 GMT -6
I saw that both Dama Litz and Sir Cresti have responded, and Cresti submitted nine articles' worth of stuff for commentary. It's sat there without notice, as far as I can see, unless there's a private email discussion also doing on? Plus, I think if Sir Cresti were trying to sabotage the RCOR, he wouldn't have issued a PD to extend it. Honestly, this is just getting silly. This is what I see as the last post in the thread: Okay, we've got the PD, until July. Now, guys, we need a timetable to FINISH THIS GARÇA once and for all. Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă, draw one up. There's one month to go -- maybe a good thing to do would be to remind Txec of your directions to draw up a timetable? He might just need some nudging to get on that order. Again, I'm not on the RCOR, but it seems like you should probably at least set a date for a final proposed set of changes and a period for voting to approve them.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on May 28, 2016 9:28:51 GMT -6
Honestly, this is just getting silly. This is what I see as the last post in the thread: Okay, we've got the PD, until July. Now, guys, we need a timetable to FINISH THIS GARÇA once and for all. Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă, draw one up. There's one month to go -- maybe a good thing to do would be to remind Txec of your directions to draw up a timetable? He might just need some nudging to get on that order. More stonewalling and sandbagging by the right-wing, anti-change forces! Is there no end to this vast, right-wing conspiracy?
|
|