Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jul 28, 2017 15:50:28 GMT -6
Whereas Members of the Ziu should do their job, and
Whereas part of that job is to discuss potential legislation, and
Whereas this is currently not happening enough, and
Whereas this may be one of the causes why flawed bills have frequently made it to the clark in recent years, and
Whereas possibly the most frustrating thing for a legislator to happen is when nobody comments on your bill but then everyone votes it down anyway, without even bothering to explain why and then it turns out to be about some minor detail that could easily have been fixed, but nobody bothered to tell you even though you've pleaded for comments and suggestions like a hundred times and now the deadline for the 6th clark has passed and you lose re-election so your bill will never become law even though it was fundamentally a good idea, and
Whereas I've been guilty of not bothering to read bills before they were clarked and then voting them down on a technicality before, and
Whereas I apologise for this, and
Whereas its not unlikely that you are reading this sentence for the first time even though its the last day of the clark and you have only a couple of hours left to vote, while this bill has been in the hopper for three months since an election took place in between, now
Therefore the following section is added to the Lexhatx after Lex H.12. :
"13. Members of the Ziu may place an official request for voting intention statements from their colleagues on a piece of legislation in the hopper in its current form, provided the bill has been in the hopper for at least three days.
13.1 MZs may only place such an official request while a clark is being voted on and no more than once per month.
13.2 MZs placing such a request must notify all party leaders and leave a public message in both the Senate and Cosa chambers.
13.3. At least one MC of each party represented with more than 25 MCs in the Cosa is required to respond to this request within seven days of the request by posting a statement of voting intention in the hopper.
13.4. Additionally each Senator and at least one MC of each party represented with fewer than 25 seats is required to respond to at least one out of every eight requests within seven days of the request by posting a statement of voting intention in the hopper.
13.5. An statement of voting intention can be either In Favour, Abstain, Against or Undecided on the bill in its current and must be accompanied by a statement of at least 75 words discussing the content of the bill.
13.6. The content statement of voting intention is non-binding and may not be in any way construed as a legal requirement to vote a certain way.
13.7. If a party represented with more than 25 seats in the Cosa fails to have one of their MCs post a statement of voting intention more than three times during a given Cosa term all MCs representing that party may be forced to stand in a corner facing the wall for at least 24 hours to consider their actions. [Insert more appropriate punishment here]";
13.8. If a Senator does not post a statement of voting intention once for 24 consecutive requests, they may be forced to take a selfie in the mirror while holding a sign that says "I'm a bad Senator". [Insert more appropriate punishment here].
Furthermore all sections following H.13. are renumbered accordingly.
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 Jul 28, 2017 16:10:19 GMT -6
I only just thought of this while rereading the hopper threads for Ethos and Miestras earlier bills on more preparation/voting time. Both are good ideas, but I fear they won't do much. It seems to me that the biggest problem isn't so much that we don't take enough time (especially for voting. 21 days for a vote? Thats ridiculously long), but more that nothing happens during most of that time. Sadly we can't force MZs to read and discuss legislation. But then I thought maybe we can. I'm not too sure about this bill, but I thought it was a nice idea, so I'd be interested in what people think about it.
One problem is that I can't really think of an appropriate incentive for MZs to adhere to the law here. Taking away voting or legislating rights seems a bit harsh (and is probably inorganic). Taking away the right to officially request voting intentions seems a bit pointless if people don't care for them anyway.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jul 29, 2017 7:50:31 GMT -6
Thoughts?
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Jul 29, 2017 8:28:50 GMT -6
Would it be inOrganic to disallow that party or Senator from Clarking any bills for one Clark?
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jul 31, 2017 8:32:05 GMT -6
That depends on how you interpret the following OrgLaw article:
"Any Member of the Cosă, or a Senator, or the King, or the Secretary of State, shall have the right to submit legislative proposals, and bills to the Secretary of State for consideration by the Ziu according to the procedures specified in this article, and specified by law. Within the bounds and rules imposed by law, tradition, and reason, the Secretary of State shall ensure that all legislators be allowed to submit their bills for consideration. "
The last clause suggests there can be rules to prevent legislators from clarking bills, the most obvious one being the requirement that a bill must be hoppered in time, but the difference is that is simply a condition for a bill to be clarked. Any MC can clark bills provided they submit a bill that meets these conditions. If you are going to take away the right to legislate at all you create a situation where the right to submit proposals isn't simply subject to condition anymore, but doesn't exist at all. Whether that violates this article is for the legal people to decide. To me it certainly seems to violate its spirit.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Jul 31, 2017 8:38:22 GMT -6
Its tough thinking of a punishment which is Organic but still carries weight.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jul 31, 2017 8:43:13 GMT -6
Regardless of organicity theres another reason doing so might be a bad idea. The main reason this requirement is warranted is not that not discussing bills is annoying to other legislators (that's just a side effect), it's that in allowing flawed bills to be clarked you are failing your duty towards your constituents. By taking away someones right to propose bills you're taking away that MCs right to represent his voters by proposing legislation, punishing the voters even more. Essentially it's saying 'you're not doing part of your job, therefore we're going to take away your right to do another part of your job as well. It's like fining schools that have money problems. At least if you force MZs to vacate their seats they can be replaced.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jul 31, 2017 9:06:47 GMT -6
How about this:
Repeated failure to post the statements required by this H.13.3 or H.13.4 within the given timeframe, provided MZs were properly notified in accordance with H.13.2, shall constitute an offence, and Senators or MCs, if found guilty of such a offence, will be subject to a punishment at the discretion of the Courts.
That is similar to the language used for terps. Not sure what punishments the CpI would give in such a case. My guess is it works best if we never find out. At least it shows we are serious about this requirement and we don't remove the moral burden by including a fixed incentive that's in itself not convincing enough. Hopefully the actual control on this mechanism will be more often political than legal.
Thoughts?
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Jul 31, 2017 10:00:37 GMT -6
How about this: Repeated failure to post the statements required by this H.13.3 or H.13.4 within the given timeframe, provided MZs were properly notified in accordance with H.13.2, shall constitute an offence, and Senators or MCs, if found guilty of such a offence, will be subject to a punishment at the discretion of the Courts. That is similar to the language used for terps. Not sure what punishments the CpI would give in such a case. My guess is it works best if we never find out. At least it shows we are serious about this requirement and we don't remove the moral burden by including a fixed incentive that's in itself not convincing enough. Hopefully the actual control on this mechanism will be more often political than legal. Thoughts? I like it In fact, this whole bill reminds me of my time in Model United Nations, where it was always impossible to gauge how many other countries were going to vote to pass your resolution (it my case, it was almost never enough).
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jul 31, 2017 15:38:35 GMT -6
I actually think this would be blatantly inOrganic. I also don't know how I feel about the Cort's getting involved in what is actually a legislative issue - there's a bit of a separation of powers issue that I don't think I can get over.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jul 31, 2017 15:47:51 GMT -6
I actually think this would be blatantly inOrganic. Why?
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jul 31, 2017 17:21:36 GMT -6
I actually think this would be blatantly inOrganic. Why? A failure on the part of a MZ is a political question and one that should be left to the electorate to resolve. Expanding jurisdiction to the courts to start deciding what an appropriate punishment is upsets the separation of powers by giving the cort unprecedented input into the conduct of MZs. Further, the statute as written is incredibly vague on what a punishment could be, and also gives no indication who can bring the Cort action or what it would look like (is the SOS/AG/PM charged with filing the charge? Is it a constituent?). What is the limit of the Cort's power? Is this a criminal punishment? If so, some mens rea language would be helpful (is it strict liability? is it specific intent? is it general intent? negligence? knowingly? recklessly?)? If a Senator flatout disagrees with this and refuses to submit, and thus has a number of charges brought against them, can the Cort remove them? What if their constituents vote them in again and it happens again? Would this not be the Cort substituting the democratic voice of the province? By the way, who determines who is guilty of an offense? At the moment, the wording just says "if they are found guilty" but never says by whom (I assumed the Corts). So it is reasonable to think that another tribunal (say other MZs) find the person guilty (and let's say they're unpopular), then it gets turned over to the Corts for punishment? I appreciate that you borrowed this from H.2.7, but I think even that is inorganic and should be, at the very least, void for vagueness.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Jul 31, 2017 17:37:43 GMT -6
I don't like the idea of forcing MZs to comment on anything. They aren't beholden to anyone but their parties or their constituents, certainly not to other MZs. This type of forced speech would seem to have some First and Second Covenant problems.
Also, it's wrong to force a legislator to reveal how they feel on any particular bill when it's not technically mandatory to vote in the first place.
Finally, what is to prevent a legislator from submitting form language in response to any of these particular requests?
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Aug 1, 2017 12:32:29 GMT -6
A failure on the part of a MZ is a political question and one that should be left to the electorate to resolve. Expanding jurisdiction to the courts to start deciding what an appropriate punishment is upsets the separation of powers by giving the cort unprecedented input into the conduct of MZs. Further, the statute as written is incredibly vague on what a punishment could be, and also gives no indication who can bring the Cort action or what it would look like (is the SOS/AG/PM charged with filing the charge? Is it a constituent?). What is the limit of the Cort's power? Is this a criminal punishment? If so, some mens rea language would be helpful (is it strict liability? is it specific intent? is it general intent? negligence? knowingly? recklessly?)? If a Senator flatout disagrees with this and refuses to submit, and thus has a number of charges brought against them, can the Cort remove them? What if their constituents vote them in again and it happens again? Would this not be the Cort substituting the democratic voice of the province? By the way, who determines who is guilty of an offense? At the moment, the wording just says "if they are found guilty" but never says by whom (I assumed the Corts). So it is reasonable to think that another tribunal (say other MZs) find the person guilty (and let's say they're unpopular), then it gets turned over to the Corts for punishment? I appreciate that you borrowed this from H.2.7, but I think even that is inorganic and should be, at the very least, void for vagueness. I'm still not sure if it's inorganic, as I don't know which orglaw article it would be violating, but I do see your point(s). I guess if we want to include this requirement in the law the best way to go about it would be to not include a punishment and hope there are enough political incentives for participation.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Aug 1, 2017 12:42:44 GMT -6
This type of forced speech would seem to have some First and Second Covenant problems. I very strongly disagree with that. Having job requirements for public officials, including requirements to answer terps or vote or report or advise does not in anyway limit their ability to speak freely about their opinion. Going down that road seems very destructive to me. I don't understand the relation with the second convenant. Voting certainly seems like a requirement to me, since you lose your seats if you don't. Nothing. Theres also nothing to prevent people from lying or voting against their stated intention or being undecided or whatever. Like you said, we can't force MCs to reveal how they feel on any particular bill. Just like there is nothing to prevent MCs from abstaining all the time. I would just hope that if a party only submits form language on every discussion voters might take notice.
|
|