View Topic

This act is designed with the intention of allowing the speaker or speaker pro-tempore to preform certain actions in the absence of the majority of the Underhusen.

Speaker Emergency Powers Act

Title:
1) This act shall be titled the "Speaker Emergency Powers Act".

Amendments and Additions:
2) The "The Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Act" shall be amended to add a section 16 which shall read as follows:

16. (a)The Speaker (or standing Speaker) may deem members of the Underhusen "inactive" if they are not present for a prolonged period of time, this status can be ignored if supplanted by either the "inactive" member stating they are no longer inactive in the Underhusen or by majority vote of all current Skrifa. This status must be noted and maintained in a public listing in the Underhusen.

(b)The "inactive" label may only be placed on a Skrifa that has not taken part in any discussion or vote in the Underhusen for the last 14 days (336 hours).

(c) If the majority (equal to or more than 50%) of the Underhusen is deemed "inactive" then requirements on the speaker to not initiate motions can be waived for the interim. Namely in sections 3(b) and 3(c). Thus the speaker would be able to initiate motions to vote or table discussions.

(d) If all Skrifa bar the Speaker (or standing Speaker) are deemed "inactive" then the session will be immediately suspended until either 1] The Skrifa return, or 2] The session ends. During this suspension no proposals may be introduced, motioned on, or voted on in the Underhusen.

For review by any interested parties.

EDIT: corrected spelling/grammar - changed the "waved" in section 2 (b) to "waived"; removed needless "or" in section 2 (b); added a full-stop/period to the end of section 1.

I guess I don't quite understand what I'm looking at here...

I guess I don't quite understand what I'm looking at here...

Currently the speaker or whoever is standing in for them can't start a motion to vote or table acts, particularly after an extended debate... this could easily lead to a deadlocked UH, where even though there is still a speaker and maybe even another few Skrifa around they wouldn't actually be able to do anything because other members had gone inactive... This is just a simple little thing to let them list Skrifa that go inactive and if it gets particularly bad, it would let the speaker bend the rules a little so that they could continue to vote on and pass acts even if a lot of the UH has dropped off.

It also officially creates suspended sessions, stopping the previously possible senario of all members of the UH disappearing and one Skrifa being stuck in an awkward position...

Originally this had more teeth... for example instead of suspension it would have allowed the remaining skrifa to bypass other sections and move things along more quickly... but I defanged it to make it A] more relevant to the present situation and B] to make it less controversial
 

I would advocate for the recalling of inactive skrifa, but IIRC elections should be soon anyway...

My comfort level with something like this would depend largely on the specific Skrifa and Speaker.

The definition of 'inactive' is interesting to me, because at various times the entire Underhusen could be considered to be inactive by that definition...why not make it Skrifa who haven't been online in 14 days? What are your thoughts on just allowing the Speaker to make motions in general?

Otherwise, I would normally agree with Chanku, but I think we all know how inactive and dysfunctional the Underhusen can be. The questions above notwithstanding, I'm not necessarily opposed.

The definition of 'inactive' is interesting to me, because at various times the entire Underhusen could be considered to be inactive by that definition...why not make it Skrifa who haven't been online in 14 days? What are your thoughts on just allowing the Speaker to make motions in general?

Otherwise, I would normally agree with Chanku, but I think we all know how inactive and dysfunctional the Underhusen can be. The questions above notwithstanding, I'm not necessarily opposed.

I think in even a mildly active UH it's good to not let the speaker make motions and normally it would give them more of a role in pushing people to engage. Additionally about automatically making people "inactive" after 14 days, the way I worded it is they have to have not done anything in the UH, this is mainly so it isn't messed up by people like me, who even when they don't post still log on and read posts almost every day, and occasionally post spam posts or random stuff, if it was just a general inactivity thing then someone who just wasn't involving themselves would be able to mess it up a little.

The speaker being able to make motions would allow a go-getting bunch of Skrifa to get things done at a quicker pace and when your numbers are reduced quicker is what you really want

I'm sorry for not noticing this before the Act went to a vote, but, unless "waved" is changed to "waived", 16.C technically doesn't accomplish anything.  If the wording isn't corrected, a Speaker will not legally have the authority to initiate motions, even if the given conditions are met.

Since that needs to be addressed, I would also like to point out the lack of a period in section 1 and the unnecessary "or" in 16.C.

Forgot to include mentions.

@HannahB @North @Eldarion

I'm sorry for not noticing this before the Act went to a vote, but, unless "waved" is changed to "waived", 16.C technically doesn't accomplish anything.  If the wording isn't corrected, a Speaker will not legally have the authority to initiate motions, even if the given conditions are met.

Since that needs to be addressed, I would also like to point out the lack of a period in section 1 and the unnecessary "or" in 16.C.

Awww maaaan, gonna edit it ASAP. Thanks again Colberius, I don't know how this place would function without you

Keep us posted if you see anything else!?

Also thank you so much

Awww maaaan, gonna edit it ASAP. Thanks again Colberius, I don't know how this place would function without you

Keep us posted if you see anything else!?

Also thank you so much

You all managed without me for several months, so I don't know what you're talking about. 

Of course, and you're quite welcome! 

I dunno...the idea of requirements waving at us is intriguing.

I dunno...the idea of requirements waving at us is intriguing.

I suppose it is, but I don't think that's what Hannah was going for. 

@HannahB you shouldn't edit an act after it goes to a vote. Either the invalid version must be voted down and the vote to expire and then re-vote, or you can have the old version be voted down (while waiting for the vote to conclude) and have the new version be passed.

Further it could be considered illegal considering that modifying the act could be considered as bringing forth an entirely new act.

@HannahB you shouldn't edit an act after it goes to a vote. Either the invalid version must be voted down and the vote to expire and then re-vote, or you can have the old version be voted down (while waiting for the vote to conclude) and have the new version be passed.

Further it could be considered illegal considering that modifying the act could be considered as bringing forth an entirely new act.

@Chanku - While I agree that it's improper to edit a proposal after it's gone to a vote, I haven't been able to find anything actually prohibiting it in the Underhusen Procedural rules.  Before section 12 of the Omnibus Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Amendment Act was struck out, I think it would be clearly legal, but the lack of relevant rules means it's currently a grey area.

(Perhaps this can be fixed by the incoming session? *cough* *cough*)