Wintreath Regional Community

A Link to the Past - Archives => The Registry of Things Past - Historic Archive => Frosthold Castle - Wintreath Government => Topic started by: Laurentus on June 11, 2015, 08:10:47 PM

Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Laurentus on June 11, 2015, 08:10:47 PM
Quote from: Procedural Rules of the Private Storting Forum
Title

1. This act shall be titled The Procedural Rules of the Private Storting Forum Act

Act

2. Members of the Storting shall adhere to a sunshine policy, which will consist out of the following:
    a) All topics which were discussed by the Storting, shall immediately be made public at the conclusion of a two-month session of the Storting.
    b) Only topics which are marked by the Speaker, Chairman or Monarch as 'unfit for public view' may remain in the subforum, and must then be reviewed every 14 days to determine whether the information held within may be released.
    c) Discussions which concern the possible Revocation of Citizenship must be released the moment they are finished, so as to remain transparent and for members of the Underhusen specifically to remain accountable.

This is a work-in-progress. Any thoughts, criticisms and advice would be appreciated.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Reon on June 11, 2015, 08:35:54 PM
I don't know if discussions regarding Revocations should be immediately released... I personally would see it suitable for them to be released at the end just like the others...
And also! Is not the conclusion at the exact moment of the acceptance of the next batch? So... We'd be releasing after elections which seems... Questionable.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Laurentus on June 11, 2015, 08:48:05 PM
Reon posted on June 11, 2015, 08:35:54 PM
I don't know if discussions regarding Revocations should be immediately released... I personally would see it suitable for them to be released at the end just like the others...
And also! Is not the conclusion at the exact moment of the acceptance of the next batch? So... We'd be releasing after elections which seems... Questionable.
Given the very sensitive nature of Revocations, it might be highly controversial to release them at the end with the rest. I have no preference either way, so I'm trying to see what the general consensus is.

And could you perhaps specify what you find questionable about releasing everything at the end of each session? Since the Monarch can mark something as sensitive, I don't really foresee any complications.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Reon on June 11, 2015, 08:49:37 PM
When exactly does a term end? Before, during, or after elections?
My issue would be finding it questionable if they were released during or after elections...
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Laurentus on June 11, 2015, 08:51:58 PM
How so?
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Reon on June 11, 2015, 08:53:38 PM
Less so during but if it was after elections than actions the voters would not approve would appear after they may have already re-elected a candidate who did things they disagree with...
I don't like it for during just because it may dramatically shift the way conversations are going halfway through already having them, which I stylistically disagree with...
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Laurentus on June 11, 2015, 09:00:07 PM
I see what you mean. Perhaps then it should be set to the moment nominations for the next session begin?
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Reon on June 11, 2015, 09:02:10 PM
Something like that would be more beneficial and relaxed, I think yes... How far before the term is over is that though?
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Laurentus on June 11, 2015, 09:06:09 PM
Reon posted on June 11, 2015, 09:02:10 PM
Something like that would be more beneficial and relaxed, I think yes... How far before the term is over is that though?
I'm not quite certain. @Wintermoot?
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Wintermoot on June 11, 2015, 09:42:25 PM
That would be two weeks before the term is over...one week for nominations and one week for elections.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Laurentus on June 11, 2015, 09:58:06 PM
That sounds like trouble. I see Reon's point, but perhaps the only way to make it work from a practical stand-point is to make everything public only when the elections are over and a new session begins.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Chanku on June 12, 2015, 01:18:13 AM
How about a law that would force the Storting to finish all business within twelve hours before the end of the session...or have a law that extends the session one hour after elections are over that is to be used to end any business and to release all topics.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Laurentus on June 12, 2015, 01:28:57 AM
Chanku posted on June 12, 2015, 01:18:13 AM
How about a law that would force the Storting to finish all business within twelve hours before the end of the session...or have a law that extends the session one hour after elections are over that is to be used to end any business and to release all topics.
I wouldn't object.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Chanku on June 12, 2015, 01:53:46 AM
This could be done in two ways:

The First way:
Quote
Title
1. This shall be titled the Conclusion of Storting Business Act

Conclusion Requirements
2. At a minimum of twelve hours before the Storting Session ends the Speaker of the Underhusen must conclude all business within the Underhusen. This conclusion must finish within thirty-minutes of the end of the session. This section shall also apply to the Chairperson of the Overhusen.

Penalties
3. Failure to comply with this law will result in the Monarch being granted the authority to forcefully terminate all business, up to and including, releasing all classified documents from that session of Storting.

Second Way:
Quote
Title
1. This shall be titled the Conclusion of Storting Business act

Conclusion
2. After elections have ended, the new members shall not take seat for three hours until after all business has been concluded by the Storting and the Overhusen. During this time no voting and/or debate shall occur with in the halls of the Storting. Further all classified Storting discussions are to be released.

Also Laurentus your bill is theoretically illegal. Due to the Fundamental Laws, Article VI, Section 5, Second Sentence which reads:
Quote from: Fundamental Laws: Article VI - Section 5 (Second Sentence)
No government official shall be empowered to make decisions in any of these areas.

The name of the act, and the section b used could be seen as a potential violation of that section.  I also object to Sub-Section C, as I don't find it necessary to immediately release documents, and perhaps should be kept behind a wall for an extra session or so until tempers cool down.

Anywho this is my suggested revision:
Quote from: Regulations on Private Storting Discussions
Title

1. This act shall be titled The Regulation on Private Storting Discussions and the Storting Sunshine Policy

Act

2. All private, or otherwise classified Storting discussions, shall follow these regulations and procedures.
    a) All topics which were discussed by the Storting, shall immediately be made public at the conclusion of a session of the Storting. Unless a motion is made, and passed with the agreement of a simple majority of two-thirds of the members of Storting.
    b) Only discussions which are marked by the Speaker, Chairman, Monarch or a super-majority of two-thirds, as 'unfit for public view' may remain private or otherwise classified, and must then be reviewed every 14 days to determine whether the information held within may be released.
Changes include:

(Also a public audit option should be available as well, however that's not exactly in this bill as it's somewhat unnecessary.)
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Laurentus on June 12, 2015, 02:39:18 AM
I prefer the second method, however some slight mistakes must be fixed:
Quote
Title
1. This shall be titled the Conclusion of Storting Business act

Conclusion
2. After elections have ended, the new members shall not take seat for three hours until after all business has been concluded by the Storting. During this time no voting or debate shall occur with in the halls of the Storting. All classified Storting discussions are to be released, unless they have been marked as 'unfit for public view.'

1. The Overhusen is part of the Storting, so I don't know why it had to be stated separately.
2. 'Further' doesn't have to be used. The sentence makes complete sense without it.

As stated, I have no preference for subsection c, one way or the other. If more citizens can chime in with their preference, this would go a lot better. I don't want to end up being accused of corruption somewhere down the road.

And although I now see that b was indeed illegal, there has to be some way to keep certain things classified without going through a vote, such as documents relating to foreign relations. Perhaps a law can be added specifically for topics of such content?

Taking these things I've said into account, I like your changes, but think it would be wise to wait for the rest of the citizenry to say how they feel about subsection c. Remember, we're in deeply controversial territory here.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Chanku on June 12, 2015, 02:45:13 AM
the re-written B merely allows for a vote to occur. The Speaker, Chairperson, and/or Monarch can still keep things classified.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Laurentus on June 12, 2015, 02:47:28 AM
Very well.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Michi on June 12, 2015, 03:27:11 AM
I think altering the passage a bit to where instead of waiting until the end of the term, you'd wait until a topic was discussed to the end (IE, the parties both decided to take it to their respective forums for further discussion/vote) until it was made public.  The end-of-term bit should only be for if topics went on for that long and was decided to close the discussion due to the end of the term coming up, and thus putting them in public view.

Revocations are a tricky one.  I think subjects of a revocation should be granted an automatic invitation to appeal to the UH/OH directly and discreetly in the subject of a possible upcoming revocation.

That being said, however...it's still tricky.  While at the same time I think it really is a sensitive topic to talk about, I also think once it's being discussed publicly or being voted on, people deserve to know the full extent as to why the votes are going the way they are.  And unless any of the officials are saying things that can be taken personally (which if they allow the subject to appeal, I'd hope they'd keep all opinions strictly professional), then I don't see too much reason to contain it longer than other topics.

But I think really, it depends on the feelings of the person that the revocation is about.  If the subject is wanting privacy on said matters throughout the process, then I think wishes should be respected and it remain out of public view until either the end of the revocation, or of the term.  Likewise if they ask for it to be made public, I also think that those wishes should be respected and the discussion of their revocation be made public in respect of transparency.

At the same time, if the UH/OH decides to not allow a standing invitation to subjects of a revocation to appeal directly to the UH/OH in the private forums, I actually do think that once the UH/OH go their separate ways to discuss/vote in their forums, the topic should be made public so that the subject can have a proper appeal (it's not really fair to ask them to appeal if you've discussed beforehand and aren't allowing them to see what has been said so they can properly defend themselves).

So like I said, it's a bit tricky...but I'm more inclined to think that revocations should be made public unless specifically requested by the subject to not be.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Chanku on June 12, 2015, 05:05:25 AM
To be honest the appeal to the Storting comes in the public topic, because IIRC the Procedural Rules requires a debate period to occur. Meaning that the person has a time period to appeal, not only to Storting members, but also to the public. Further the Speaker (again IIRC) Should have the power to invite people into the Underhusen halls to speak, which can occur for those with the subject matter for revocations. Further I personally think that allowing them into the secret area, for one matter, would defeat the purpose anyway as a person could leak or comment on anything really. There are no technical laws dealing with the leaking from those forums either. If we could restrict what they could see to the relevant post then I wouldn't mind it, however AFAIK we can't.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Govindia on June 12, 2015, 05:17:52 AM
My thoughts:


Quote from: Storting Sunshine Act
I. Title

A. This act shall be titled the Storting Sunshine Act

II. Definitions
A. Sunshine Policy shall be defined as a policy where discussions or documents that were initially kept confidential, be open to the public.
B. The Storting shall be defined as the Legislature of Wintreath, a bicameral legislature consisting of the Overhusen, and the Underhusen, as defined per the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath.
C. The Speaker shall be defined as the administrative head of the Underhusen, as defined per the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath.
D. The Chairman shall be defined as the administrative head of the Overhusen, , as defined per the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath.
E. The Monarch shall be defined as the King and royal executive leader of the Frozen Realm of Wintreath, as defined per the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath.
F. "The Citizens' Platform" shall be defined as the subforum in The Storting of Wintreath where citizens of Wintreath discuss ideas and proposals regarding legislation, and for citizens to address issues of concern to them.

III. Provisions
A. Members of the Storting shall adhere to a Sunshine Policy upon passage of this Act, which shall be implemented as follows:
    1. All topics which are debated in "The Citizens' Platform" that are debated in the Underhusen or the Overhusen, shall be made public on conclusion of discussion and vote of said topic in either house.
        A) The house that first discusses and votes on an issue first shall have their discussion and vote threads released to the public first.
    2. Once the discussions have been made public, a link shall be placed in the accompanying thread in The Citizens' Platform where the discussion initially took place.
    3. Discussions regarding a sensitive nature, such as treaty negotiations, shall be considered confidential unless voted on by a simply majority in both houses of the Storting. 
        A) Discussions which concern the possible Revocation of Citizenship must be released the moment they are finished, so as to remain transparent and for members of the Storting specifically to remain accountable.

B. This law shall come into immediate effect upon passage by the Storting, and Royal Assent given by the Monarch.

IV. Violations
A. Violators who release discussions open to the public without the matter being concluded in the Storting will be held in contempt of the Storting and subject to administrative action under the respective head of the Storting where the leak was involved.
     1. Punishments for violation can range from a censure, to a temporal suspension of posting privileges, to impeachment of the representative from the Storting.


My law writing experience in NS comes with a different outline format I've used :P
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Laurentus on June 12, 2015, 05:35:31 AM
Chanku posted on June 12, 2015, 05:05:25 AM
To be honest the appeal to the Storting comes in the public topic, because IIRC the Procedural Rules requires a debate period to occur. Meaning that the person has a time period to appeal, not only to Storting members, but also to the public. Further the Speaker (again IIRC) Should have the power to invite people into the Underhusen halls to speak, which can occur for those with the subject matter for revocations. Further I personally think that allowing them into the secret area, for one matter, would defeat the purpose anyway as a person could leak or comment on anything really. There are no technical laws dealing with the leaking from those forums either. If we could restrict what they could see to the relevant post then I wouldn't mind it, however AFAIK we can't.
So why not just release the topic to the public in the case of a revocation? Essentially, it achieves the same goal as bringing the person before the Storting, without the mess of allowing someone in the private forum.

Or create a new private forum specifically for this purpose and move the revocation topic there, so it may be discussed privately with the party involved without security breaches.
Govindia posted on June 12, 2015, 05:17:52 AM
My thoughts:


Quote from: Storting Sunshine Act
I. Title

A. This act shall be titled the Storting Sunshine Act

II. Definitions
A. Sunshine Policy shall be defined as a policy where discussions or documents that were initially kept confidential, be open to the public.
B. The Storting shall be defined as the Legislature of Wintreath, a bicameral legislature consisting of the Overhusen, and the Underhusen, as defined per the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath.
C. The Speaker shall be defined as the administrative head of the Underhusen, as defined per the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath.
D. The Chairman shall be defined as the administrative head of the Overhusen, , as defined per the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath.
E. The Monarch shall be defined as the King and royal executive leader of the Frozen Realm of Wintreath, as defined per the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath.
F. "The Citizens' Platform" shall be defined as the subforum in The Storting of Wintreath where citizens of Wintreath discuss ideas and proposals regarding legislation, and for citizens to address issues of concern to them.

III. Provisions
A. Members of the Storting shall adhere to a Sunshine Policy upon passage of this Act, which shall be implemented as follows:
    1. All topics which are debated in "The Citizens' Platform" that are debated in the Underhusen or the Overhusen, shall be made public on conclusion of discussion and vote of said topic in either house.
        A) The house that first discusses and votes on an issue first shall have their discussion and vote threads released to the public first.
    2. Once the discussions have been made public, a link shall be placed in the accompanying thread in The Citizens' Platform where the discussion initially took place.
    3. Discussions regarding a sensitive nature, such as treaty negotiations, shall be considered confidential unless voted on by a simply majority in both houses of the Storting. 
        A) Discussions which concern the possible Revocation of Citizenship must be released the moment they are finished, so as to remain transparent and for members of the Storting specifically to remain accountable.

B. This law shall come into immediate effect upon passage by the Storting, and Royal Assent given by the Monarch.

IV. Violations
A. Violators who release discussions open to the public without the matter being concluded in the Storting will be held in contempt of the Storting and subject to administrative action under the respective head of the Storting where the leak was involved.
     1. Punishments for violation can range from a censure, to a temporal suspension of posting privileges, to impeachment of the representative from the Storting.


My law writing experience in NS comes with a different outline format I've used :P
I'm a bit confused, here.

The Citizen's Platform is not the private forum's name. I refer of course to the following: "1. All topics which are debated in "The Citizens' Platform" that are debated in the Underhusen or the Overhusen, shall be made public on conclusion of discussion and vote of said topic in either house."

I also don't think it's necessary to define so many aspects either, since the other laws already do this.

The Underhusen also doesn't discuss things separately from the Overhusen in the private forum, we discuss everything at the same time, thus making it impossible for the UH to release things first upon voting.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Govindia on June 12, 2015, 05:38:47 AM
Clarification @Laurentus:

1. I'm referring to topics that are in the private area that are discussed in the Citizens' Area here first. 

2. I think having definitions in place would help provide clarity.  Many laws and ordinances IRL are defined similarly as well.

3. I was under the impression that the UH and OH would have separate private forums ?

Is there a chance we can work with my modifications sir?
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Laurentus on June 12, 2015, 05:46:36 AM
Well, no, in real life (or at least in South Africa) there is a lot of cross-referencing of laws, but not stating the legal definition of things over and over again, unless reference is made to, for example, the Common Law definition of a child born alive vs the Criminal Law definition of the same etc.

We don't have to make it that complex in Wintreath Law.

Further than that, I think my current bill essentially covers everything you might be worried about? :)
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Michi on June 12, 2015, 05:47:42 AM
Chanku posted on June 12, 2015, 05:05:25 AM
To be honest the appeal to the Storting comes in the public topic, because IIRC the Procedural Rules requires a debate period to occur. Meaning that the person has a time period to appeal, not only to Storting members, but also to the public. Further the Speaker (again IIRC) Should have the power to invite people into the Underhusen halls to speak, which can occur for those with the subject matter for revocations. Further I personally think that allowing them into the secret area, for one matter, would defeat the purpose anyway as a person could leak or comment on anything really. There are no technical laws dealing with the leaking from those forums either. If we could restrict what they could see to the relevant post then I wouldn't mind it, however AFAIK we can't.

My concern is since the UH/OH forum is private and therefore they'll be discussing topics prior to establishing them in the public's eye (the potential for revocations for example), then it requires an aspect of fairness to it.  If revocations are going to be discussed in what will essentially be secrecy before public discussions are to be had (which you know will be the case), then the subject of it has a right to know in some form or another before it does go public.

It's a completely underhanded thing to have a private discussion of revoking someone's citizenship, and then when it comes time for the UH and OH to discuss it publicly, they've already discussed it.  What then?  As it stands, debate periods are required, but a motion to expedite can still happen regardless of the topic.  The amendment to expediting was never passed, so what happens if the UH decides they've had enough discussion and motions to expedite and move it to a vote?  What if the OH goes with it because they've already all discussed it?

Until that amendment is either passed, or polished and passed, we have a problem.  And thus this is an alternative until that problem is fixed.

Not to mention, if there's private discussion about revoking citizenship, why shouldn't the subject be allowed to appeal to the UH/OH directly and quietly?  Does every appeal have to be a public spectacle for everyone to jump on board and have a say?  Wouldn't it make more sense to solve things swiftly and quietly if we're able to do so?  Doesn't the person facing those charges deserve the chance to appeal privately without everyone else having a say?
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Govindia on June 12, 2015, 05:53:54 AM
@Pengu, thoughts on my proposal?
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Laurentus on June 12, 2015, 05:57:05 AM
God, I'm noticing a distinct absence of my fellow Skrifa. @The Church of Satan, @Aragonn, @HannahB, @tatte, you do realise you're needed at these discussions, I hope? :P

The same with all other discussions in the Citizen's Platform, really. :)
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Michi on June 12, 2015, 06:04:16 AM
Govindia posted on June 12, 2015, 05:38:47 AM
Clarification @Laurentus:

1. I'm referring to topics that are in the private area that are discussed in the Citizens' Area here first. 

2. I think having definitions in place would help provide clarity.  Many laws and ordinances IRL are defined similarly as well.

3. I was under the impression that the UH and OH would have separate private forums ?

Is there a chance we can work with my modifications sir?

I was under the impression that the private forums would be discussing topics before they were brought into the Platform and respective UH/OH forums for debate.  IE: Discussing proposals in the Platform and the legitimacy of them, fixing any potential errors, discussing systems to possibly implement, the potential of an upcoming trial or possible revocation, and whatnot.  In other words, both coming together to discuss potential issues that would arise, whether they want to take some form of action, what the best course of action would be, debating amongst each other, etc...  Essentially taking the fact that the UH/OH might come into disagreements with each other and seeing if that can be resolved before things actually hit the floor for separate debate/voting, and seeing if they UH/OH can get into mutual agreement on matters.

I will agree having definitions in place so that there's little room for error does help...but I also do echo Laurentus in not wanting to make it too wordy and complex at the same time.  Even the most well-defined law can have some kind of exploitable loophole if someone looks carefully enough.

As for your impressions, the idea was to have it be a UH/OH collaboration forum, as mentioned in my beginning paragraph of this response.  As that is what the PMs have been, so this was decided as a better alternative to that.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Hugsim on June 12, 2015, 09:10:43 AM
I agree with Pengu here, the discussions should be made public after discussion has ended, but before voting. You would want to know the reason for someone voting a certain way. I also echo his opinion on revocations, the person whose citizenship is being revocated should be able to choose whether to make the process public or not. Same goes for any other bill that is specifically about one person, for example making someone a paragon.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: tatte on June 12, 2015, 09:15:24 AM
@Laurentus I'm fairly certain (not 100% though) that even Skrifas are allowed to sleep at night. :D

I feel like we're once again approaching the revocations from a completely wrong direction. We need a system where we can contact our citizens long before things get that far. Once we have better means to deal with troublesome citizens and those methods have been exhausted, I see no reason why the revocation process should be anything but completely public.

Discussing normal proposals behind closed doors have two fundamental problems cause redundancy or hurt transparency: either the private discussion would have to be made public once the proposal goes public, or never made public to avoid confusing redundancy. Just ask yourselves: in how many places do you want to state the same things? Discussion is a process that helps refine and redefine opinions, but if you need to repeat yourself you'll probably get fed up and lose focus.

Proposals shouldn't only be made if they get support in advance from the Storting. Instead we need to focus in developing the public process.

Once we have better disciplinary action procedures in place (if that ever happens), discussions about proper action for each instance would clearly belong in the Private Storting forum.

Right now the only instance where I can support Storting acting in secrecy is matters regarding other regions. I can overlook private discussions of matters in advance, but such discussions would have to be made public as early as possible, and no later than when nominations for the next term begins.

Matters that have not been concluded during a term should also be made public once nominations begin unless the subject strongly requires continued secrecy (Underhusen/Overhusen could vote?), since such matters can be vital for re-elections.

//edit: I'm still tired and hungry too.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Aragonn on June 12, 2015, 11:23:59 AM
Govindia posted on June 12, 2015, 05:17:52 AM
Quote from: Storting Sunshine Act
IV. Violations
A. Violators who release discussions open to the public without the matter being concluded in the Storting will be held in contempt of the Storting and subject to administrative action under the respective head of the Storting where the leak was involved.
     1. Punishments for violation can range from a censure, to a temporal suspension of posting privileges, to impeachment of the representative from the Storting.
I do believe you mean "temporary suspension"? :P

These punishments are looking a bit harsh. A legislator with no voice? Ouch.
Laurentus posted on June 12, 2015, 05:57:05 AM
God, I'm noticing a distinct absence of my fellow Skrifa. @The Church of Satan, @Aragonn, @HannahB, @tatte, you do realise you're needed at these discussions, I hope? :P

The same with all other discussions in the Citizen's Platform, really. :)
tatte posted on June 12, 2015, 09:15:24 AM
@Laurentus I'm fairly certain (not 100% though) that even Skrifas are allowed to sleep at night. :D
My thoughts exactly, tatte.

And I must agree with tatte on there being a process for dealing with citizens before it becomes time to revoke citizenship. It may be lengthy and full of red tape, but it should be worth it. Kinda like your idea to have warning levels for misconduct, Laurentus. Perhaps the two can go hand in hand?
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Laurentus on June 12, 2015, 02:58:46 PM
No, I'm afraid you're veering a bit off-topic. We aren't discussing proper warning systems and other disciplinary actions right now. Even with those in place, it may well come to a point where a private Storting discussion also takes place.

And we can't release things the moment nominations for a new term begin. That cuts our access to the private forum by 2 weeks for each term. It just doesn't work from a practical and efficient stand-point. Do I need to elaborate?

But I do actually think that other matters should be released the moment the Storting has finished discussing them. Revocation is a tricky matter, however. Even the person involved may wish for it to remain private for quite a while, thus my proposal for creating a new private forum titled something like "disciplinary actions."

Anyway, can we get back on topic, people? Proper disciplinary steps and warning systems are for another topic.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Aragonn on June 12, 2015, 03:46:34 PM
Then have regular discussions released upon completion and have revocation discussions released after completion upon request by the subject. Seems logical to me.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Michi on June 12, 2015, 04:01:24 PM
tatte posted on June 12, 2015, 09:15:24 AM
@Laurentus I'm fairly certain (not 100% though) that even Skrifas are allowed to sleep at night. :D

I feel like we're once again approaching the revocations from a completely wrong direction. We need a system where we can contact our citizens long before things get that far. Once we have better means to deal with troublesome citizens and those methods have been exhausted, I see no reason why the revocation process should be anything but completely public.



Actually, this is part of the reason why I'm making the suggestion that people that are the topic of a potential trial/revocation/other course of action (meaning it's not at that point yet, but talks are happening) should be given a standing invitation to appeal to the UH/OH directly.

If there's a way to solve the problem privately and discreetly without it becoming a spectacle, then I don't see why it shouldn't be done.  There is such a thing called dignity, and we should respect every individual member's dignity regardless of where things may begin to stand with them.

Unless there has been no resolution by allowing them to speak to the UH/OH, then there'd be no need to go to the extreme of even having a trial/revocation/other severe course of action in the first place.  Since we no longer have a Jarl of Mediations to resolve conflicts before they really start, I think this method is a good alternative
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Laurentus on June 12, 2015, 04:10:07 PM
Aragonn posted on June 12, 2015, 03:46:34 PM
Then have regular discussions released upon completion and have revocation discussions released after completion upon request by the subject. Seems logical to me.
I don't quite follow the context in which you're replying. Is this when we use my idea of a separate private forum where revocations are handled separately?

But also remember that even if we do this, a lot can happen in those 2 weeks in which nominations and voting take place, so this doesn't solve that, either.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: HannahB on June 12, 2015, 04:27:54 PM
I don't know about anyone else but from a lot of the discussion on here it seems to me that it might be prudent to expand the rules to clearly lay out guidelines on what the private forum can and/or should be used for?  :-\

I don't know, should I write up something like that, or would there be no point  :-\

Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Laurentus on June 12, 2015, 04:59:34 PM
HannahB posted on June 12, 2015, 04:27:54 PM
I don't know about anyone else but from a lot of the discussion on here it seems to me that it might be prudent to expand the rules to clearly lay out guidelines on what the private forum can and/or should be used for?  :-\

I don't know, should I write up something like that, or would there be no point  :-\
I'm hoping some more people will reply before I give a far-reaching reply again.

But I will say I don't think this would be entirely productive. I think we should rather lay out the proper procedure. This would allow us to use the forum dynamically and efficiently.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Emoticonius on June 12, 2015, 06:09:53 PM
Issues that may result in a revocation attempt should at least see mediation by an uninvolved party, however that is the job any given individual might choose to take up unless an official mediator is designated by government. That being said it is not the job of The Storting to make such decisions unless we feel the need to draft such a law, which is unrelated to procedural rules of the private Storting subforum. Procedural rules regarding it should remain separate from any procedure that deals in mediation. However I would support an official attempt at mediation so long as it were not part of Procedural law for The Storting.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Emoticonius on June 13, 2015, 09:18:36 AM
Spoiler
Quote from: Storting Sunshine Act
I. Title

A. This act shall be titled the Storting Sunshine Act

II. Definitions
A. Sunshine Policy shall be defined as a policy where discussions or documents that were initially kept confidential, be open to the public.
B. The Storting shall be defined as the Legislature of Wintreath, a bicameral legislature consisting of the Overhusen, and the Underhusen, as defined per the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath.
C. The Speaker shall be defined as the administrative head of the Underhusen, as defined per the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath.
D. The Chairman shall be defined as the administrative head of the Overhusen, , as defined per the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath.
E. The Monarch shall be defined as the King and royal executive leader of the Frozen Realm of Wintreath, as defined per the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath.
F. "The Citizens' Platform" shall be defined as the subforum in The Storting of Wintreath where citizens of Wintreath discuss ideas and proposals regarding legislation, and for citizens to address issues of concern to them.

III. Provisions
A. Members of the Storting shall adhere to a Sunshine Policy upon passage of this Act, which shall be implemented as follows:
    1. All topics which are debated in "The Citizens' Platform" that are debated in the Underhusen or the Overhusen, shall be made public at the end of each term of the Skrifa and Peers serving in The Storting.
    A. This law shall come into immediate effect upon passage by the Storting, and Royal Assent given by the Monarch.

IV. Violations
A. Violators who release discussions open to the public without the matter being concluded in the Storting will be held in contempt of the Storting and subject to administrative action under The Monarch.
     1. Punishments for violations shall be determined by The Monarch or anyone The Monarch delegates this responsibility to.

This is my suggestion, Gov's proposal with a few changes. I believe punishment for leaking information from the private Storting forum should constitute a criminal offense and that The Monarch would best determine the punishment. I also feel this should be an amendment to the procedural law of both The Underhusen & The Overhusen.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Laurentus on June 13, 2015, 09:37:11 AM
1. The problem with branding it a criminal offence is that the courts will need to be brought in. I don't know whether the monarch has any legal authority to do the things you want him to do. I think he might have it over the Overhusen, but not over the Underhusen. So this sounds like it would need a constitutional ammendment, though @Chanku may have a better understanding of this matter.

2. If we want this specific bill to reach that far, we should probably stop handling it as a separate bill and add it to the Procedural Rules of both chambers of the Storting to begin with.

3. I really don't know whether it's necessary to define so many things here. I'll concede some of them probably need to be defined, but not everything that's getting defined there.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Emoticonius on June 13, 2015, 09:46:26 AM
True. Contempt keeps it ambiguous enough that Tge Monarch can do something as opposed to going through the courts, which in such an instance would only serve as a time waster.

I was lazy in knit picking the definitions. It's late here, or rather, early. :P
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Laurentus on June 13, 2015, 09:51:53 AM
Such loose language will almost certainly make this bill fail. Laws are supposed to be fixed and precise.

I think perhaps you should sleep on it and tackle the subject again when you've had some sleep. :P
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Chanku on June 13, 2015, 11:28:37 AM
TECHNICALLY speaking the monarch doesn't have reign over Criminal Offenses due to the fact that according to Article II, Section 6 of the Fundamental Laws it says:
Quote from: Fundamental Laws Article II - Section 6
6. The Monarch shall have the authority to issue decrees in relation to policies concerning the internal affairs of the Executive, the military, foreign affairs, familial houses, the nobility, and any other Executive authority which has been expressly granted through this document or any relevant laws.
Note the use of expressly. We would either have to grant the monarch executive authority over Criminal Matters, but that would be in violation of the Fundamental Laws Article I sections 15, and in a way 16.

Quote from: Fundamental Laws, Article I - Section 15
15. The Storting shall have the authority to interpret these Fundamental Laws and statutory laws and consider the constitutionality over laws brought before the Storting, determine rulings and verdicts in regard to violations of these laws, and determine punishments for violations of these laws within the parameters of these Fundamental Laws and any other laws.

Quote from: Fundamental Laws, Article I - Section 16
16. The Storting shall have the authority to issue advisory opinions on matters of constitutionality and legality to anyone whom the Storting has determined has standing to seek an advisory opinion.

The easiest way to do this is to essentially pass a law stating that the Monarch has the authority to punish any leaks of confidential information, while holding that releasing the information is not, in itself, a violation of any law or is even illegal. Albeit it could still be considered illegal by the Fundamental Laws, Article V - Section 3 due to the fact that punishments are being done by the monarch himself.

Quote from: Fundamental Laws Article V - Section 3
3. Citizens shall have the right to a fair trial.

Also legally speaking we don't need a seperate thing for the leaking of information from the private area. This is due to the fact that the Code of Criminal Laws, Section 6.1.2 makes it illegal to release "information... from the Storting without approval by the relevant authorities."

Quote from: Code of Criminal Laws, Section 6.1.2
6.1.2 Releasing information from a Ministry, from the Military or from the Storting without approval by the relevant authorities.

Also @Church Of Satan part of that law is illegal under the Fundamental Laws, Article VI. Due to the term 'administrative action', which can only be done by the root administrator or by the people that have had administrative powers granted by the root administrator. You want 'executive action', in order to not violate that section.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Laurentus on June 13, 2015, 12:07:25 PM
And there we have it. :)
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Chanku on June 13, 2015, 12:10:30 PM
Seems like I've become an Adviser of sorts for Laws and Legalities for this Session of the Storting :P :3
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Laurentus on June 13, 2015, 12:21:40 PM
I'm not one to turn away more informed opinions. Never have been. :)
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Chanku on June 13, 2015, 12:29:58 PM
Fair enough.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Emoticonius on June 13, 2015, 07:34:17 PM
I was pretty tired when I posted that. It was about 5AM. :P
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Emoticonius on June 14, 2015, 09:13:02 AM
Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Amendment VII
1. Title

1.1 This act shall be titled the "Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Amendment VII".

2. Amendments

2.1 This act shall amend The Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Act to read as follows:

Title

1. This Act shall be cited as the Omnibus Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Amendment Act.

Underhusen Procedure

2. Any Underhusen representative may introduce legislation into the Underhusen.

3. Any legislative or non-legislative proposal introduced into the Underhusen will automatically be open for debate for 2 days. At the conclusion of this time period, a representative may either motion to Extend Debate, motion to table, or motion to vote. The motions must be seconded before being passed
(a) In matters of urgency, this two day period may be waived if the Speaker of the Assembly makes a motion to expedite and the motion is seconded by a Underhusen Representative.
(b)  A motion to Extend Debate may include a time period shorter or longer than 48 hours, but is not shorter than 4 hours and is not longer than 1 weeks, should no time period be given or should the time period be shorter or longer than what is allowed, the extension shall be 48 hours.

4. Any Underhusen representative may motion to vote on any legislative or non-legislative proposal.
(a) A proposal shall proceed to a vote no more than five days after a motion to vote is seconded by another representative.
(b) The Speaker of the Assembly may not motion to vote or second a motion to vote.

5. Once brought to a vote, a proposal shall remain at vote for seven days or until the requisite number of Underhusen representatives have voted in favor of or against the proposal.
(a) In the event that a vote is tied, the bill will be passed directly to the Overhusen for a vote.

6. Underhusen representatives may cast one of the following votes on proposals before the Underhusen:
(a) Aye, indicating that the representative is voting in favor of the proposal;
(b) Nay, indicating that the representative is voting against the proposal;
(c) Abstain, indicating that the representative is voting neither in favor of or against the proposal but wishes his or her vote to be recorded.

7. In accordance with Section 9 of the Fundamental Laws, the Underhusen may override a veto by the Overhusen.
(a) In order to override the veto, the bill must be reintroduced to the floor in accordance with Section 3.
(b) If the bill receives a two-thirds supermajority vote, the Overhusen veto shall be overruled, and the bill passed as law.

8.At the Conclusion of each election, the Monarch shall immediately open poll within the halls of the Underhusen, where prospective candidates will have 48 hours to stand as a candidate for Speaker of the Underhusen. Following the 48 hour period, all Skrifa may have one vote for Speaker of the Underhusen. The poll will remain open for 48 hours or until all elected Skrifa have voted and no tie for doing so has occurred. The Speaker shall be chosen by popularity vote.
(a)The time period may be shortened by the descretion of the Monarch if there is a tie vote for the Underhusen or the time that the Skrifa have office is shortened for any reason other than a Recall.
(b) Should there only be one candidate running that one candidate is to be speaker at the end of the nomination period. There shall be no voting period in this instance.

The Speaker of the Assembly

9. The Speaker of the Assembly shall have the power to set an agenda for the Underhusen at the beginning of his or her term and to revise this agenda throughout the term.

10. The Speaker of the Assembly shall have the power to bring matters before the Underhusen to a vote within the parameters established by Section 4(a) of this Act.

11. The Speaker of the Assembly shall have the power to close votes and declare the official outcome of votes on matters before the Underhusen within the parameters established by Section 5 of this Act.
(a) The Speaker of the Assembly shall have the power to leave voting open for votes to the record after official voting has closed.

12. The Speaker of the Assembly shall have the power to invite any citizen to speak before the Underhusen for any duration that he or she deems necessary during the term.
(a) All members of the Royal Family shall have a standing invitation to speak before the Underhusen.

13. The Speaker of the Assembly shall have the power to determine procedure related to any matter that is not covered by this Act at his or her discretion.

14. The Speaker of the Assembly shall have the power to appoint a Speaker pro tempore from among the representatives of the Underhusen who shall, during a temporary absence of the Speaker of the Assembly, preside over the Underhusen.
(a) The Speaker pro tempore, whenever he or she is presiding over the Underhusen, shall be subject to all constitutional and statutory constraints placed upon the Speaker of the Assembly.
(b) Any Underhusen representative may make a motion to empower the Speaker pro tempore in the event that the Speaker of the Assembly is absent without notice for longer than five days. Such a motion shall be brought to a vote by the Speaker pro tempore immediately upon being seconded by another representative.
(c) The Speaker pro tempore shall cease to preside over the Underhusen upon the return of the Speaker of the Assembly.
(d) In the absence of both the Speaker of the Assembly and the Speaker Pro Tempore, the Underhusen may decide on a temporary Speaker pro tempore from its number by process of a majority vote.
(e) The Speaker must select a Speaker Pro Tempore within one week of being elected. Should the Speaker fail to select a Speaker Pro Tempore then the Speaker Pro Tempore is the candidate that got the second most amount of votes, in the election of the Speaker; should there have been an election with more than one candidate then, in the event of a tie for second place, the Speaker must choose one of the candidates. If the speaker fails to do so the monarch is to choose a Speaker Pro Tempore out of the tied candidates. Furthermore should there have been no other candidates in the election of the speaker, then one will be chosen at random from the members of the Underhusen, excluding the Speaker.

15. Sunshine Policy
(a) Members of The Underhusen shall adhere to a Sunshine Policy upon passage of this Act.
(b) All topics which are debated and/or voted on in The Underhusen shall be made public at the end of each term of the elected Skrifa.

Amendments of the Procedural Rules
16. The Speaker of the Underhusen, or Speaker Pro Tempore if he/she is in use, shall maintain a link to all amendments to these Procedural Rules of the Underhusen.

17. The Speaker of the Underhusen, or Speaker Pro Tempore if he/she is in use, shall keep an easily accessible archive of all former and current votes in a way that he/she chooses that all citizens shall have access to.

Definitions
18. Sunshine Policy shall be defined as "a policy where discussions or documents that were initially kept confidential, be released to the public."

Okay, rather than go about it exactly as previous amendments did, I prefer to go about it this way. I don't know why. I realize it would be easier the other way, but whatever. That's how I roll. :P

Anyways, I went the route of an amendment. I feel that's the way we should go about this. I haven't worked up an amendmnet for The Overhusen yet because I want to see how this one goes over first. Not to mention that if we do go for an amendment, it would have to be done as 2 separate acts since they deal in different parts of The Storting.

The only changes are that 2 new sections were added and the sections dealing in Amendments were renumbered appropriately.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Chanku on June 14, 2015, 04:54:59 PM
CoS you CAN'T do a Procedural Rules amendment though.
This is because it's a Storting discussions area. As such the Procedural Rules can only mandate that Discussions only participated in by members of the Underhusen can apply. The same applies with the Overhusen Procedural Rules with only members of the Overhusen. As such it defeats the purpose of having a combined discussions area.

Also, your amendment is horribly done because of the fact that you failed to actually look at the previous amendments, of which we have already had an omnibus amendment act, thus that must be named the second amendment act. Further the fact that an amendment act of that nature needlessly amends the Procedural Rules only to add a small section, which should done in a normal amendment act. Further you write a section, plus two sub-sections in needlessly, and then define the section in which the sub-sections reside. While I am not advocating and suggest all members of the Storting reject the Procedural Laws route, the better written law looks like this:

Spoiler
Quote from: Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Amendment X
Title
1. This shall be titled the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Amendment X

Amendments
2. A Heading shall be added before the Heading of
Quote
Amendments to the Procedural Rules
. This new heading shall read
Quote
Provisions for Classified Discussions

3. Under that heading, section 13 shall be added, and it shall read:
Quote
13. All classified discussions participated in by only the members of the Underhusen, must be declassified by the Speaker, Speaker Pro Tempore if activated, or the Secretary of the Underhusen during the last day of elections.

4. Section 13 shall become Section 14 and Section 14 shall become Section 15.
  4.1 The Sections listed here refer to the Sections of the
        Procedural Rules before this amendment.
Although amendments to the procedural rules for this is a horrible idea because of the fact that your usage of the "phrase" end of the term, means that it is declassified AFTER the new Storting takes their seats. Which is also why we aren't doing it by procedural rules anyway.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Emoticonius on June 14, 2015, 08:14:15 PM
Okay, somebody else take a crack at it, lol.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Govindia on June 14, 2015, 08:19:14 PM
The Church of Satan posted on June 14, 2015, 08:14:15 PM
Okay, somebody else take a crack at it, lol.
I will post something when I return this evening from my RL volunteering.

Much to say on this, I have.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Laurentus on June 18, 2015, 08:20:56 AM
So... bump?

I'd like to make some headway here. Given the controversial nature of these forums, I don't want to pass something that most people can't agree with.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Emoticonius on June 18, 2015, 11:32:10 AM
I'll give it another try. In fact I'd like to work with anybody that's up for putting together a draft. After all, we ought to be working together on this. :)

Anybody that wants to help put together a draft please PM me. I'll be up in about 8 to 10 hours, but feel free to get started while I sleep. :P
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Govindia on June 18, 2015, 05:21:55 PM
Emoticonius posted on June 18, 2015, 11:32:10 AM
I'll give it another try. In fact I'd like to work with anybody that's up for putting together a draft. After all, we ought to be working together on this. :)

Anybody that wants to help put together a draft please PM me. I'll be up in about 8 to 10 hours, but feel free to get started while I sleep. [emoji14]
Check out my draft sir on Page 2 @Emoticonius.  I would be interested in working with you

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Laurentus on June 20, 2015, 01:41:46 AM
I'm going to try something here.

I'd like all members of the Storting to deliver their own, in-depth views regarding this, which currently would be:

Overhusen
1. @Wuufu
2. @Reon
3. @Colberius X
4. @Wintermoot
5. @Joshua Bluteisen
Underhusen
6. @The Church of Satan
7. @HannahB
8. @Aragonn
9. @tatte
10. Myself
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Wintermoot on June 20, 2015, 02:09:36 AM
I don't have a strong opinion, but I respectfully think you guys are making this needlessly complicated. I think all that really needs to be decided is when discussions in general should be released, realizing that not all discussions may be voted on or even be actionable, and then a mechanism for keeping something classifed if needed. I don't believe there needs to be different rules for different sorts of Acts, and I would think leaking information from the private area would already be covered in law law by Section 6.1.2 of the Code of Criminal Laws.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Michi on June 20, 2015, 02:40:00 AM
I have to agree with Mooty on this.  It's turning into an exceptionally complicated matter when it should strictly be a clear-cut procedure.  My suggestion was just to rectify it slightly for revocations since that process on its own is quite messy.  We don't have to go in and make fully detailed laws for every single type of topic that may appear in there.  If anything, it just needs to be three simple things:

*Rules regarding typical matters that may be discussed (IE when these would be revealed to the public)
*Rules regarding sensitive matters that may be discussed (IE when these would be revealed to the public, and the idea of exceptions)
*Rules regarding the inviting of individuals into the forum for things such as appeals (IE when it'd be okay to bring an outside person into the forum, such as allowing them to appeal directly).

Going any further than that seems a bit unnecessary.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Chanku on June 20, 2015, 03:10:35 AM
My initial suggestions still stand as well.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Aaron Specter on June 20, 2015, 06:18:40 PM
Laurentus posted on June 20, 2015, 01:41:46 AM
6. @The Church of Satan

FYI This didn't work because Church of Satan changed his name to @Emoticonius.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Joshua Bluteisen on June 20, 2015, 06:58:25 PM
No point in overcomplicating this; it's just a subforum. If we want to go about handling when things are made public, we should just go by majority vote or approval of the chairman/whatever of either house.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Emoticonius on June 21, 2015, 11:29:44 AM
I agree with aoe.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Chanku on June 21, 2015, 11:18:17 PM
I would like to chime in and say that legally speaking, only the Chairman of the Overhusen can declassify documents containing the Overhusen members only. The Speaker was stripped of the authority to 'fill in' procedure when there wasn't/isn't. So legally, the UH can't even declassify their documents. Besides we do technically need a law to allow the declassification of join-discussions, which is the point of the subforum.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Emoticonius on June 22, 2015, 12:23:16 AM
Well, the way I see it the 2 best options are either:

1.) Leave it at the discretion of the monarch.
2.) Draft a law that covers both the UH and the OH, requiring either everything to be declassified after the terms end or some bureaucratic/democratic process involving voting between members of the UH & OH respectively.

Although maybe things from the private forum could be declassified via a summary of each discussion.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Chanku on June 22, 2015, 01:02:30 AM
It can't be at the monarch's discretion though...it's illegal for the monarch to really do anything in that regard. This is due to Article II, Section 6 of the Fundamental Laws, which reads:

Quote from: Fundamental Laws: Article II - Section 6
6. The Monarch shall have the authority to issue decrees in relation to policies concerning the internal affairs of the Executive, the military, foreign affairs, familial houses, the nobility, and any other Executive authority which has been expressly granted through this document or any relevant laws.

The declassification of Storting material has not been granted to the Monarch as an executive power. Therefore we would have to pass a law to do so. Technically it would fall under the Administrator (whom is the same as the Monarch, but when talking in legal discussions you should make the distinction between the two). However the Administrator's power would only be to move topics, and what not. The Administrator would have no authority over the actual status of the Documents, which is what this is about.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Emoticonius on June 22, 2015, 07:20:53 AM
Then we know what our options are. So now that we know how we all feel about the matter, let's put that into action and get some work done. :)
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Govindia on June 22, 2015, 10:43:50 AM
Emoticonius posted on June 22, 2015, 07:20:53 AM
Then we know what our options are. So now that we know how we all feel about the matter, let's put that into action and get some work done. :)
I will respond to this later today.  I have been a bit behind on things since the hospitalisation. 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Chanku on June 23, 2015, 03:45:26 PM
Quote
Title
1. This shall be titled the Declassification of Private Storting
    Discussion Procedure Act

Procedure
2. All other discussions are to be classified until 30 minutes
    before the end of the Session. During that time the
    Speaker of the Underhusen and the Chairman of the
    Overhusen shall release all classified documents.

How about this? Just a simple little law to allow this to be done.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Govindia on June 23, 2015, 03:47:13 PM
Chanku posted on June 23, 2015, 03:45:26 PM
Quote
Title
1. This shall be titled the Declassification of Private Storting
    Discussion Procedure Act

Procedure
2. All other discussions are to be classified until 30 minutes
    before the end of the Session. During that time the
    Speaker of the Underhusen and the Chairman of the
    Overhusen shall release all classified documents.

How about this? Just a simple little law to allow this to be done.
I'll add my revisions later.  gotta head out for a bit

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Emoticonius on June 23, 2015, 09:55:39 PM
I like it Chanku. :)
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Aragonn on June 24, 2015, 11:57:27 PM
I'm glad to see we're not over complicating things now. :)

I apologize for my absence. I shoul be able to be more active now.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Emoticonius on June 27, 2015, 01:54:23 AM
I'd like to at least here what the other members of The Storting think of Chanku's draft. I figured Gov would have gotten around to responding to it by now, but that's fine. I'm sure he's been busy. Since this thing affects both the UH and the OH, I figure both should express their opinions here, but if the OH would rather wait to discuss it amongst themselves after the UH sends it their way that'd be understandable.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Laurentus on June 27, 2015, 05:03:06 AM
Chanku posted on June 23, 2015, 03:45:26 PM
Quote
Title
1. This shall be titled the Declassification of Private Storting
Discussion Procedure Act

Procedure
2. All other discussions are to be classified until 30 minutes
before the end of the Session. During that time the
Speaker of the Underhusen and the Chairman of the
Overhusen shall release all classified documents.

How about this? Just a simple little law to allow this to be done.

Aren't we forgetting something?

Quote
Title
1. This shall be titled the Declassification of Private Storting Discussion Procedure Act

Procedure
2. All discussions are to be classified until 30 minutes before the end of the Session. During that time the Speaker of the Underhusen and the Chairman of the Overhusen shall release all classified documents.

3. The Monarch, Speaker of the Underhusen and Chairman of the Overhusen reserve the power to classify discussions beyond the end of a Session. The same can be done by a two thirds majority vote within the Storting.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: HannahB on June 27, 2015, 05:21:35 AM
Sorry, I realise simply sitting in silence is no use to anyone, I've just been trying to avoid embarrassing myself, yeah not very good..

Anyway personally I like Chanku's proposal there, it is short and to the point, while also covering most areas. It doesnt mention certain posts being withheld for any reason though and that seemed to be something that might be useful, so then another law would be needed to allow that, but that seems inefficient, to me at least.
In which case it might be more prudent to attempt to add something to this: a second part potentially allowing things that are sensitive or still ongoing to remain private past the time laid out here.

I hope I managed to lay out my thought process well enough there...

Edit: damn, was on my phone didn't see anyone else had posted, I like Laurentus' altered version... I'll leave this here anyways...
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Aragonn on June 28, 2015, 04:07:12 PM
And what shall be done when we're discussing revoking one's citizenship? Shall we write them a PM notifying them of this and the initial reasons for doing so?
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Chanku on June 28, 2015, 07:41:15 PM
Aragonn posted on June 28, 2015, 04:07:12 PM
And what shall be done when we're discussing revoking one's citizenship? Shall we write them a PM notifying them of this and the initial reasons for doing so?

That's out of the scope of this. It's possible if you wish, however the bill should really just be simple...So this is what emerged.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Emoticonius on June 28, 2015, 10:06:52 PM
I agree. We over-complicated the matter once already. Let's not do it again. :P

I do quite like Laurentus' version.
Title: [Discussion]Private Storting Forum Procedural Rules
Post by: Aragonn on June 29, 2015, 02:07:08 AM
I'm not saying it has to go in the same bill. I'm just saying it still needs to be addressed.