View Topic

I realize we literally just passed the Structural Amendments to the Procedural rules, however this came up in another thread being discussed, and it does need to be addressed:

Title
This act shall be cited as the Expedite Procedure Amendment

1. This act shall modify section 3 of the Underhusen Procedural Rules, which currently reads:

"3. Any proposal introduced into the Underhusen must be considered by the Underhusen for a minimum of two days before a motion to vote or table can be made.  If no motion has been made or seconded after five days, Skrifa must enter a motion to vote, table, or extend discussion.
      (a) Any Skrifa other than the Speaker may motion to expedite at any time after a proposal has been introduced.  If the motion receives a second, the bill will proceed to a vote no later than 24 hours after the second.
      (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.
       (c)  If a motion to table a proposal passes, the proposal will be tabled.  Should a Skrifa wish to revive debate or bring the proposal to a vote, they must motion to revive discussion or motion to vote.  If either motion passes, the Underhusen shall follow normal procedure for discussion or voting.
       (d)   For a motion to table to pass, a majority of Skrifa must support the motion.  After a motion to table receives a second, the Speaker will ask the Skrifa to announce in favor or not in favor.  The Speaker shall not vote on a motion to table except in the event of a tie."

Section 3(a) shall be amended to read:

       (a) Any Skrifa other than the Speaker may motion to expedite at any time after a proposal has been introduced.  If the motion receives a second, the bill will proceed to a vote no later than 24 hours after the second.  In cases such as a Revocation of Citizenship or other controversial bills/laws, the ability to expedite shall be relinquished.

Obviously I'm quite open to changing that last line, as I wasn't sold on it when I wrote it up just now.  However, I think this is important because in the case of a Revocation, I do agree that the right to expedite should be taken away as it's a matter of high importance and it impacts a member's being able to continue to be on Wintreath...so they should be allotted the full discussion time to present their case.  In other matters such as ones that are crucial to Wintreath's security or the like, full discussion should be required before it can be taken to a vote, rather than pushing it through without talking about it.

What are others' thoughts on this?

Loose phrasing makes us sad. "Acts of great importance" needs to be removed or changed and I would prefer if things could be expedited if there was a unanimous vote from the Underhusen.

Loose phrasing makes us sad. "Acts of great importance" needs to be removed or changed and I would prefer if things could be expedited if there was a unanimous vote from the Underhusen.

I was thinking along the same lines.

Instead of unanimous, what about requiring the number of votes in favour of expediting to be at least twice the number of votes against?

I think that in many cases it is important that one man be able to stand against an army.
I would absolutely prefer that it be unanimous.

The nature of an expedition makes it completely safe to only have it occur through unanimous vote. And it would in fact be dangerous not to have it happen through unanimous vote. After all, voting will take place either way.

The purpose of the expedite is so the Speaker can move forward Bills that need no discussion, not so that Skifra can not discuss something they want to hurry through. I personally disagree with making it a vote/motion, especially considering this comes as an almost direct response to the desire to expedite a citizenship revocation bill - something that shouldn't be expedited.

Pengu did write that ...

(a) Any Skrifa other than the Speaker may motion to expedite at any time after a proposal has been introduced.  If the motion receives a second, the bill will proceed to a vote no later than 24 hours after the second.  In cases such as a Revocation of Citizenship or other acts of great importance, the ability to expedite shall be removed.

Pengu did write that ...

(a) Any Skrifa other than the Speaker may motion to expedite at any time after a proposal has been introduced.  If the motion receives a second, the bill will proceed to a vote no later than 24 hours after the second.  In cases such as a Revocation of Citizenship or other acts of great importance, the ability to expedite shall be removed.

That's not my point - it's more that the current setup worked perfectly until suddenly a desire was found to hurry through a discussion. I wholeheartedly approve of the third clause of this proposed Act but see no need for the change at all.

The purpose of the expedite is so the Speaker can move forward Bills that need no discussion, not so that Skifra can not discuss something they want to hurry through. I personally disagree with making it a vote/motion, especially considering this comes as an almost direct response to the desire to expedite a citizenship revocation bill - something that shouldn't be expedited.

This is exactly what this amendment would fix, and my reason for fixing it.  As it stands now, a Speaker that may have a vendetta against a member can push their act and would only need a person to second it.  This would stamp out not only that, but it would require that they discuss acts such as that as well as one similar to the NPO citizenship and other equivalent types. At the moment I think the process to expedite is fine, I just think the list of bills that can be expedited should have limits rather than be infinite.

So as I said in the beginning, I'm not completely sold on having "or other acts of great importance" for that final tidbit.  Is there anything anyone would suggest changing that to?

"Controvercial proposals/acts," maybe?

I like how that sounds, actually, though I might say "bills' instead of "acts"

Bills is the correct term for an Act that has yet to pass, I believe, so that might be a suitable amendment

I was still going to say that that's loose and doesn't mean anything until I realized that by the definition of the word any act where someone would go through the trouble of trying to mark it as controversial would make it controversial... Which is a nice little bit of recurring logic there, which I find soothing...