View Topic

Fair enough.

I was pretty tired when I posted that. It was about 5AM.

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.

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.

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

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

Amendments to the Procedural Rules

. This new heading shall read

Provisions for Classified Discussions

3. Under that heading, section 13 shall be added, and it shall read:

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.

Okay, somebody else take a crack at it, lol.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

My initial suggestions still stand as well.

6. @The Church of Satan

FYI This didn't work because Church of Satan changed his name to @Emoticonius.

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.