View Topic

Could we set up a system that allows the UH to empower the Speaker with greater authority if unusual situations aris?

Such would be my preference.

As would it be mine.  I'd rather everyone agree to give the Speaker wiggle room if such situations arise, rather than the Speaker having essentially free reign anytime he/she damn well pleases and we end up having a speaker that may dictate practically any instance something where they have the power to dictate things how they want.

Like I said, that specific passage has hurt things before in the sense that personal agenda/bias, and it will do it again.  Allowing that passage when knowing that sort of risk is as unnecessary as your stance is against us wanting to keep it out.  There either needs to be a middle ground that can be found rather than keeping it in there to its full extent, or it doesn't need to be in there at all.  Keeping it out didn't hurt things for us in my previous term as far as I'm concerned, and keeping it out won't hurt us anymore as well.  As Laurentus said, having something that gives wiggle room when necessary is fine enough.

We're adults.  We can handle being thrown situations we're not normally given, and we'll handle them fine like we have done before.  We don't need to make the Speaker an all mighty power that can dictate everything he wants since he can loophole the fuck out of it since he essentially has unlimited power.

Majority vote of Skrifa to give the Speaker additional powers to resolve X situation.  Speaker or PT will hold powers until Y date or until X dilemma is resolved, whichever comes first. In the event of a tie in the vote, the vote will be considered failed. Speaker doesn't get a vote.

All it needs is a title.

Let's get on that.

Perhaps something like: Temporary Enhanced Speaker Powers Act. It's a work in progress, but it delivers exactly what we want it to.

Also, @HannahB, you do remember that we value your opinion, right?

Well it was just a matter of time thanks Laurentus!

Anyway:
I personally have my doubts about that the ability for the UH to grant additional powers to the speaker, I feel this "costs mode than it's worth" as in we risk more from this if say somehow a speaker and UH get elected with I'll intent. Probably not that extreme though.

I am going to set out an example of the kind of thing I think could maybe happen, say: like in the last term, there is an act that the UH passes multiple times but the OH keeps refusing to second the act. Then the speaker could potentially become empowered and use this to subvert the OH and hence the legal system in general for what could easily be entirely the wrong reasons.

I am sure there are examples of positive usues as well such as a corrupted OH or extreamly inactive UH, but there are currently ways around that already, I have no doubt there are other examples as well.

So it's my belif that if we were to allow this it would need to be highly regulated, the circumstances to allow it would need to be defined and also what the full extent of the powers could be.

Seems to me that would be a lot of work, and it also seems to me that the UH get's on OK without this ability. And in that case I personally don't think it's a good idea. Though I am open to arguments for the contrary?

Well, I'm on the same boat as you in thinking we've gotten along so far with that section gone.

However, we are going to come across situations where we're going to end up being at a loss because it's something that's not already covered in our procedure anywhere.  I do think there needs to be some sort of fail safe in case that does happen...however, I don't think that fail safe should be giving essentially limitless power back to the Speaker to where they can pretty much do as they please.

There needs to be some sort of alternative we can do that potentially solves that conundrum of things that aren't covered...but doesn't have the added effect of being a tool that could be easily corruptible as you pointed out could happen even with it being restricted to a vote.

A vote is the only way.

Additionally, it's an exaggerated fear for corruption, I believe. With a vote, the Speaker can't just do whatever he pleases. And the Speaker has never been able to go around the OH anyway.

And take note that we're not giving unlimited power, we're merely giving additional power to decide on unprecedented situations.

Discussion period is up today.  Motion to extend debate for another two days.

I second.

Motion passed.  Discussion is open until the end of Thursday

Debate is slated to end at the end of today.

However, there has been zero discussion happening in this topic.

Therefore I will ask if anyone would like to make the motion to vote or table this bill.

Technically you could motion to extend once more...but as the last extension proved to be quite pointless, extending it again might prove to be equally so.

I suppose since I motioned to extend, it was on me to provide more input.

I'll motion to table, since I don't like this and want it to go away. 

I motion to vote because of the fact that this has some good parts.

So I've just read the draft at the beginning again. It's really short.

I'll give Chanku the benefit of the doubt, and second the motion to extend debate, but then I think it's on him to sway us one way or another.

Um...there isn't a motion to extend debate already.

So I've just read the draft at the beginning again. It's really short.

I'll give Chanku the benefit of the doubt, and second the motion to extend debate, but then I think it's on him to sway us one way or another.

There's a motion to vote or table at this time.  There was already extended debate, and there was no discussion happening, so I imagine everyone's done talking about it at this point.

So you can second Chanku's motion to vote, Point Breeze's motion to table...or motion to extend debate once more if you think it'll serve purpose this time.