View Topic

Title
1.  This act shall be cited as the Temporary Speaker Empowerment Act

Provisions
The following shall be added to the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen and numbered accordingly.

2.  Any Skrifa (excluding the Speaker) can make a motion to empower the Speaker with enhanced authority at any time.  After receiving a second, Skrifa will voice either support or opposition to the motion.  If a majority of Skrifa voice support for the motion, the Speaker will gain additional powers.  In the event of a tie, the vote will be considered failed.  The Skrifa presenting the motion must define the Speaker's expanded powers.

3.  The Speaker shall hold their expanded powers for a period of 7 days, or until a Skrifa makes a motion to rescind the special powers, and that motion receives a second - whichever comes first.

4.  The Speaker may not motion to empower themselves or rescind their powers, and the Speaker may not vote on empowerment.

5.  The above provisions apply to the Speaker Pro Tempore, if they are active.

Skrifa may vote AYE, NAY, or may choose to ABSTAIN from voting.

Ayyy lmao

Aye.

Nay

Nay

Why the nay and abstain votes?

I'm also curious about your vote decision Hannah, unless you're not completely sure of this bill's reason/intent for existing.

I'm sure both Chanku and HannahB have their reasons, I'm just curious what they are.

As one major problem last term was Skrifa too easily voting aye, I'm actually rather glad to see this.

Why the nay and abstain votes?

I'm also curious about your vote decision Hannah, unless you're not completely sure of this bill's reason/intent for existing.

As I hinted at on my post on "Procedural Rules Amendment XI" discussion page. Found here.

I don't think there is enough detail in this act, or rather enough protection against corruption but also against potential future annoyances, I mean it seems we are always dealing with ambiguities in previous law... it is just my feeling that this leave too much ambiguity in some regards.

I don't know, it's probably just me being paranoid and overly cautious, particularly after the last session, so feel free to disagree.

I am still going to vote Nay, but you don't have to agree don't worry.

My abstain vote was because I was both for and against this bill. However HannahB's argument is what swayed me to nay.

The only way this will backfire is with a corrupt Underhusen.

This beats unlimited full-time Speaker power by a mile.

I guess I just still don't see why it's worth having this around? Could you describe to me why and when the possibility of an expanded power would be necessary? And also why adding a section to describe when this could and could not be used would be such a bad or unnecessary thing...?

I think if answers to that satisfied me... I might be inclined to change my vote

I guess I just still don't see why it's worth having this around? Could you describe to me why and when the possibility of an expanded power would be necessary? And also why adding a section to describe when this could and could not be used would be such a bad or unnecessary thing...?

I think if answers to that satisfied me... I might be inclined to change my vote

It's for if we run into legislation that isn't covered by our current laws/rules.

An example being before there was a clarification on what Abstaining meant.  If we ran into that problem where a bill had a tie vote of two AYE and two NAY and one ABSTAIN, it would be up to the Speaker to decide how that would end.  Would the vote pass? Would it fail?  They had the power to decide that until the law was written, because the section that existed at the time allowed it to be so.

However, that kind of power can corrupt since it was freely given at ANY time that the Speaker wanted to use it.

This Act gives that power back to the Speaker, but with restrictions.  Those who choose to enact it when the time is right decide what power they're bestowing upon the Speaker, rather than giving them completely and ultimate extra powers.  And it can only be given if a majority of the UH agrees with it.

So in a sense, it's that section coming back, but with more the team backing it in given situations, and less of the corruption coming from it.

This is essentially the safety net.  The team decides when and what extra power to give the Speaker if the situation calls for it, but it's only temporary for that specific situation.  Likewise, if the UH feels as if the Speaker is abusing said power, they have all rights to take it right back from them.

I guess I just still don't see why it's worth having this around? Could you describe to me why and when the possibility of an expanded power would be necessary? And also why adding a section to describe when this could and could not be used would be such a bad or unnecessary thing...?

I think if answers to that satisfied me... I might be inclined to change my vote

It's for if we run into legislation that isn't covered by our current laws/rules.

An example being before there was a clarification on what Abstaining meant.  If we ran into that problem where a bill had a tie vote of two AYE and two NAY and one ABSTAIN, it would be up to the Speaker to decide how that would end.  Would the vote pass? Would it fail?  They had the power to decide that until the law was written, because the section that existed at the time allowed it to be so.

However, that kind of power can corrupt since it was freely given at ANY time that the Speaker wanted to use it.

This Act gives that power back to the Speaker, but with restrictions.  Those who choose to enact it when the time is right decide what power they're bestowing upon the Speaker, rather than giving them completely and ultimate extra powers.  And it can only be given if a majority of the UH agrees with it.

So in a sense, it's that section coming back, but with more the team backing it in given situations, and less of the corruption coming from it.

This is essentially the safety net.  The team decides when and what extra power to give the Speaker if the situation calls for it, but it's only temporary for that specific situation.  Likewise, if the UH feels as if the Speaker is abusing said power, they have all rights to take it right back from them.

I understand what you are saying, I think I can see the purpose in this act a lot more now, and would be inclined to vote in favour of a law that allowed what you describe, but now I am unsure whether this actually preforms that duty fully... I don't know if my inability to detect the meaning of this, is a flaw with it or simply my lack of prior knowledge...

I would also still be inclined to add more definitions and restrictions to this, but I think that is much more personal preference and the way I handle things, over what would be best for a law.

This response isn't very conclusive, but I will think over it and may change my vote later... but in the meantime it will remain "Nay".

It is hard to imagine scenarios where this law would be needed, since the entire purpose of the law is to deal with situations we've never encountered before and for which we can't develop a plan.