View Topic

Yeah, let's fix everything we can think of with one sweeping amendment. We may wish to convert all mentions of days, weeks and months into hours.

EDIT: As well as give everything a more uniformed language and style. It's currently a schizophrenic mess with all the people who've added to it and amended it over the years, each bringing their own styles to the table.

Then this may as well be an Omnibus bill. If we're going to change the language, even language as minor as hours vs. days, we might as well change everything. I'll begin work on it quite shortly.

(edit: I've merged the two topics under the Amendment XIV banner.)

Speaking of a sweeping amendment, we need to form a consensus of what exactly needs to changed so we can highlight which sections to work on. Other than the tabling procedure I've altered in section 3, I feel we need to amend section 12 to properly highlight the roles of the Speaker pro tempore and indicate where the Secretary falls in the line of succession.

Is there anything else that needs to be worked out in the Procedural Rules?

I did an Omnibus Procedural Rules Amendment some time ago, but it was felt that we ideally had to save it for when all the smaller amendments we were discussing at the time were dealt with first. We never got around to the proper Omnibus again, and that particular one I wrote is old now, but it would be a good place to start looking, as I remember fixing a great deal of odd language and styles.

As for the Secretary, I don't think they should be part of the line of succession at all.

Looking back at the archives, that indeed was you who wrote that. Looking back, a lot of that is, however, outdated. Rather, a lot of the Omnibus bill is already incorporated into the Procedural Rules.

And why shouldn't the Secretary take succession after the Speaker pro tempore in accordance with section 12(d)? Regardless, I feel that section, along with 12(e), is either poorly-worded or vague.

I also found section 10(a):

In order for a proposal to pass (excluding amendments to the Fundamental Laws), the number of "Aye" votes cast during the voting period must exceed the number of "Nay" votes.

to directly contradict section 5(a):

In the event that a vote is tied, the bill will be passed directly to the Overhusen for a vote.

The language I altered could still be carried over, but yes, a lot of that is very outdated.

Regarding the Speaker, SPT and Secretary: The secretary is meant only to post things in the citizen's platform. Because of this, it can be someone who doesn't necessarily need a lot of experience. The Speaker, at least in my opinion, should ideally have some experience under his belt, and should choose a SPT with the same. Add to that, it is unlikely that both the Speaker and SPT would get recalled/disappear. I don't think that's ever happened.

If that does happen, I think the proper thing to do would be to appoint the next most knowledgeable and experienced person, who may or may not be the Secretary.

Section 10(a) and 5(a) don't actually contradict each other. A bill does require a majority to be considered PASSED in the UH, while having a TIE would mean moving it directly to the OH for them to decide the outcome. The word "pass" does create some confusion in 10(a) though, and should probably changed to "moved" or something similar, although the meaning of the word "pass" makes sense in the context it's taken in.

I see your point about the secretary. I still feel 10(a) and 5(a) need to be sorted out, because if the Overhusen decides the outcome on a tied bill, it will be the same as them voting on it, which means it passed. That is, of course, unless the tied bill was an Underhusen-only bill, for which the Overhusen has no say anyway.

It's simply useful as a measure for the OH to decide how they're going to vote, as we could clearly see in the past with bills like Gov's revocation attempt. Had a majority been reached, it could have altered the way in which the Peers voted.

But I am not opposed to changing the word "passed," by any means.

Why have them vote twice? I'm in favour of changing 10(a) to "equal or exceed" rather than simply "exceed".

Because they wouldn't vote twice. We can't use the word "pass" when something was clearly left unresolved as a TIE, and the word "equal" would mean exactly that: that a vote that got TIED would now be considered PASSED.

What I'm saying is that the votes there are redundant because the precedent of the Overhusen deciding the Underhusen vote outcome implies that the bill passed (meaning it was successful, not just in the sense of "moved") in the first place.

Ah, but that isn't what that portion of the law applies to, I think. It's just about whether we, as the UH, declare an Act passed from our end.

I fail to see how the Overhusen's decision on that would be any different than the decision for their end. That in effect would have them vote twice if they consider the bill passed on our end: one vote to pass it from the Underhusen, and another to pass it while in the Overhusen.

We could strike section 5(a) out entirely, perhaps.

I think perhaps we've long since run into a misunderstanding. @Gerrick, what do you make of this?

Sorry, I've had a busy day/night. I don't seem to understand what you're saying, Barnes, about the OH voting twice. I think that we should just change the wording in 5a to "moved" or something as "passed" makes it sound like the UH approves it even though it's not a majority, so technically it wasn't successful. After the UH moves a tie-voted bill to the OH, the process  would be the same: the OH votes on whether or not it passes, though as Laurentus said, whether the UH voting was a majority or tie could impact the OH's votes.

As for the Secretary business, 12d says the UH would vote on a new SPT in the situation that both the speaker and SPT are absent anyway, so I don't think anything needs to be done.

Also agree the wording of 12e is fucky.