View Topic

1: Title
1.1. This Act shall be styled as the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Amendment XV.

2: Amendments
2.1. A new section, numbered 9, shall be added before the existing section 9, with subsequent sections renumbered accordingly. The new section shall read as follows:

9. Once a Speaker has been elected, they have three (3) days in which to devise and propose an agenda for the following term to the Underhusen for approval. At the end of the three (3) day period, the agenda must be approved by not less than half of the Underhusen.
   (c) An agenda is defined in this context as a list of targets the Speaker, with agreement of the Underhusen, wishes to be achieved by the end of the term.
   (b) If an agenda is not approved within the three (3) day limit, an additional period of discussion can be proposed by the Speaker and agreed upon by the Underhusen. This period must not exceed one (1) week.

Quickly double-checked this with @HannahB, and it got a thumbs up, so posted it here. Thoughts?

@Pengu @Point Breeze @Laurentus @Barnes @North

Who decides whether an agenda item has been achieved?

Who decides whether an agenda item has been achieved?

I imagine the Underhusen itself decides if they reached or achieved a target/goal, although we could make it so that the next term's speaker does.

Forcing the UH to come to consensus about whether to cross items off an agenda might be overly bureaucratic. A Speaker should have enough sense to determine that. If the next speaker doesn't think the previous session did an adequate job, they can reflect that in their own agenda, so there's no real danger in prematurely crossing items off.

Forcing the UH to come to consensus about whether to cross items off an agenda might be overly bureaucratic. A Speaker should have enough sense to determine that. If the next speaker doesn't think the previous session did an adequate job, they can reflect that in their own agenda, so there's no real danger in prematurely crossing items off.

Ok, removed section (c) entirely, does that work?

I dont support this and will not vote for it.

I dont support this and will not vote for it.

What parts of this act don't you like, or do you just disagree with the idea as a whole? With input we  can improve it

I disagree with the very premise and feel that it is not needed.

I disagree with the very premise and feel that it is not needed.

Why, if I might enquire? An agenda helps crystalize the goals of an Underhusen term and allows not only the Skifra themselves but the general public to tell whether or not the UH is performing its duties to the standard it holds itself to. It also makes it easier to plan out a term's work for the Speaker and Skifra involved, in my opinion, rather than doing whatever happens to fall into their laps.

What happens if the one week extension period ends and there's still no agenda?

Didn't see this in the Citizens area, so thought I'd ask here (seriously, discussing things in the Citizens area is good!)

What happens if the one week extension period ends and there's still no agenda?

Didn't see this in the Citizens area, so thought I'd ask here (seriously, discussing things in the Citizens area is good!)

I was under the impression that as it's merely a procedural rules amendment it could be kept in house, as no other Secretary posted Proc Rules amendment threads in the CitPlat - I'll correct that now

As for your question, I hadn't put much thought into that and was hoping I'd get a response from my fellow Skifra to aid in perfecting this amendment. My suggestion, if I were to make one, would be that after the week expires the sections of the agenda that saw least issue would be approved and the contentious targets would be dropped.

It's not a big deal, but you never know when a Citizen or Monarch might have an observation or suggestion, even on a little in house thing

In that case, what if the Speaker simply fails to produce an agenda in that time? Say, they get busy in real life or something happens that prevent them from doing so?

It's not a big deal, but you never know when a Citizen or Monarch might have an observation or suggestion, even on a little in house thing

In that case, what if the Speaker simply fails to produce an agenda in that time? Say, they get busy in real life or something happens that prevent them from doing so?

If an agenda isn't introduced in time, I'm torn between (and would welcome opinions on) either asking Skifra to propose an agenda themselves as a fallback, or requiring the Speaker to introduce one upon their return. That said, if too long passes and a Speaker isn't active, the duty could well fall to the SPT.

Again, this is at the proposal stage, so I'm hoping we'll hear back from the other Skifra in regards to how to improve it What are your thoughts, Mootles? Any preference?

Bump: here's my proposed additions to the Bill as it currently stands;

1: Title
1.1. This Act shall be styled as the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Amendment XV.

2: Amendments
2.1. A new section, numbered 9, shall be added before the existing section 9, with subsequent sections renumbered accordingly. The new section shall read as follows:

9. Once a Speaker has been elected, they have three (3) days in which to devise and propose an agenda for the following term to the Underhusen for approval. At the end of the three (3) day period, the agenda must be approved by not less than half of the Underhusen.
   (a) An agenda is defined in this context as a list of targets the Speaker, with agreement of the Underhusen, wishes to be achieved by the end of the term.
   (b) If an agenda is not approved within the three (3) day limit, an additional period of discussion can be proposed by the Speaker and agreed upon by the Underhusen. This period must not exceed one (1) week, and if at the end of this period no agenda has been agreed upon only the parts of the proposal that have not caused issue will become that term's agenda.
   (c) If a Speaker goes inactive after election, and no agenda is proposed, it falls to either the Speaker pro Tempore if one is active or the Skifra themselves to discuss and agree upon an agenda.

Bolded and underlined additions.

I think, in attempting to codify an informal process, we're creating more ambiguity and vagueness than existed previously.