View Topic

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

Yeah, I see where you're coming from with this. Ok, I'll ask: do we as an Underhusen think codifying an agenda as a requirement at the start of a term is a good idea? North thinks otherwise, but when I proposed the idea elsewhere I received no opposition, or indeed much feedback at all.

While I do agree that the UH should have an agenda that guides their activities for the term, I'm not sure making it a statutory requirement is the best route, especially with all the comexities we keep adding.

Would it be sufficient to simply add
"The Speaker has the responsibility of devising an agenda at the beginning of the term."

?

That could work, yeah - more of an as-needed thing for a term with a lot on its plate rather than a requirement when there might not always be enough needing doing to put on an agenda.

What do the rest of us think? If this is the generally held position I'll modify the original

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 if people with different ideas for an agenda get elected? What if, say, someone with a OA proposal and someone who opposes an OA are elected? And why do we need an agenda? And Wintermoot is correct, what happens if no one can agree? Is criminal action taken? If so would that not be a bit of an overreaction? If not then why does this legislation exist? And if the last discussed ideas for an agenda get pushed as the official agenda then why would anyone expect anything to get done if an agenda is something that a UH cannot agree on.

I disagree with agendas. Sometimes things dont need to be fixed and agendas push people to reinvent the wheel. So thats why I dont support your legislation.

An agenda isn't a be-all, end-all "If you don't achieve this you're a criminal" kind of thing, merely a guideline for what the Underhusen HOPES to achieve in their term. It's not a requirement that every agenda item is completed, hence the roll-over effect, nor is it criminal for an item not to be completed at all - as you say, that'd be an overreaction. If no items are agreed upon, then I guess that term doesn't know what sort of things it'll be trying to achieve, which is fine - sometimes, we don't know what legislation we might have to pass until something happens.

If people with different ideas get elected, that's democracy, and that's good. If two people have an opposing view over something, let's use your example of the OA, instead of an agenda item reading "We will introduce an Open Assembly" it would read "We will discuss the potential of an Open Assembly whilst seeking to evaluate its flaws so that a suitable compromise can be reached." An agenda item doesn't have to be set in stone, my way or the high way, if that makes sense.

An agenda is merely meant to be "Here's a list of things we hope to discuss or legislate on this term, in case you wanted to know in advance rather than wait for a topic to pop up in the Underhusen forum."

Does that answer a few of your questions, North? And does Point Breeze's suggestion of making it the Speaker's responsibility but NOT a requirement alleviate your concerns? If so, that'll be the way we take this forward; if not, we'll continue to discuss this.

I just don't see the point of this legislation. It's unlikely that I will.

I just don't see the point of this legislation. It's unlikely that I will.

Are you of similar mind to Chanku, in that you hold the opinion that the necessary and proper clause occludes and supplants any attempts we might make to legislate on procedure like this, rendering the attempts pointless in your eyes? I'm just trying to work out which position you're coming from here so I'm aware for future legislative efforts.

I'm on the crossroads on this bill.

While I do agree that it's nice to have a set agenda so that the UH knows where it's going, I also don't like the idea of it being a requirement.  I think that should be up to the Speaker's discretion whether they want to actually draft such an agenda.

What happens should the Speaker be active, but choose not to draft such a thing in their term?

I'm on the crossroads on this bill.

While I do agree that it's nice to have a set agenda so that the UH knows where it's going, I also don't like the idea of it being a requirement.  I think that should be up to the Speaker's discretion whether they want to actually draft such an agenda.

What happens should the Speaker be active, but choose not to draft such a thing in their term?

Under yourPoint Breeze's suggested revision of the Bill, which looks like the version we'll take forward, nothing. It's a responsibility of the Speaker to draft an agenda if they think it useful, if I'm understanding it right, not a necessity. Is that correct/are people happier with that version?

Perhaps in the lead-in to a particularly busy term the agenda can be used to lay out a list of what needs to be done and what's less important? A kind of... here's all the things this term has to do, but here's all the ones that are essential? I'm not sure, and would welcome suggestions.

I just think turning it into a forceful act is setting a bad precedent to creating acts that force other actions on either the Speaker or other UH members...hell, even the secretary or the Speaker PT.

Certain things should be encouraged for the sake of continued efficiency...but not pushed as a requirement: Keeping record of passed/failed acts/bills (IE the archive which has yet to be updated), everyone (not just the Speaker) discussing and setting up an agenda for the new term, etc...

Whereas certain things should continue to be required for the same reasons: The Speaker electing a Speaker PT and Secretary in the timely period, the Speaker formally passing motions in the thread to avoid any confusion or backlash later outside of the UH, the secretary posting discussions for the citizens for continued transparency, etc...

There needs to be a line on what we require, and what we encourage, rather than trying to push for everything to be either or.  If it's something that's absolutely necessary for us to continue to do a good job by us or by the citizens, then it should be required.  Everything else such as this and other examples that I listed in that first example paragraph should be highly encouraged and highly recommended...but not required because they themselves aren't highly necessary for the UH to continue to do its job effectively...they're just really nice additions that would help us out a bit more.

I just think turning it into a forceful act is setting a bad precedent to creating acts that force other actions on either the Speaker or other UH members...hell, even the secretary or the Speaker PT.

Certain things should be encouraged for the sake of continued efficiency...but not pushed as a requirement: Keeping record of passed/failed acts/bills (IE the archive which has yet to be updated), everyone (not just the Speaker) discussing and setting up an agenda for the new term, etc...

Whereas certain things should continue to be required for the same reasons: The Speaker electing a Speaker PT and Secretary in the timely period, the Speaker formally passing motions in the thread to avoid any confusion or backlash later outside of the UH, the secretary posting discussions for the citizens for continued transparency, etc...

There needs to be a line on what we require, and what we encourage, rather than trying to push for everything to be either or.  If it's something that's absolutely necessary for us to continue to do a good job by us or by the citizens, then it should be required.  Everything else such as this and other examples that I listed in that first example paragraph should be highly encouraged and highly recommended...but not required because they themselves aren't highly necessary for the UH to continue to do its job effectively...they're just really nice additions that would help us out a bit more.

So you're in agreement with Point Breeze's (sorry, I said your in the last post) suggestion to change the amendment to something along the lines of, quote:

"The Speaker has the responsibility of devising an agenda at the beginning of the term."

By modifying this, we can make it a recommendation for Speakers to create agendas in busy periods, for general ease of understanding what's hopefully going to be achieved etc, but not a requirement should it be a quiet period.

I'm not saying make everything a requirement or necessity, merely suggesting that in a lot of cases having something codified makes future understanding, interpretation and enactment far easier based on precedent and legislation.

I'll admit I was confused when you said "your"  since above was my first post in here. 

But I guess yeah.  We do want to make it an added thing on the Speaker should they choose to do so, but not have a repercussion if they don't...since we've had terms without a set agenda, and it's worked out quite fine.  It really just depends on the team that we get, because even with a set agenda it's not guaranteed to go that way at all.

If anything though, to avoid clashes as North said, I think it should be discussed and voted upon first thing, right with Speaker nominations/elections.
 
If not that, then with the current term discussing and creating it for the next term.  That way it's not one person creating it, and there's no clash of ideas since it'll be a group consensus...whether it be the current or previous group that was responsible.

I considered a pre-term agenda created by the previous Underhusen, but decided against it in case of the new term deciding they don't like it. There is potential in the idea, though, and definitely in the idea that Speaker vote and Agenda vote run concurrently.

I just don't see the point of this legislation. It's unlikely that I will.

Are you of similar mind to Chanku, in that you hold the opinion that the necessary and proper clause occludes and supplants any attempts we might make to legislate on procedure like this, rendering the attempts pointless in your eyes? I'm just trying to work out which position you're coming from here so I'm aware for future legislative efforts.

Laws should be simple and direct so as not to confuse the public with labyrinthine legislation. To that end, I always ask myself what the point of a proposal is. Does it fix a problem now or down the line? Does it help people? In this case, I fail to see the point, I fail to see why this legislation should exist. Agendas are fine but  a) requires a consensus which is pretty hard to achieve sometimes and b) push people to try and "spice up" their UH, at least in my opinion. And why even make it a requirement if we dont really intend to enforce it? Lastly, every UH is different. This UH wants an agenda and thats fine but what if the next one doesn't? Must we force procedure down their throats because it works for us? So thats why I oppose this. I dont know why Chanku doesnt but thats why I do not support this.

It's been over two days, so we should decide whether to vote on the bill, table it, or extend debate.