View Topic

As this isn't getting much support, I don't see the point in taking it to a vote. I motion to table whilst we discuss what we want (if anything at all) from codifying agendas in law.

@Laurentus @North @Point Breeze @Pengu @Barnes @HannahB TFA (Tags For Attention)

I second.

Out of interest, before this is tabled: are there any parts of this law that other Skifra think could be taken forward, or is it better to just drop it entirely?

I like Point Breeze's simple addition of "The Speaker has the responsibility of devising an agenda at the beginning of the term." seeing as how it is completely lacking in the Procedural Rules despite me thinking it was already included. From there we can address where Skrifa have concerns/disagreements with the Speaker's agenda and what to do in such instances. But I'm not sure how to incorporate that without an official vote (which seems like it would consume too much time from the legislative session).

Well, the disagreement is in essence the nature of the task.  When a Skrifa disagrees with an agenda item, it transforms "Decide how to do X" into "Decide whether to do X." Not a huge difference or deal as far as I'm concerned.

Although there has been a second for tabling the bill, only two out of seven Skrifa have supported the measure instead of the required four:

(c) For a motion to table to pass, the motion must be seconded by not less than one half of current Skrifa. The Speaker may only second a motion to table in the event of a tie.

Apologies, and I third this motion.

I am in favor of tabling.

Discussion tabled and locked, then.