View Topic

Title
1. This act is to be cited as the Procedural Rules Tabling and Reintroduction Amendment Act
Amendments
2. A new section, Section 4, is to be added before the existing Section 4, and is to read as follows:

4. Proposals on which, by the end of a session, no motion or valid motion has been made (being valid upon receiving enough seconds in accordance with Section 3) shall be considered tabled.
(a) Any Skrifa may reintroduce tabled proposals from previous sessions at any time during a session.

3. Following sections are to be renumbered accordingly.

Since this legislature has seen a number of "dead" bills in the past couple of terms, I thought I would introduce this just to make the wording in the Procedural Rules clearer as to what happens to bills not acted on by the end of a term.

Since this appears to be an Underhusen procedure amendment, I'm not sure our opinions really matter.

But it seems fine to me, nonetheless.

Since this appears to be an Underhusen procedure amendment, I'm not sure our opinions really matter.

But it seems fine to me, nonetheless.

Whoops, force of habit 

If this needs to go through the OH, by all means, you've got my support.

If this needs to go through the OH, by all means, you've got my support.

It doesn't. I'm stupid. Forget I mentioned the OH

I'm all for it.

I kinda wanna pass this into law anyways. I know it doesn't require it but I really want to.

I mean, while it's cleaner this way - does it really matter? It's not like there's some sort of effect that tabling a bill has. The UH could vote to table a bill one day, and have its author put up the exact same bill the next day.
For this bill to have any actual value, tabling needs to mean something, even if it's just 'cannot be brought up again in this session of the UH'.

For this bill to have any actual value, tabling needs to mean something, even if it's just 'cannot be brought up again in this session of the UH'.

I mean, that would make sense. At the moment it's merely an informal way to say "we're not talking about this anymore." However, I'm not sure how much that'll be appreciated by the Skrifa, especially by older members like Chanku.

@Laurentus
@taulover
@AJ BLarg
@Chanku
y'all should see this.

Doc makes a great point, and I think maybe two sessions worth may be good? Like the rest of the current, and one more, to see if it could still be needed, or was thought of in a circumstance that was temporary.

Doc makes a great point, and I think maybe two sessions worth may be good? Like the rest of the current, and one more, to see if it could still be needed, or was thought of in a circumstance that was temporary.

What do you mean "two sessions worth"?

@Katie I mean the remainder of the current session, and another session, before it can be reintroduced, if tabled.

@Katie I mean the remainder of the current session, and another session, before it can be reintroduced, if tabled.

I mean that WOULD deter people introducing legislation at the end of a session and reintroducing it immediately the next session, but then again that's a valid thing that people do.

I hope it makes sense, and is also there as a deterrent against sudden and in the moment bills. Not saying those are common, but chances are they have happened time to time. And this is only if they're tabled, not if they don't even reach voting, which can happen.

I hope it makes sense, and is also there as a deterrent against sudden and in the moment bills. Not saying those are common, but chances are they have happened time to time. And this is only if they're tabled, not if they don't even reach voting, which can happen.

Well if they don't reach voting, under this bill, they would be tabled.