View Topic

Title
1. This act is to be cited as the Underhusen Procedural Rules Committees Amendment.

Amendments
2. A new Section, numbered Section 9 is added under the Title of 'Underhusen Procedure', which reads as follows:

The Underhusen may, through the normal conduct of business, establish Committees. There are four types of Committees: Standing, Select, Special, and Joint.

3. Subsection (a) is added under Section 9, which reads as follows:

All Committees have a Chairperson, here-in a Chair, who is selected in accordance with procedure for that Committee as laid out in their establishment. If no procedure is laid out the Speaker has the right to appoint a Chair. Committees may call certain people before them and may set who has the right to comment before the Underhusen. Membership to the Committees is to be controlled by the establishing resolution, or the Speaker if the resolution is silent.

4. Subsection (b) is added under Section 9, which reads as follows:

Standing and Select Committees may only be established after a successful vote of the Underhusen on a resolution to establish them. A Standing Committee remains after the end of the term. A Select Committee expires upon the end of the term. Special and Select Committees may consider legislation and may be assigned legislation to review. Legislation must be approved by a simple majority vote of the Committee to be referred to the whole of the Underhusen.

5. Subsection (c) is added under Section 9, which reads as follows:

Special Committees are formed by the Speaker to consider certain matters and expire upon expiration of the term, dissolution by the Speaker, or passage of a dissolution resolution by the Underhusen. Special Committees may consider legislation, but any legislation before a Special Committee may be, at any time, put to the full Underhusen without approval by the Committee.

6. Subsection (d) is added under Section 10, which reads as follows:

Joint Committees are formed by the acceptance of a resolution by both the Underhusen and of the Overhusen -- in accordance with Overhusen Custom and Procedure. Joint Committees may be either a Standing or Select Committee, as determined by the resolution. Joint Committees are dissolved if either the Underhusen or Overhusen dissolve the Committee.

7. All Subsequent Sections are to be renumbered.

I hereby introduce this into the Underhusen for consideration, this aims to allow for the establishment of Committees of three types: Standing, Select, Special, and Joint.

The debate period now begins, Discussion must last for forty-eight hours, after which Skrifa may make motions.

A little spelling error, in Section 9 subsection (b). It says:

Legislation must be approved by a simple majority vote of the Committee be be referred to the whole of the Underhusen.

This should be:

Legislation must be approved by a simple majority vote of the Committee to be referred to the whole of the Underhusen.

Also, should it be possible for Special Committees be able to last beyond the expiration of the term? Some issues that warrant the creation of such committees span Underhusen term lengths. I propose Section 9 subsection (d) be amended to:

Special Committees are formed by the Speaker to consider certain matters and expire upon dissolution by the Speaker, or passage of a dissolution resolution by the Underhusen. Special Committees may consider legislation, but any legislation before a Special Committee may be, at any time, put to the full Underhusen without approval by the Committee.

A side note once again considering the above subsection. If the Speaker could willingly dissolve a Special Committee without advisement from the Skrifas, then why are both provisions for dissolution included?

A little spelling error, in Section 9 subsection (b). It says:

Legislation must be approved by a simple majority vote of the Committee be be referred to the whole of the Underhusen.

This should be:

Legislation must be approved by a simple majority vote of the Committee to be referred to the whole of the Underhusen.

I legitimately don't see a difference between these two.

Also, should it be possible for Special Committees be able to last beyond the expiration of the term? Some issues that warrant the creation of such committees span Underhusen term lengths. I propose Section 9 subsection (d) be amended to:

Special Committees are formed by the Speaker to consider certain matters and expire upon dissolution by the Speaker, or passage of a dissolution resolution by the Underhusen. Special Committees may consider legislation, but any legislation before a Special Committee may be, at any time, put to the full Underhusen without approval by the Committee.

A side note once again considering the above subsection. If the Speaker could willingly dissolve a Special Committee without advisement from the Skrifas, then why are both provisions for dissolution included?

Any matters which would Span UH Sessions would ideally be formed by a resolution of the Underhusen through a Standing Committee. Special Committees are reserved for certain matters where legislation may not be entirely appropriate. For example, a Special Committee would be formed to look into something or review an event. Let's say that something spectacular happens in which the UH had a part in, then the Special Committee would likely be formed to look into it and report to the Underhusen. Another example would be a Special Committee to look into updating some procedure of the Underhusen or to review a specific area. Special Committees would also be expected to draft legislation to be presented to the whole Underhusen where appropriate (or another committee).

Further, Special Committees are entirely Speaker directed and controlled, which I feel is somewhat inappropriate to allow to span multiple sessions. Unlike the Officers and Offices of the Underhusen which merely are employed by the Underhusen to allow the Underhusen to operate smoother or to fill certain functions for the Speaker (and ideally, are mostly left to the Speaker), the Committees are mostly intended to deal directly with the legislative and deliberative functions of the Underhusen. Therefore the Committees should remain largely under the discretion of the Underhusen as a body, and not the Speaker. With this in mind, the Special Committees are unable to claim unique control over legislation and are limited in scope. Anything more important would likely need the Underhusen to establish a Standing Committee to review.

EDIT: I actually see the spelling error now.

Standing and Select Committees may only be established after a successful vote of the Underhusen on a resolution to establish them. A Standing Committee remains after the end of the term.

Just a basic question, will this Standing Committee be dissolved after the end of that storting or will it continue past the end, even if certain members of the previous committee or no longer on the Underhusen?

Any matters which would Span UH Sessions would ideally be formed by a resolution of the Underhusen through a Standing Committee. Special Committees are reserved for certain matters where legislation may not be entirely appropriate. For example, a Special Committee would be formed to look into something or review an event. Let's say that something spectacular happens in which the UH had a part in, then the Special Committee would likely be formed to look into it and report to the Underhusen. Another example would be a Special Committee to look into updating some procedure of the Underhusen or to review a specific area. Special Committees would also be expected to draft legislation to be presented to the whole Underhusen where appropriate (or another committee).

Further, Special Committees are entirely Speaker directed and controlled, which I feel is somewhat inappropriate to allow to span multiple sessions. Unlike the Officers and Offices of the Underhusen which merely are employed by the Underhusen to allow the Underhusen to operate smoother or to fill certain functions for the Speaker (and ideally, are mostly left to the Speaker), the Committees are mostly intended to deal directly with the legislative and deliberative functions of the Underhusen. Therefore the Committees should remain largely under the discretion of the Underhusen as a body, and not the Speaker. With this in mind, the Special Committees are unable to claim unique control over legislation and are limited in scope. Anything more important would likely need the Underhusen to establish a Standing Committee to review.

I understand now. Thanks for clearing that up. I have no more proposed changes.

Chanku, the thirteenth word in Excalibur's first recitation is "be" and his grammatical correction is "to."

Committee: a group of people who can do nothing on their own, but as a group can decide to do nothing; one of the few levels of multi-cellular organization with less than one brain per head.

Perhaps I am missing a certain level of understanding here.  The above proposed legislation details how a committee might be formed and the terms under which they are allowed to persevere.  The substantial gap is how the formation of committees will provide any benefit to the citizenry or to Wintreath as a whole.

The tasks described to them are "to consider legislation" and "to consider certain matters."  In some cases, they may put forward legislation, but only after an internal vote.  Is it not the duty of the entire Underhusen to do these things?  Is the Underhusen not a small enough elected group that additional words are needed to bind us to commitment on some bills?  The only proposed change as I see it is an additional level of bureaucracy potential legislation will have to go through prior to resolution.

Perhaps I am missing a certain level of understanding here.  The above proposed legislation details how a committee might be formed and the terms under which they are allowed to persevere.  The substantial gap is how the formation of committees will provide any benefit to the citizenry or to Wintreath as a whole.

The tasks described to them are "to consider legislation" and "to consider certain matters."  In some cases, they may put forward legislation, but only after an internal vote.  Is it not the duty of the entire Underhusen to do these things?  Is the Underhusen not a small enough elected group that additional words are needed to bind us to commitment on some bills?  The only proposed change as I see it is an additional level of bureaucracy potential legislation will have to go through prior to resolution.

I believe the resolution is designed to allow the Underhusen to create committees such as the Regional Truth Commission, so that creation of such committees is not solely relegated to the Monarch. However, I do agree that the resolution is rather vague as to how thee committees will help the citizens of Wintreath.

However, given the language used in the resolution, it sounds like such committees will be created via the passing of legislation, meaning that the powers the committees will have will be detailed in future legislation used to establish them. The resolution is purposely open-ended to allow future legislation to specify the powers the Underhusen will give to the committees.

Chanku, the thirteenth word in Excalibur's first recitation is "be" and his grammatical correction is "to."

Committee: a group of people who can do nothing on their own, but as a group can decide to do nothing; one of the few levels of multi-cellular organization with less than one brain per head.

Perhaps I am missing a certain level of understanding here.  The above proposed legislation details how a committee might be formed and the terms under which they are allowed to persevere.  The substantial gap is how the formation of committees will provide any benefit to the citizenry or to Wintreath as a whole.

The tasks described to them are "to consider legislation" and "to consider certain matters."  In some cases, they may put forward legislation, but only after an internal vote.  Is it not the duty of the entire Underhusen to do these things?  Is the Underhusen not a small enough elected group that additional words are needed to bind us to commitment on some bills?  The only proposed change as I see it is an additional level of bureaucracy potential legislation will have to go through prior to resolution.

What Excalibur has said on this is pretty much on the nose. It mostly exists to enable the Underhusen to establish these Committees and groups in the future, so that the Underhusen (and the Overhusen under the right circumstances). Although the 'legislation' would be more-so a Resolution of the Underhusen, not technically legislation as it wouldn't require the Overhusen to pass it. The open-ended nature is meant to allow future Underhusens to establish, create, and grant authorities to Committees as necessary.

In any case the direct usage of this would be the establishment of the "New Citizens Committee", which would primarily exist to provide a mechanism for non-Skrifa new citizens to get legislation before the Underhusen, and to provide feedback to the Underhusen, in addition to allowing a slightly different process than that which is used in the Entire Underhusen to give valuable feedback (Many of my early bills were co-authored or authored with feedback from others). It also gives a slightly more closed off space that might cut down on potential intimidation from older Underhusen members in drafting and proposing bills. Finally, it exists to help advocate for and consider effects of bills on New Citizens in certain circumstances (for example, bills altering how Citizenship works or application works), so that things are better accounted for. However, the amendment is vague to allow for other Committees to be established and formed that don't necessarily fit into this model.   

EDIT: I also ended up editing my post because I realized where the error was.

I also just realized I didn't respond to another post so here I go:

Standing and Select Committees may only be established after a successful vote of the Underhusen on a resolution to establish them. A Standing Committee remains after the end of the term.

Just a basic question, will this Standing Committee be dissolved after the end of that storting or will it continue past the end, even if certain members of the previous committee or no longer on the Underhusen?

I don't entirely understand what you are asking.

Chanku, the thirteenth word in Excalibur's first recitation is "be" and his grammatical correction is "to."

Committee: a group of people who can do nothing on their own, but as a group can decide to do nothing; one of the few levels of multi-cellular organization with less than one brain per head.

Perhaps I am missing a certain level of understanding here.  The above proposed legislation details how a committee might be formed and the terms under which they are allowed to persevere.  The substantial gap is how the formation of committees will provide any benefit to the citizenry or to Wintreath as a whole.

The tasks described to them are "to consider legislation" and "to consider certain matters."  In some cases, they may put forward legislation, but only after an internal vote.  Is it not the duty of the entire Underhusen to do these things?  Is the Underhusen not a small enough elected group that additional words are needed to bind us to commitment on some bills?  The only proposed change as I see it is an additional level of bureaucracy potential legislation will have to go through prior to resolution.

What Excalibur has said on this is pretty much on the nose. It mostly exists to enable the Underhusen to establish these Committees and groups in the future, so that the Underhusen (and the Overhusen under the right circumstances). Although the 'legislation' would be more-so a Resolution of the Underhusen, not technically legislation as it wouldn't require the Overhusen to pass it. The open-ended nature is meant to allow future Underhusens to establish, create, and grant authorities to Committees as necessary.

In any case the direct usage of this would be the establishment of the "New Citizens Committee", which would primarily exist to provide a mechanism for non-Skrifa new citizens to get legislation before the Underhusen, and to provide feedback to the Underhusen, in addition to allowing a slightly different process than that which is used in the Entire Underhusen to give valuable feedback (Many of my early bills were co-authored or authored with feedback from others). It also gives a slightly more closed off space that might cut down on potential intimidation from older Underhusen members in drafting and proposing bills. Finally, it exists to help advocate for and consider effects of bills on New Citizens in certain circumstances (for example, bills altering how Citizenship works or application works), so that things are better accounted for. However, the amendment is vague to allow for other Committees to be established and formed that don't necessarily fit into this model.   

EDIT: I also ended up editing my post because I realized where the error was.

I also just realized I didn't respond to another post so here I go:

Standing and Select Committees may only be established after a successful vote of the Underhusen on a resolution to establish them. A Standing Committee remains after the end of the term.

Just a basic question, will this Standing Committee be dissolved after the end of that storting or will it continue past the end, even if certain members of the previous committee or no longer on the Underhusen?

I don't entirely understand what you are asking.

When does the Standing committee dissolve?

Chanku, the thirteenth word in Excalibur's first recitation is "be" and his grammatical correction is "to."

Committee: a group of people who can do nothing on their own, but as a group can decide to do nothing; one of the few levels of multi-cellular organization with less than one brain per head.

Perhaps I am missing a certain level of understanding here.  The above proposed legislation details how a committee might be formed and the terms under which they are allowed to persevere.  The substantial gap is how the formation of committees will provide any benefit to the citizenry or to Wintreath as a whole.

The tasks described to them are "to consider legislation" and "to consider certain matters."  In some cases, they may put forward legislation, but only after an internal vote.  Is it not the duty of the entire Underhusen to do these things?  Is the Underhusen not a small enough elected group that additional words are needed to bind us to commitment on some bills?  The only proposed change as I see it is an additional level of bureaucracy potential legislation will have to go through prior to resolution.

What Excalibur has said on this is pretty much on the nose. It mostly exists to enable the Underhusen to establish these Committees and groups in the future, so that the Underhusen (and the Overhusen under the right circumstances). Although the 'legislation' would be more-so a Resolution of the Underhusen, not technically legislation as it wouldn't require the Overhusen to pass it. The open-ended nature is meant to allow future Underhusens to establish, create, and grant authorities to Committees as necessary.

In any case the direct usage of this would be the establishment of the "New Citizens Committee", which would primarily exist to provide a mechanism for non-Skrifa new citizens to get legislation before the Underhusen, and to provide feedback to the Underhusen, in addition to allowing a slightly different process than that which is used in the Entire Underhusen to give valuable feedback (Many of my early bills were co-authored or authored with feedback from others). It also gives a slightly more closed off space that might cut down on potential intimidation from older Underhusen members in drafting and proposing bills. Finally, it exists to help advocate for and consider effects of bills on New Citizens in certain circumstances (for example, bills altering how Citizenship works or application works), so that things are better accounted for. However, the amendment is vague to allow for other Committees to be established and formed that don't necessarily fit into this model.   

EDIT: I also ended up editing my post because I realized where the error was.

I also just realized I didn't respond to another post so here I go:

Standing and Select Committees may only be established after a successful vote of the Underhusen on a resolution to establish them. A Standing Committee remains after the end of the term.

Just a basic question, will this Standing Committee be dissolved after the end of that storting or will it continue past the end, even if certain members of the previous committee or no longer on the Underhusen?

I don't entirely understand what you are asking.

When does the Standing committee dissolve?

It remains until the Underhusen Dissolves it. Hence it remaining between terms.

Ok thanks

Motions may now be made on this.

I motion to table this proposal.

I would, heavily encourage this be brought to a vote.

What motions can we make?