View Topic

I hereby introduce the following act:

Title
1. This resolution is to be cited as the Resolution Establishing the Select Committee on Underhusen Procedure.

Purpose
2. The Select Committee on Underhusen Procedure is tasked with the purpose of reviewing the Procedural Rules,and proposing amendments, changes, and other reform over the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen.

Membership
3. The Membership of the Select Committee on Underhusen Procedure is comprised of the Speaker of the Underhusen, two other Skrifa, and two ex-skrifa, appointed by the Speaker of the Underhusen. The Speaker of the Underhusen may, at their discretion, appoint an additional member who is the Chairperson of the Select Committee on Underhusen Procedure if the Speaker of the Underhusen chooses to not take their seat, otherwise the Speaker of the Underhusen is the Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Underhusen Procedure.

Powers
4. The Select Committee on Underhusen Procedure has the power to call forth individuals to speak before the Committee, recommend actions, and send reports to the Underhusen.
5. All Amendments or other changes to the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen is to be referred to the Committee for approval prior to a vote by the Underhusen.

Procedure
5. The Select Committee on Underhusen Procedure may, at any time, establish and create Standing Orders to maintain and establish procedure within the Select Committee on Underhusen Procedure, where no such Procedure or Standing Orders exist, the Chairperson may establish and create procedure and rules.
6. The Chairperson of the Select Committee on Underhusen Procedure may be removed by a simple majority vote of all members of the Select Committee on Underhusen Procedure, or by the Speaker of the Underhusen.

Chairperson
7. The Chairperson may establish and maintain an Agenda, matters which take precedence over any matters not on the Agenda.

Records
8. Any meeting of the Select Committee on Underhusen Procedure outside of the official Wintreath Forums must have the full logs deposited on the Wintreath Forums in an area for the Select Committee on Underhusen Procedure for posterity. Any discussion taking place in Person, Voice Chat, or Video Chat requires that a recording of the meeting be deposited in the space for logs with a transcript of the recording having to be posted within one calendar week, unless otherwise established by the Select Committee on Underhusen Procedure.

The purpose of this act is to create a Committee to review the Procedural Rules, and to suggest changes, alterations, and simplifications to the Procedural Rules so that they are more in agreement with each other and are easier to understand.

Some grammatical edits

2. The Select Committee on Underhusen Procedure is tasked with the purpose of reviewing the Procedural Rules,and proposing amendments, changes, and other reform over the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen.

2. The Select Committee on Underhusen Procedure is tasked with the purpose of reviewing the Procedural Rules and proposing amendments, changes, and other reform over the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen.

5. The Select Committee on Underhusen Procedure may, at any time, establish and create Standing Orders to maintain and establish procedure within the Select Committee on Underhusen Procedure, where no such Procedure or Standing Orders exist, the Speaker may establish and create procedure and rules.

5. The Select Committee on Underhusen Procedure may, at any time, establish and create Standing Orders to maintain and establish procedures within the Select Committee on Underhusen Procedure, where no such Procedure or Standing Orders exist, the Speaker may establish and create procedure and rules.

8. Any meeting of the Select Committee on Underhusen Procedure outside of the official Wintreath Forums, must have the full logs deposited on the Wintreath Forums in an area for the Select Committee on Underhusen Procedure for posterity. Any discussion taking place in Person, Voice Chat, or Video Chat requires that a recording of the meeting be deposited in the space for logs with a transcript of the recording having to be posted within one calendar week.

8. Any meeting of the Select Committee on Underhusen Procedure outside of the official Wintreath Forums must have the full logs deposited on the Wintreath Forums in an area for the Select Committee on Underhusen Procedure for posterity. Any discussion taking place in Person, Voice Chat, or Video Chat requires that a recording of the meeting be deposited in the space for logs with a transcript of the recording having to be posted within one calendar week.

I've adjusted Section 2 differently, opting to entirely remove the 'and' in question. Additionally, a numbering error was fixed so section 5 in your edits, is now Section 6 and was updated in accordance with the suggestion. I have no idea what you are requesting on Section 8 because the 's' exists in the text as it

I've adjusted Section 2 differently, opting to entirely remove the 'and' in question. Additionally, a numbering error was fixed so section 5 in your edits, is now Section 6 and was updated in accordance with the suggestion. I have no idea what you are requesting on Section 8 because the 's' exists in the text as it

The section 8 editing was to remove the comma after "Forums" but its fine.

I've adjusted Section 2 differently, opting to entirely remove the 'and' in question. Additionally, a numbering error was fixed so section 5 in your edits, is now Section 6 and was updated in accordance with the suggestion. I have no idea what you are requesting on Section 8 because the 's' exists in the text as it

The section 8 editing was to remove the comma after "Forums" but its fine.

Ah, in that case I would recommend using something like this:

8. Any meeting of the Select Committee on Underhusen Procedure outside of the official Wintreath Forums, must have the full logs deposited on the Wintreath Forums in an area for the Select Committee on Underhusen Procedure for posterity. Any discussion taking place in Person, Voice Chat, or Video Chat requires that a recording of the meeting be deposited in the space for logs with a transcript of the recording having to be posted within one calendar week.

The change has been adopted though

I'm initially against this proposal. Taking a look, this committee would have 3 skrifa members, and 2 non-skrifa members. It's hard for me to see a case where a proposal passes this committee, but would not pass the Underhusen, or vice versa. Essentially, I think the vote to bring this proposal out of committee and to the underhusen for vote is unnecessary. I assume that the committee will also have the time to discuss issues, and it makes sense that there would be a general consensus on most adopted changes.

I would hope that all 3 skrifa vote the same way, therefore nullifying any effect that the committee vote would have.

If two skrifa vote to pass a bill and one non-skrifa member, it still gives the bill a good chance of passing, or it would be tied up in some kind of deadlock and should probably be revisited.

If only one skrifa votes yes, and the 2 non-skrifa members vote yes to force it past, then I would see serious problems with the committee giving too much power to the non-skrifa members reforming our operating procedures.

I know that the necessity of the vote is written into the operating procedures, but I would be in favor of an amendment striking that provision from the operating procedures, or adding another amendment that would allow the Underhusen to allow other members speaking rights in the underhusen (but not voting rights) without the formation of a committee.

I'm initially against this proposal. Taking a look, this committee would have 3 skrifa members, and 2 non-skrifa members. It's hard for me to see a case where a proposal passes this committee, but would not pass the Underhusen, or vice versa. Essentially, I think the vote to bring this proposal out of committee and to the underhusen for vote is unnecessary. I assume that the committee will also have the time to discuss issues, and it makes sense that there would be a general consensus on most adopted changes.

I would hope that all 3 skrifa vote the same way, therefore nullifying any effect that the committee vote would have.

If two skrifa vote to pass a bill and one non-skrifa member, it still gives the bill a good chance of passing, or it would be tied up in some kind of deadlock and should probably be revisited.

If only one skrifa votes yes, and the 2 non-skrifa members vote yes to force it past, then I would see serious problems with the committee giving too much power to the non-skrifa members reforming our operating procedures.

I know that the necessity of the vote is written into the operating procedures, but I would be in favor of an amendment striking that provision from the operating procedures, or adding another amendment that would allow the Underhusen to allow other members speaking rights in the underhusen (but not voting rights) without the formation of a committee.

The purpose of the ex-Skrifa members is to allow outside opinions who may not currently be sitting in the Underhusen, but still have some experience with the rules to sit on the Committee and provide insight (and also be able to spend a bit more time with the Committee than the Skrifa might). Next, keep in mind that the Underhusen can be as big as 7 people, so while 3 Skrifa would be able to pass it through the Underhusen, if we had more than 5 Skrifa then it wouldn't be a majority (albeit I will note this is a rare case, it is something that needs to be considered).

Also keep in mind that the Committee can't actually pass laws, they merely approve the bill for full consideration within the Underhusen. So even if, let's say two non-Skrifa and one Skrifa pass the proposal, it would still have to be considered by the full Underhusen prior to enactment.

Finally, aside from the Monarch (who has permanent invite to the Underhusen), any citizen may be called before the Underhusen to speak by the Speaker. However, this isn't usually done (except for in certain cases. I can think of two instances where a person was granted invitation to the Underhusen: Once for myself, and once for Govindia IIRC).

Right, but in this case, we would have a 4 member underhusen, so establishing a committee with 3 underhusen members on it...seems a little silly, especially when the committee needs to have a vote on the proposal before the underhusen taking a vote on it again. Essentially, 3 people (75% of the underhusen and 60% of the committee) would be voting twice.....I just think it's an unnecessary middle step IMO.

Right, but in this case, we would have a 4 member underhusen, so establishing a committee with 3 underhusen members on it...seems a little silly, especially when the committee needs to have a vote on the proposal before the underhusen taking a vote on it again. Essentially, 3 people (75% of the underhusen and 60% of the committee) would be voting twice.....I just think it's an unnecessary middle step IMO.

I disagree, debate would still be had here, and it would be possible for something to arise inbetween the two votes to necessitate a vote down., additionally, it moving from Committee to here doesn't necessarily have to mean that it is a good idea, but it is something the Committee believes should be heard by the entirety of the Underhusen.

Right...but this committee we are talking about will have 3 out of the 4 members of the Underhusen. So the only person not 'looped in' or that hasn't had a chance for input will be that one last member. It seems silly to me to go into this committee, come up with a proposal, and say, Hey, I think we need to discuss this more. Let's move it to the Underhusen via vote so that last single person can get input!!

I'm not going to vote against the bill over this, but I just think it's impractical and not super efficient.

Chanku, transcribing an entire meeting, which could be hours, is a monumental task, a week is not enough time to do that.

Also, why does this need to exist and why can't the UH just manage it ourselves?

Chanku, transcribing an entire meeting, which could be hours, is a monumental task, a week is not enough time to do that.

Also, why does this need to exist and why can't the UH just manage it ourselves?

As mentioned in my reply to Wintermoot in the Citizen's Platform, there are reasons for having a Committee instead of having it done by the entire Underhusen.

As to the transcription, I mostly did that for myself as I've found setting hard deadlines and having less flexibility helps me actually do it. If you believe it would be best, I am willing to allow the Committee to extend the time limit, but I'm mostly doing it for myself.

Chanku, transcribing an entire meeting, which could be hours, is a monumental task, a week is not enough time to do that.

Also, why does this need to exist and why can't the UH just manage it ourselves?

As mentioned in my reply to Wintermoot in the Citizen's Platform, there are reasons for having a Committee instead of having it done by the entire Underhusen.

As to the transcription, I mostly did that for myself as I've found setting hard deadlines and having less flexibility helps me actually do it. If you believe it would be best, I am willing to allow the Committee to extend the time limit, but I'm mostly doing it for myself.

I think in that instance you should change it from 1 week in the legislation, to an amount of time determined in the procedural rules for the committee, and clarify that the committee is able to expand upon themselves.

Chanku, transcribing an entire meeting, which could be hours, is a monumental task, a week is not enough time to do that.

Also, why does this need to exist and why can't the UH just manage it ourselves?

As mentioned in my reply to Wintermoot in the Citizen's Platform, there are reasons for having a Committee instead of having it done by the entire Underhusen.

As to the transcription, I mostly did that for myself as I've found setting hard deadlines and having less flexibility helps me actually do it. If you believe it would be best, I am willing to allow the Committee to extend the time limit, but I'm mostly doing it for myself.

I think in that instance you should change it from 1 week in the legislation, to an amount of time determined in the procedural rules for the committee, and clarify that the committee is able to expand upon themselves.

Very well, how about we set it to be "One week, unless otherwise decided by the Committee." (Not exact text, but what it will be doing)? This way there is at least something.

Fair enough.