View Topic

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.

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 feel like these are very fair points. It's already possible for citizens to provide thoughts here, in the Citizen's Platform forum or Discord. And the Speaker is allowed to invite anyone to speak before the Underhusen (and officers are invited also, which is how I post on Librarian-related matters).

I feel like this committee would serve no purpose. If a Skrifa sees an issue with the procedural rules, they should come up with a solution and propose an amendment. Likewise, if a citizen sees an issue, they can voice their opinion in the Citizen’s Platform. It’s great that the Unferhusen has the ability to form committees, but let’s not form committees just to form committees.

I feel like this committee would serve no purpose. If a Skrifa sees an issue with the procedural rules, they should come up with a solution and propose an amendment. Likewise, if a citizen sees an issue, they can voice their opinion in the Citizen’s Platform. It’s great that the Unferhusen has the ability to form committees, but let’s not form committees just to form committees.

I largely agree with this point. Although I'm not against the formation of a committee to really gather a panel of legislative experts and people interested in change and highlight its focus on UH change, I think the whole voting process is what makes me see it as 'unnecessary'.

I have to agree with monkey and Dawsinian. I could understand having a committee if the Underhusen were so busy that it wasn't able to keep track of specific responsibilities, but at a time when we're debating whether the Underhusen as it exists has any relevance at all, I just don't see it. I think the Skifa collectively should have the time and energy to tackle procedural issues itself.

Additionally, I'm deeply uncomfortable with the idea that the committee must approve things before it can be considered by the full Underhusen (Section 5). I agree that the Underhusen has the right to delegate if it feels the need to, but I'm not sure it has the right to forbid itself from utilizing its Constitutional authorities unless approved to do so by a subordinate group.

The purpose of the Committee is simple: to get a section of Skrifa to look over the Procedural Rules and to come up with changes and other alterations to the Procedural Rules.

I have to agree with monkey and Dawsinian. I could understand having a committee if the Underhusen were so busy that it wasn't able to keep track of specific responsibilities, but at a time when we're debating whether the Underhusen as it exists has any relevance at all, I just don't see it. I think the Skifa collectively should have the time and energy to tackle procedural issues itself.

Additionally, I'm deeply uncomfortable with the idea that the committee must approve things before it can be considered by the full Underhusen (Section 5). I agree that the Underhusen has the right to delegate if it feels the need to, but I'm not sure it has the right to forbid itself from utilizing its Constitutional authorities unless approved to do so by a subordinate group.

The purpose of the Committee is simple: it is to review and revise the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen, as they have existed for Seven Years, with copious amendments (it is, in fact, the most amended law that we have). Over seven years, over this time arcane procedural processes have been created, and oddities created which make it harder for new comers to grasp. As to why I am assigning it to a Committee, instead of giving it to the UH outright: I have no authority to set an agenda or to enforce such things, furthermore a Committee allows more relaxed procedure and we can also use it to try out some ideas I've had.

In regards to your concern, the Committee only has that authority over Procedural Rules Amendments, and for pretty good reason: If you are reviewing the Procedural Rules to update, fix, and change things for new people an amendment might make that harder. This matter is a procedural matter before the Underhusen, and as the Underhusen has the right to decide its own procedure it may chose to hand off some legislature to a sub-body before moving on with it, if the Underhusen really believes something should be moved out of the Committee without the Committee's approval, it can always introduce a procedural resolution to that effect.

The purpose of the Committee is simple: to get a section of Skrifa to look over the Procedural Rules and to come up with changes and other alterations to the Procedural Rules.

The purpose of the Committee is simple: it is to review and revise the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen, as they have existed for Seven Years, with copious amendments (it is, in fact, the most amended law that we have). Over seven years, over this time arcane procedural processes have been created, and oddities created which make it harder for new comers to grasp. As to why I am assigning it to a Committee, instead of giving it to the UH outright: I have no authority to set an agenda or to enforce such things, furthermore a Committee allows more relaxed procedure and we can also use it to try out some ideas I've had.

In regards to your concern, the Committee only has that authority over Procedural Rules Amendments, and for pretty good reason: If you are reviewing the Procedural Rules to update, fix, and change things for new people an amendment might make that harder. This matter is a procedural matter before the Underhusen, and as the Underhusen has the right to decide its own procedure it may chose to hand off some legislature to a sub-body before moving on with it, if the Underhusen really believes something should be moved out of the Committee without the Committee's approval, it can always introduce a procedural resolution to that effect.

I don't know, Speakers have been making agendas since the beginning of the Underhusen...I don't know why a Speaker wouldn't have the authority to set one now. I don't understand what prevents the Underhusen from having a discussion about the procedural rules and how to update or streamline them. I can't remember a time when procedures cut off a discussion, and the Underhusen could certainly work on drafts before formally presenting it for consideration if strict procedures are the concern here. It's done so in the private Storting area a number of times before.

I agree that the Underhusen has the right to delegate to a sub-body, what I don't agree with is that it's to the exclusion of the Underhusen's own constitutional authorities. And at this point I'm confused...if the Underhusen can introduce procedural resolutions without committee approval, what's the point of Section 5? And if it can't as the text of the section seems to imply, then it's constitutionally dubious at best. Either way, it seems to me that Section 5 should just be removed.

I don't know, Speakers have been making agendas since the beginning of the Underhusen...I don't know why a Speaker wouldn't have the authority to set one now.

Can confirm. While it hasn't always been explicitly stated, every Speaker for the most part has had some kind of agenda. During the first term our agenda was to establish procedural rules and pass basic laws like The Citizenship and Demonym Act. We didn't need a committee to tell us we needed to do that.