+- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz)
+-- Forum: Government District (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-5.html)
+--- Forum: Assembly of the South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-27.html)
+--- Thread: [DRAFT] [2234.AB] Reviving leave of absence reform (/thread-10765.html)
RE: [DISCUSSION] Reviving leave of absence reform - maluhia - 08-26-2022
(08-26-2022, 06:17 AM)Jay Coop Wrote: Seeing a lack of further discussion, I motion to vote on this bill.
I second the motion.
RE: [DRAFT] [2234.AB] Reviving leave of absence reform - Pronoun - 08-27-2022
Apologies for the late post — what’s the intended meaning of a “definite” time period? Down to the day (with no time zone specified) like we currently have? Down to the second?
RE: [DRAFT] [2234.AB] Reviving leave of absence reform - Jay Coop - 08-27-2022
(08-27-2022, 12:16 PM)Pronoun Wrote: Apologies for the late post — what’s the intended meaning of a “definite” time period? Down to the day (with no time zone specified) like we currently have? Down to the second?
Definite, as in it's specified. It cannot be "I'm gone, and I'm not gonna tell you how long."
RE: [DRAFT] [2234.AB] Reviving leave of absence reform - Pronoun - 08-27-2022
Right, but specified to what level of specificity? Does any arbitrary level of specificity suffice?
The distinction between "I'm gone, and I'm not gonna tell you how long" and "I will be gone until " is not a binary. I can also say "I will be gone until 9/1/2022" or "I will be gone until next week" or even "I will be gone until next month." I would debate whether all of these fit the definition of 'definite,' but they also are simply points along a continuum of specificity. You can be specific up to the second or the day or the week, or any other unit of time. Where do you draw the line between definite and indefinite periods of time?
I realize I may be coming across as making a big fuss over a trivial issue, but if the purpose of an amendment is to require that something be specified, it doesn't make sense to not actually be specific about what needs to be specified.
RE: [DRAFT] [2234.AB] Reviving leave of absence reform - Comfed - 08-27-2022
There is also the possibility of circumstances in which something happens IRL that doesn't have a definite end date but that still forces a LoA - an illness, for example.
RE: [DRAFT] [2234.AB] Reviving leave of absence reform - Jebediah - 08-28-2022
(08-27-2022, 07:55 PM)Pronoun Wrote: Right, but specified to what level of specificity? Does any arbitrary level of specificity suffice?
The distinction between "I'm gone, and I'm not gonna tell you how long" and "I will be gone until " is not a binary. I can also say "I will be gone until 9/1/2022" or "I will be gone until next week" or even "I will be gone until next month." I would debate whether all of these fit the definition of 'definite,' but they also are simply points along a continuum of specificity. You can be specific up to the second or the day or the week, or any other unit of time. Where do you draw the line between definite and indefinite periods of time?
I realize I may be coming across as making a big fuss over a trivial issue, but if the purpose of an amendment is to require that something be specified, it doesn't make sense to not actually be specific about what needs to be specified.
I think it's fine to just leave this to the discretion of the Chair, as it always has been. They're the ones who record them in any case.
That being said, this whole "definite period of time" thing is already a requirement by tradition. In fact, barring exceptional circumstances we don't accept LoAs longer than about 2 months. I wouldn't be opposed to formalising the rule that they have to be definite, though.
RE: [DRAFT] [2234.AB] Reviving leave of absence reform - Pronoun - 08-28-2022
We've left things relating to dates and deadlines up to the discretion of the Chair before, and we've gotten into cumbersome arguments as a result. I'm not opposed to leaving things up to the discretion of the Chair in principle, but looking at the issue pragmatically, I'd rather avoid the arguments over trivialities that I can't help but suspect would arise with this amendment in its current wording.
RE: [DRAFT] [2234.AB] Reviving leave of absence reform - Jay Coop - 08-28-2022
(08-28-2022, 12:24 PM)Pronoun Wrote: We've left things relating to dates and deadlines up to the discretion of the Chair before, and we've gotten into cumbersome arguments as a result. I'm not opposed to leaving things up to the discretion of the Chair in principle, but looking at the issue pragmatically, I'd rather avoid the arguments over trivialities that I can't help but suspect would arise with this amendment in its current wording.
Okay, would you like it if it instead said "non-indefinite"?
RE: [DRAFT] [2234.AB] Reviving leave of absence reform - Pronoun - 08-28-2022
That would be better. Or if your goal is to codify the current (unwritten) system we have, maybe just say an end date must be specified.
RE: [DRAFT] [2234.AB] Reviving leave of absence reform - Jay Coop - 08-28-2022
Legislator Committee Act
An act to establish a commission to manage legislators
...
3. Legislator Checks
...
(3) A legislator fails the voting requirement if they are absent for more than half of all votes finished in the previous calendar month, if a minimum of two votes occurred. Legislators who have an approved leave of absence from the Chair shall not be considered absent for votes in the given time frame.
(4) Legislators may request a leave of absence for a non-indefinite period of time, specifying the end date of such leave, which will be subject to discretionary approval from the Chair or their deputies. During such time, legislators on a leave of absence are exempt from the voting requirement.