+- 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)
[DRAFT] [2234.AB] Reviving leave of absence reform - Jay Coop - 08-21-2022
As I pored through the Assembly archives, I found one of my old proposals that had been gathering dust, realizing that I never brought it to a vote. It was a good reform – essentially a prohibition on indefinite leaves of absence. And so, I have decided to bring it back from the dead for an eventual vote.
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 definite period of time 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.
RE: Reviving leave of absence reform - maluhia - 08-21-2022
I'm confused on what you're trying to do here. Rewriting laws? Change up wording? Make something more clear? It seems like a mix of the three. You're saying that:
Quote:(4) Legislators may request a leave of absence for a definite period of time 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.
But isn't that the exact same of what it says here?
(08-21-2022, 06:04 AM)Jay Coop Wrote: (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.
So, could you explain what exactly your bill is vying to do for The South Pacific?
RE: Reviving leave of absence reform - Kris Kringle - 08-21-2022
They are trying to clarify that leaves of absence cannot be indefinite.
RE: Reviving leave of absence reform - maluhia - 08-21-2022
(08-21-2022, 11:00 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: They are trying to clarify that leaves of absence cannot be indefinite.
So basically a legislator is exempt from the voting process during the time they said that they are unactive and no other times (unless specified)?
RE: Reviving leave of absence reform - A bee - 08-21-2022
(08-21-2022, 09:20 AM)The Lile Ulie Islands Wrote: I'm confused on what you're trying to do here. Rewriting laws? Change up wording? Make something more clear? It seems like a mix of the three. You're saying that:
Quote::OOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
But isn't that the exact same of what it says here?
(08-21-2022, 06:04 AM)Jay Coop Wrote: XDDDDDDDDDDD
So, could you explain what exactly your bill is vying to do for The South Pacific?
Comparing synced times my personal request, the intention is, TBH, very obvious.
As is the legalese explanation circumventing the essence
I recall some "laws" called the proscription act and criminal code existing which prevented this during the Coalition but as the rule of law does not apply in the current Oligarchy of the South Pacific
Alternative approaches are used instead but right now I do not have the ethical obligation nor the will to prevent this entire tribute-client system from collapsing on its own stagnation, GL to you though
RE: Reviving leave of absence reform - Kris Kringle - 08-21-2022
(08-21-2022, 11:06 AM)The Lile Ulie Islands Wrote:(08-21-2022, 11:00 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: They are trying to clarify that leaves of absence cannot be indefinite.
So basically a legislator is exempt from the voting process during the time they said that they are unactive and no other times (unless specified)?
The goal is to avoid a scenario where (i) someone applied for a leave without an end date and (ii) there is no law to prevent that, therefore (iii) the person would theoretically be forever exempt from all activity requirements, since they’d technically be on an indefinite leave.
RE: Reviving leave of absence reform - sandaoguo - 08-21-2022
This is fine, but we just shouldn’t have LOAs at all. Just reapply. If you’re some government official afraid of losing your position, too bad. It’s not difficult to pull up your phone and vote in a poll.
RE: Reviving leave of absence reform - Griffindor - 08-21-2022
(08-21-2022, 01:02 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: This is fine, but we just shouldn’t have LOAs at all. Just reapply. If you’re some government official afraid of losing your position, too bad. It’s not difficult to pull up your phone and vote in a poll.
I wholeheartedly agree with this view. It is simply too easy to reapply for Legislator Status if/when you need longer than a few weeks to clear things up.
Though, in the spirit of compromise and recognizing that we humans are busy creatures, I support this simple proposal.
RE: Reviving leave of absence reform - Jay Coop - 08-21-2022
(08-21-2022, 12:00 PM)A bee Wrote: Comparing synced times my personal request, the intention is, TBH, very obvious.
Not everything is about you, darling.
RE: [DISCUSSION] Reviving leave of absence reform - Jay Coop - 08-26-2022
Seeing a lack of further discussion, I motion to vote on this bill.