Change of the Local Council |
So, as the discussion around the Local Council's Home Rule and Election Act has raised questions on what the LC can and cannot do, I realize our Home Rule adjustments have been the LC no way to make meaningful changes to its own structure. As such, I'd like to make the following addition to the Charter.
Quote:V. THE LOCAL COUNCIL Based on discussions elsewhere supplied by Glen, it's my assumption that this was simply in oversight in how the changes were written. If the Local Council is expected to originate laws and law changes, we need a manner to conduct by which they may do that.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
That provision is under the Amendment section of this passed law: http://tspforums.xyz/thread-4715.html
I strongly oppose any ability of the Local Council to originate any amendments that aren't limited to its own constitutional structure. Frankly, I don't think the region can survive very many battles between the forum community an upstart populist ramming through constitutional amendments via the LC, which is a body that doesn't give laws anywhere near the amount of scrutiny the Assembly (aka, people interested in government) does. And yet those populists would claim that the Assembly is wrong to not pass amendments that "the people" have passed on the game-side, using that kind rhetoric to deepen cleavages that will lead to the next coup. The Local Council isn't a second chamber in a bicameral legislature. We've already set the framework of the division of powers between the in-game and the forum-side. The idea is that we aren't crossing those lines. If somebody is interested enough to want to amend non-LC parts of the Charter, then they can & should become a legislator and draft in the Assembly. Otherwise, I see this as a tool that will only be used for politicking in the worst of ways.
For those of us following along at home, that wasn't — nor is it — the intention. However, tucking the LC clause under the "Amendments" section made it unintuitive and I didn't realize that's where this was.
As such, I'll suggest the following changes to make the Charter easier to use. Quote:XII. AMENDMENT PROCESS
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
Sorry, this is a terrible idea, for reasons already eloquently explained by Glen.
A better idea here is to not touch this aspect, but loosen the constitutional structure imposed upon the Local Council by our Charter. For example, why are we forumites deciding how the Local Council is elected? Or that it has to have three members? If we're going to take the Local Council idea seriously, we need to actually treat the Local Council seriously and give it the respect and autonomy it deserves, in a symbiosis of collaboration between overlapping spheres within the region we all know and love. Of course, doing so is difficult, as two out of three of our current local councillors will refuse to accept any such system as it does not give them the direct power that they demand.
(02-01-2017, 06:19 AM)Roavin Wrote: Sorry, this is a terrible idea, for reasons already eloquently explained by Glen. No. No. No. Now Glen misunderstood what I was saying and Roavin, you're extending this. Can we please listen to me? I'm trying to clarify the law. When Glen initially put the clause doesn't make a damned bit of sense and unless you know it's there, you won't find it. My proposal is *literally* to move the clause that gives the power everyone wants the LC to have to a place where people can actually find it. FFS guys — I'm not setting out earth-shattering proposals. I'm simply trying to make things clearer.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
I'm looking at your proposed text. It turns this:
Quote:Additionally, the Local Council may originate amendments to its constitutional structure, which must be debated and voted upon in the Assembly. to this: Quote:Such laws or amendments shall be immediately moved to a vote by the Chair of the Assembly, where it must meet Assembly standards for legislative changes. That's a massive semantic change. It's going from "The LC may propose legislation for the Assembly to work with" to "The LC may propose legislation to be voted upon without Assembly intervention".
(02-01-2017, 10:42 AM)Roavin Wrote: I'm looking at your proposed text. It turns this: If there's any changes to the text, it would then need to return to the Local Council for a re-vote. That seems like a ridiculous setup requiring the LC to do double the work. Also, its become rather apparent to me that certain things in the Assembly just seem to get left behind. Hence, I don't think something the LC voted on for itself should get pocketed-vetoed, so to speak. Edit: Still, as with most things I do, my legislative language isn't as precise because I don't intend to be an a------ about it. Feel free to fix it, but I've tried to make my intent at least twice now that I'm uninterested in a change in the process, I'm trying to make it more clearer so people know that it's there.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
Well, it's worth noting that the constitutional changes haven't actually been sent over to the LC yet. So we could hold off on that until we pass this amendment.
As for the language, if you're just intending on moving the amendment part to the LC section, then we could just use the same language, right? "3. The Local Council may originate amendments to the Charter, if those amendments are about the structure of the Local Council, which must be debated and voted upon in the Assembly." Is that language more clear? The idea is that the only Charter amendments the LC should be dealing with are about itself. They shouldn't be passing amendments, for example, trying to ram through major changes into LC-Assembly relations (like voting more on the RMB!). If they want to increase the number of LC members, though, then that's something they can pass. If they want to enshrine the way the LC Rep votes in the Assembly into the Charter, that's something they can pass. That kind of stuff. Everything else should be solely about RMB-related issues. The major reform we passed ends the debate about whether or not more and more government should move from the forums to the RMB. There are two spheres, LC and Assembly, and they each are limited to their own little bubbles. They overlap a tiny bit with the LC Rep and that's it. The laws each pass shouldn't have anything that touches on the other.
*snorts*
I don't think anyone but you believes that the minor reform we passed "ends the debate". It clarifies what the situation is, it does nothing to clarify what the situation should be. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
(02-01-2017, 06:28 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: Well, it's worth noting that the constitutional changes haven't actually been sent over to the LC yet. So we could hold off on that until we pass this amendment. Perfect. Done. As was clarified at the beginning of the thread, I didn't even know where this clause initially was hence ... I wrote my own. As such, I'm more than happy making that the third clause there.
-tsunamy
[forum admin] |
Users browsing this thread: |
1 Guest(s) |