We've moved, ! Update your bookmarks to https://thesouthpacific.org! These forums are being archived.

Dismiss this notice
See LegComm's announcement to make sure you're still a legislator on the new forums!

Change of the Local Council
#1

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

Establishing home rule for the in-game region residents

1. The Local Council will be the local government of the in-game community, composed of three or more residents of The South Pacific, and will represent the interests of all players in the region, moderate the Regional Message Board, encourage activity on the game-side, and administrate itself on issues unique to the in-game community.

2. The Local Council is entitled to self-administration within its jurisdiction on local issues, but may not pass laws or regulations that contradict this Charter or constitutional laws. To that end, the Assembly may not enact any law, nor the Cabinet deliver any directive, that is solely related to an issue local to the in-game community.

3. Changes to the Charter or constitutional laws suggested by the Local Council, in whatever manner it sees fit, shall be immediately moved to a vote by the Chair of the Assembly, where it must meet Assembly standards for legislative changes.

4. The Local Council may not be denied the authority to run regional polls, create and pin Dispatches, and to suppress messages on the Regional Message Board according to a standard moderation policy. However, it may not alter the regional flags or tags, and may not send out mass telegrams, without the approval of the Delegate.

5. To help promote inter-governmental relations, the Local Council will send a representative to the Assembly, whose term must not exceed the Local Council’s. The method of selection will be decided by the Local Council, along with how the representative casts their votes in the Assembly.

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]
#2

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.
#3

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

Setting a procedure for amendment the Charter

1. The Assembly may amend any provision of the Charter by a three-fifths supermajority. Amendments must be constitutional in nature, addressing the structure or framework of government. Bills that may exist as general laws, as determined by the Chair of the Assembly, should not be placed in the Charter.

2. Any amendment that directly affects the game-side community or its home governance, as determined by the Chair of the Assembly, must also be debated and voted upon by the game-side community. Additionally, the Local Council may originate amendments to its constitutional structure, which must be debated and voted upon in the Assembly.

3. The Local Council may originate laws dealing with in-game governance in whatever manner it sees fit. 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.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
#4

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.
[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]
#5

(02-01-2017, 06:19 AM)Roavin Wrote: 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.

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]
#6

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".
[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]
#7

(02-01-2017, 10:42 AM)Roavin Wrote: 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".

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]
#8

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.
#9

*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

[Image: B9ytUsy.png]
#10

(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.

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.

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)





Theme © iAndrew 2018 Forum software by © MyBB .