Users browsing this thread:

***sandaoguo*** · 03-07-2017, 05:30 PM

... No, they can't "motion for that." In fact, requiring that they first become legislators and then make a motion to repeal Article 5 of the Elections Act is the exact opposite of what you've longed called for when it comes to the LC's ability to have input. It's rank hypocrisy, really.

This is very simple. The LC is its own government. RMBers want LC election rules to be changed. We're no longer here to dictate what changes are allowed, nor should we be requiring LC members to come here and work through the Assembly to change their own election rules. We should be returning full authority of LC elections to the LC, the only way to do that is to repeal the section of the Elections Act that forces them to go through the Assembly.

This back-and-forth is going nowhere, and there's a lot of annoying bad faith happening.

The question is simple. Might as well go to a vote.

(This post was last modified: 03-07-2017, 05:31 PM by sandaoguo.)

**Belschaft** · 03-07-2017, 05:50 PM

Or how about we give the LC a chance to express their views on this, rather than having the Chair of the Assembly try to dictate to them?

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Roavin*** · 03-07-2017, 10:05 PM

(03-07-2017, 05:50 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Or how about we give the LC a chance to express their views on this, rather than having the Chair of the Assembly try to dictate to them?

(03-07-2017, 01:53 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: Also, just to clarify, I have indeed talked to some LC members.
-snip-

**Belschaft** · 03-07-2017, 10:23 PM

Yes, Glen has said that he's talked to LC members.

But the LC members haven't asked for this.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

Feirmont · 03-08-2017, 07:34 AM

Which LC members have you spoken to?

#EC4Lyfe

Previous Positions

***Roavin*** · 03-08-2017, 08:11 AM

(03-07-2017, 10:23 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Yes, Glen has said that he's talked to LC members.

But the LC members haven't asked for this.

Okay, let's not give women the right to vote because Priscilla Dean hasn't asked for it. Skeptical

Spenty · 03-08-2017, 09:21 AM

Well as a Local Councilor, I'd like to jump in the conversation.

I think it would be good if we were to repeal the Fifth Article of the Election Act because repealing this act would make the whole process of drafting an Election Act for the Local Council a whole lot simpler. Although I think we could have an adviser from the assembly in guiding us with this but at the end of the day I think it would be best if we let the LC decide.

With this, I'd like to second the motion.

About me

Positions, Awards and Accolades

***Tsunamy*** · 03-08-2017, 10:16 AM

(03-07-2017, 05:50 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Or how about we give the LC a chance to express their views on this, rather than having the Chair of the Assembly try to dictate to them?

Against this, though, the LC can literally take the repealed text and put it into another law — what I'm going to suggest we call ordinances for differentiation. So, while I don't like this move, the LC *can* literally use the same law if they like it.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

***sandaoguo*** · 03-08-2017, 12:23 PM

Ordinances is a fine term, if that's what they wanna do.

As for different laws in different places-- my idea is to have identical law libraries on the forum and attached as a dispatch on the WFE.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Farengeto** · 03-08-2017, 02:05 PM

As the legality of the motion may be affected by the ongoing case HCLQ 1704 the High Court requests that any voting on this proposal be halted until the conclusion of HCLQ 1704.