| [DRAFT] Proposed changes to the Legislator Committee Act |
(06-25-2018, 08:50 PM)Rebeltopia Wrote: Im not a fan of the subtraction of the first half of the first line in 4:7. I think that's reasonable. I initially thought it might be rolled up with (6) but reading again it's clearly not. I think your wording is better. (06-25-2018, 01:40 PM)Roavin Wrote: I've got some input on these changes later (some things I like, some things I don't). I just wanted to mention first that I find it very encouraging to see newer Legislators so engaged, and second that I'd like to additionally address the mandate the Charter gives to the Court (though I'll probably go to a second thread for that). Going to bump thus to see if Roavin has had any further thoughts.
Yes, I spaced it >_> I'll get to it, sorry!
![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
*phew*
@Roavin thank you so much. It means so much to get your critique and suggestions . Let me take each point in turn (you'll remember I use only mobile so I'm sorry about formatting straight off the bat... particularly with as much typing as I think I'm going to have to do!).
On the subtitle edit: I'd rather go with "granting and revoking" rather than "assessing and determining". The problem I have with simply saying 'granting' is that it does not allow for the leg comm to 'refuse' or 'deny' status. To assess an application and then determine, allows the leg comm to consider the application and approve or refuse. The revoking is a separate part in my mind; my understanding of 'revoke' is that it can only occur once status has been given. The old wording simply allowed grant and revoke, which means (in theory) each applicant had to be approved and then immediately revoked. It's a tight literal (pedantic) reading. So I think this new wording frees the leg comm up slightly. I appreciate it's only the descriptor so isn't too important but I wouldn't want a pedant, like me, to go before Kringle and say the policy only allows grant not refuse. 3.1: Why would the Chair also be responsible for determining LegComm applicants? I don't see what additional benefit that would bring - and besides, if we do do that, we'd have to logically firewall Chair and LegComm. (this is more aimed at @Imperial Frost Federation, really) I'll leave this one for Frost. 4.1: Your change is a bit redundant, because it makes it say "you can apply to go through the application process" I think what I've written is poorly worded. My main concern was that the original LCA wording only allowed attainment of status through application, which again is a very tight literal reading of the policy. Can I get your thoughts on this instead,which removes 'attain'? (1) A member of the Coalition may apply to the Legislator Committee for legislator status. 4.2: No issue with that change on principle, but why? 4.2.e: Isn't that covered by 4.2.a already? I'm going to take these two together. If an applicant has been bad in the past this cannot be taken into account under the existing legislation. For example, MS was refused status as alegislator on this ground (4.2.e - bad behaviour). In theory there was no right for the leg comm to deny MS on this ground as it never existed at the time MS was refused. I dont consider bad faith and bad behaviour to be the same. 4.2.e allows the leg comm to consider past behaviour. MS's application was not (in my view or the reasons of the leg comm) in 'bad faith', MS wanted to join to be involved and grow in the region - this is surely (partly) what the legislature is for; but his previous actions were perhaps not of the standard the leg comm wanted - and therefore (in my mind) previous bad behaviour. Furthermore, bad behaviour can also cover disruptive behaviour which is a ground for revocation and therefore could cover if someone wants to come back in. 4.6: No issue with the "complete information" change, though I don't know why you changed the other wording. To allow for flow some of the other wording was changed. I amended the wording to allow 4.5, to operate as it's own clause. I suggest this for part of my irl experience, in that where applications are made there should normally be a stand alone clause for clarity purposes which states what the potential outcomes of an application are. This flow, I think, necessitated the change. 4.7: Legislator Committee should be written out, especially since LC is ambiguous! I'm not sure what the wording change here is trying to achieve. Agree LC should be leg comm, sorry for the shorthand. The wording is to simplify the clause by removing duplication and allowing the flow with 4.5 and 4.6. 4.8: As before, I'm not sure what the wording change here is trying to achieve. Nothing other than simplification of the wording. Also, to bring the wording in with the outcomes tied in at 4.5. 5: Looks reasonable to me.  6: I'm not a fan of referring to parts of laws by their numbering, that quickly leads to further changes throwing other changes out of whack. But on the substantive issue: The court should have the power to review the legality of something anyway, and with a possible pending Charter change, disallowing a case where somebody may approach would make the LegComm Act void again! I understand the concern about numbering clauses and I note I missed revocation on the grounds of disruptive behaviour which would have voided the act.. so I'll reword. Can I get your opinion on the following which subsumes the two appeal clauses into existing sections: (2) Within the first week of each calendar month, the Legislator Committee will revoke legislator status from a legislator if they failed the voting requirement in the past month, if applicable, or otherwise no longer meet the eligibility requirements as described herein. a. The Legislator Committee may exercise discretion and not remove legislators under reasonable extenuating circumstances. b. Where revocation occurs due to inactivity, a new application may be made to the Legislator Committee. c. The Legislator Committee may consider an applicants previous inactivity revocations when assessing any new application. d. A revocation under this clause may be appealed to the High Court within 1 week of the revocation. (4) The Chair of the Assembly may order the Legislator Committee to revoke legislator status for disruptive members. A revocation under this clause may be appealed to the High Court within 1 week of the revocation. Frequent suspensions may be grounds for ineligibility, if found appropriate in a fair trial by the High Court. I not particularly happy with the wording. But I am trying to keep it short and cover the legal requirements. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |