+- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz)
+-- Forum: Hall of Historical Records (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-8.html)
+--- Forum: Archives (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-141.html)
+---- Forum: Fudgetopia Hall of Government (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-12.html)
+----- Forum: Assembly of the South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-91.html)
+----- Thread: [PASSED] Amendment to the Legislator Committee Act (Expanding size) (/thread-8862.html)
[PASSED] Amendment to the Legislator Committee Act (Expanding size) - North Prarie - 10-16-2020
Hi there, fellow South Pacificans.
Recently, there has been a backlog within the Legislator Committee - that is, applications are taking longer than usual. And while that's fine to a degree (everyone has lives, after all!), eventually we have to do something about it.
This is not an expression of a lack of confidence in the Legislator Committee - I understand that they are stretched thin and doing the best they can. However, long wait times can drive away potential valuable members of the community (I think we've already seen this!)
That's why I propose changing the fixed limit of 3 Legislators on the Legislator Committee, and enabling the Cabinet to appoint up to 5 Legislators for the position. This will hopefully maximize efficiency within the Committee, enabling us to keep potential active members and make becoming a Legislator even more enticing to players with potential.
Legislator Committee Act Wrote:Legislator Committee ActAn act to establish a commission to manage legislators
1. Scope
[...]
(2) The Legislator Committee comprises of no less than three and no more than five legislators that have each been appointed by the cCabinet and approved by the aAssembly via a simple majority vote.
RE: Amendment to the Legislator Committee Act (Expanding size) - Kris Kringle - 10-16-2020
I'd be interested in hearing from the Legislator Committee why there are delays in the first place. Is it a matter of being short staffed, is there just a one-time surge in applications, or is there a different reason?
RE: Amendment to the Legislator Committee Act (Expanding size) - Roavin - 10-16-2020
It was a combination of being two people for a while plus some really shitty RL on the part of Penguin and myself. Phoenix has been an incredible help and was able to pick it up and be productive almost immediately, and we're mostly back to speed.
That being said, regardless of any current situation, I don't think it's a bad idea to make the number more flexible.
RE: Amendment to the Legislator Committee Act (Expanding size) - Belschaft - 10-16-2020
I mean, in theory this okay but from past experience I think it's more likely to just result in the Cabinet immediately appointing two more members.
RE: Amendment to the Legislator Committee Act (Expanding size) - Rebeltopia - 10-16-2020
Im not wholly against the addition to the LegComm, but is there a simpler option here? Its not that big of a load 90% of the time, and a 4th and/or 5th member may be overkill. I;d like to hear from past and present members of the LegComm as to if an aditional person would be useful more than when things get super rough like they were recently.
RE: Amendment to the Legislator Committee Act (Expanding size) - Nakari - 10-16-2020
I don't think an additional person would get in the way at all.
RE: Amendment to the Legislator Committee Act (Expanding size) - Seraph - 10-17-2020
Yeah, to a certain extent the more the merrier on LegComm. It's good to have more than one person available to cover when RL gets busy for others and also great to have folk from a variety of time zones so availability of downtime is spread about a bit. Obviously, it's a highly-trusted position and so it would be inappropriate to have loads on the team, not to mention almost impossible to recruit, but the option to have a couple more if available seems sensible to me.
RE: Amendment to the Legislator Committee Act (Expanding size) - Tsunamy - 10-19-2020
Might it be better for have someone be able to hope in as necessary? Like ... instead of making the number flexible, write a line that allows the Cabinet to temporarily appointment someone if needed to help?
RE: Amendment to the Legislator Committee Act (Expanding size) - Farengeto - 10-19-2020
(10-19-2020, 12:59 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Might it be better for have someone be able to hope in as necessary? Like ... instead of making the number flexible, write a line that allows the Cabinet to temporarily appointment someone if needed to help?
I was thinking maybe we simply change it to "minimum three". Keep the current three as a default, but allow room for flexibility. It's not unprecedented in our laws, we have had a similar clause with the Local Council for years.
RE: Amendment to the Legislator Committee Act (Expanding size) - USoVietnam - 10-19-2020
(10-19-2020, 03:48 PM)Farengeto Wrote:(10-19-2020, 12:59 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Might it be better for have someone be able to hope in as necessary? Like ... instead of making the number flexible, write a line that allows the Cabinet to temporarily appointment someone if needed to help?
I was thinking maybe we simply change it to "minimum three". Keep the current three as a default, but allow room for flexibility. It's not unprecedented in our laws, we have had a similar clause with the Local Council for years.
I support this approach.