(08-18-2022, 04:39 PM)Griffindor Wrote: I have always liked the idea of committees, but I just don't know how useful or active they would be. Though, I do think a standing committee on oversight and accountability would be cool.
I've actually addressed this in the original PDF attached to the thread but didn't think people would take an interest in it. Anyway, referencing and outlining issues with the existing mechanism for this,
Political Parties Act:
Quote:1. Defining Political Parties
(1) A political party is any group of people in the South Pacific, counting at least as many members as senior Cabinet officials, who organize together in an official association for political or electoral purposes.
(2) Associations for purposes other than politics, including satirical, social, or casual groups, do not qualify as political parties under this act.
2. Rights of Political Parties
(1) Political parties have the right to exist without undue government interference, per the freedom of assembly guaranteed in Article III of the Charter.
(2) Political parties have the right to engage in coordinated legislative and electoral efforts, without fear of reprisal from any government official.
(3) Political parties have the right to conduct business in private, without the arbitrary interference of the government or arbitrarily being compelled to publish private communications.
3. Benefits to Active Political Parties
(1) Political parties that maintain an accurate public membership roster, and field at least one member for public office in an election per year, qualify for a dedicated public and private subforum.
(2) Political parties may petition the Chair of the Assembly for approval for a subforum. The Chair of the Assembly will verify the qualifications of the party, and if the party meets those qualifications, notify the Off-Site Administration Team to create the party's dedicated subforums.
(3) Dedicated party subforums will consist of two parts--
a. a public subforum, where the party must pin an up to date version of its membership roster;
b. a password-protected subforum, which will have the necessary permissions to ensure non-members cannot read threads without authorization.
(4) All political party subforums are to be contained within a single catch-all forum designated for political parties in an appropriate forum section of the official offsite forums of the South Pacific.
(5) The subforums of political parties are to be sorted by order of registration.
4. Archival of Inactive Subforums
(1) The Off-Site Administration Team will non-destructively archive political party subforums if the requirements listed in Article 3 are no longer met.
(2) Inactive political parties may petition the Chair of the Assembly for revival of their archived subforums, under the same process outlined in Article 3.
-So, pretty much like, 5 members? How big is our current (active) legislator roster?
-Why do political parties, whose purpose is (I may be wrong) to represent the unrepresented, somehow hold an office once a year for the political party to be eligible?
-Again, needless responsibilities of the Chair.
-3 (3) is basically what the Assembly already does. Why should it do it separately for political parties?
-3 (4) and (5) are in that colour because there isn't a single active political party ATM.
-The last clause may be political catastrophic. It's genuinely dangerous to allow ancient-archived political organizations to revive. There should be a limit to this or they should need to register as a new party.
We can instead, replace this entire Act as it's never used, with an Assembly Commission Act, where the Legislators can form their own "Ministries", sort of like "Shadow Governments" in RL UK.
