| Great Council Act of 2015 |
|
As afforded by Article 11.2 of the Charter, I hereby request the calling of a Great Council. I submit the following Assembly resolution:
Great Council Act of 2015
1. In accordance with Article 11.2 of the Charter, a Great Council has been called.2. The Great Council will begin in the first week of October 2015 and will continue until deemed complete by the Delegate or Chair of the Assembly. 3. All special elections, ongoing or otherwise, are to be suspended until the end of the Great Council, unless said position ceases to exist. 4. Should the need to fill a vacant position arise, the Cabinet may appoint a replacement to serve until the completion of the Great Council, without Assembly approval. 5. Should no cabinet member remain the highest individual in the line of Succession will become Acting Delegate, and will be granted the powers given in Article 4 of this resolution.
And what do we need to discuss here? We just had one months ago.
Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)
Local Council Member(April 24-August 11) Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7)
We'll mainly be discussing judicial reform, alongside electoral reform, and other general fixes. We may also be reopening discussion on the LC and bicameralism.
Again, this is not concrete. Please do suggest changes/additions for topics to discuss.
Bah, bicameralism will never work in TSP. It would be good giving a vote for the RMBers, but maybe someone or a group may try to manipulate our laws.
Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)
Local Council Member(April 24-August 11) Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7)
I can agree to this, except giving control over to the Delegate or Chair. GCs aren't supposed to be controlled by anyone in government, and I think that was a major pitfall of the last one. It should end when there's a vote to end it.
As for what's discussed, anything can obviously be discussed. It's up to participants to bring issues forward.
Anything can be discussed, but I suppose there should at least be some form of structure in the GC on the main issues which we should cover. I was told by Kris that you had some ideas Glen, you might want to list them here for reference.
I would really avoid giving any special treatment to the government's pet projects. It was kind of unfair that the entire GC last time was centered around bicameralism, from giving it a special forum to creating the voting periods about it. GCs aren't supposed to be controlled by the government, but rather the entire purpose is to bypass the government and the traditional way things are done.
I do have several ideas that I'm going to bring up, yeah. I've been bugging Farengeto to start the GC since he was elected :p I'll post those ideas when I'm at my PC.
(09-15-2015, 12:19 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: I would really avoid giving any special treatment to the government's pet projects. It was kind of unfair that the entire GC last time was centered around bicameralism, from giving it a special forum to creating the voting periods about it. GCs aren't supposed to be controlled by the government, but rather the entire purpose is to bypass the government and the traditional way things are done. GR — you talk like this is intended to be some sort of free for all when we totally throw out that previous charter and start from scratch. That hasn't, nor should it be, the way a Great Council is called. It simply opens the door for political opportunism instead of suggesting and or proposing changes during normal legislative sessions. I will say that I am fully opposed to the resolution. There is no need to suspend business as usual in order to have a Great Council. The government and the region should be able to both continue an active and open government while also proposing and discussing changes.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
I think this resolution was a bit more than what I was originally told it would be on IRC, earlier this morning. A few hours ago ProfessorHenn resigned from the High Court, meaning we should have a special election in three days at most. I was under the impression that, since Farengeto intended to start a Great Council on judicial reform, he believed it was prudent to avoid the hassle of a special election and instead have the Cabinet appoint a replacement.
I think he has avoided saying that specifically in his resolution, instead referring to any position that is up for election during the Council. Perhaps it would be prudent to limit the resolution to the single issue of appointing a replacement for ProfessorHenn, so we can debate only that, rather than the merits of a Great Council?* (09-15-2015, 05:34 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: GR — you talk like this is intended to be some sort of free for all when we totally throw out that previous charter and start from scratch. That hasn't, nor should it be, the way a Great Council is called. It simply opens the door for political opportunism instead of suggesting and or proposing changes during normal legislative sessions. I think that is unfair. You convened a Great Council for the sole issue of bicameral reform. Was that political opportunism? Belschaft convened a Great Council to cut down the number of laws and streamline the Charter. Was that political opportunism? A Great Council is a way to think out of the box and seriously evaluate what can be done to improve our laws and our region. It is only natural that such thinking will not necessarily happen during normal legislative sessions. Quite frankly, I am more excited about having a Great Council now than I was about having the previous one. Why? Because at least in this one we see a greater willingness of think outside the box in a number of issues, rather than just on passing some form of bicameralism. We have heard proposals for a Prime Minister system (which I am not fully convinced on, but still), on judicial reform, electoral reform, streamlining our law books and so on. That is not to say that I believe we definitely should have a Great Council, merely that I think this one would have far more merit, based on the possible number of reforms, than the previous one. * Don't get me wrong, I am all for debating the merits of a Great Council. I just think we should keep that, and the elections suspension resolution, in separate threads. Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Quotes
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |