Current Draft:

Legislative Procedure Act

1. Legislative Rules

...

(6) Any bill, resolution or amendment which has been inactive for more than one month shallmay be considered defunct and archived, unless the Chair decides otherwise.at the discretion of the Chair.

Original Draft and OP:

Original Draft

Legislative Procedure Act

1. Legislative Rules

...

(6) Any bill, resolution or amendment which has been inactive for more than one month shall be considered defunct and archived, unless the Chair decides otherwise.

I would like to suggest that the Assembly strike this from the law. While the intention behind it was good, I don't believe that the previous few Chairs have seen worthwhile to archive some 16 pages of a sub-forum only to relocate it to another sub-forum. There is a benefit to having all these discussion threads located in the main chamber of the Assembly as it provides an easy access point for newer nations to go through and see for themselves how our institution functions (I know this was the case for me when I first started). While I acknowledge that the same case can be made for an archive, I think the present structure functions well enough and that we should not legally require the Chair to perform a task which they have yet to do.

(This post was last modified: 02-20-2020, 04:12 PM by phoenixofthesun14.)

Reply

I'm supportive of either your suggestion or something like this:

Legislative Procedure Act

1. Legislative Rules

...

(6) Any bill, resolution or amendment which has been inactive for more than one month shallmay be considered defunct and archived, unless the Chair decides otherwise.at the discretion of the Chair.

Reply

I'm supportive of either your suggestion or something like this:

Legislative Procedure Act

1. Legislative Rules

...

(6) Any bill, resolution or amendment which has been inactive for more than one month shallmay be considered defunct and archived, unless the Chair decides otherwise.at the discretion of the Chair.

I thought about leaving it to the discretion of the Chair but I came to the conclusion that it would be rather messy if they decided some threads should be archived whilst some should remain on the main page. Better to have it all or the other, in my opinion.

Reply

Fair, though I'm thinking of cases where the Chair archives withdrawn stuff while leaving open things like "ok, I'll pick this up again after next month's elections"

Reply

Fair, though I'm thinking of cases where the Chair archives withdrawn stuff while leaving open things like "ok, I'll pick this up again after next month's elections"

Ahhhh, I see what your point. I suppose it depends on whether we believe future Chairs will proactively archive these threads. If we consider that to be unlikely then I believe it better that we remove this clause.

Reply

I am personally in favour of Roavin's amendment. Archiving is not an unreasonable action for the Chair to take if they wish. Getting rid of the clause removes the opportunity.

Perhaps, the Assembly sub-forum should have a link to the archived debate sub-forum. Amerion, do you think having such a link would be as helpful to newcomers as having the old threads in the Assembly sub-forum itself?

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

Reply

I am personally in favour of Roavin's amendment. Archiving is not an unreasonable action for the Chair to take if they wish. Getting rid of the clause removes the opportunity.

Perhaps, the Assembly sub-forum should have a link to the archived debate sub-forum. Amerion, do you think having such a link would be as helpful to newcomers as having the old threads in the Assembly sub-forum itself?

nods

I've reconsidered this and I think I'm now in favour of leaving it to the discretion of the Chair with the understanding that more action will be taken on threads which are no longer active (i.e. relocating a vast majority of these 16 pages into a dedicated sub-forum).

With respects to your suggestion, I think we can go further and perhaps develop a search tool for Legislators to quickly locate the relevant discussions surrounding any one topic. But this is a conversation for another time.

In the meanwhile, I have updated the OP to reflect the new language as proposed by Roavin.

Reply

Thanks Amerion.

Can Roavin's version be moved and seconded? If so, I move that it be bought to a vote.

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

Reply

I second that motion.

Reply

THE PRINCIPALITY OF REMLASIA considers the original text and the proposed revised text within Bill A2002.02 to be legally equivalent, as we have interpreted that it has never been mandatory for the Chair to undertake the action required under the original text of the Article because of the inclusion of this clause: "unless the Chair decides otherwise".

Unless there has been a previous court case on this matter ruling to the contrary, we consider it to be entirely lawful for the Chair not to archive an inactive amendment under the original text of the Article.

As the amendment is, in our view, legally equivalent, we will be voting AGAINST it.

Crown Prince of the Principality of Remlasia
Under Semi-Constitutional Monarchy

(This post was last modified: 02-19-2020, 06:03 AM by remlasia.)

Reply