| [PASSED] Amendment to the Regional Officers Act |
Quote:2. Regional OfficersThe new phrasing is bad. The math doesn't add up to 12 slots either*. Let's just keep this open-ended. *(Between 8 and 11 out of a maximum of 12. But even the 11 requires the existence of a fifth Cabinet member, so the law only lets us have a maximum of 10.)
Also, given the simplicity of this amendment which is intended to fix a clear oversight/error, and that without it half of the CRS should currently be unnecessarily stripped of their Regional Officer positions, I request we waive the debate time and send this to vote. (With the requisite motion to vote.)
A slightly amended draft to bring this proposal in line with the Law Standards Act.
Amendment to Article 2 of the Regional Officers Act Wrote: I also Second the Motion to Waive and Second the Motion to Vote.
Hi there!
Understanding the nature of the amendment and the fact that it has been waived and seconded, according to the Legislative Procedure Act, Quote: I will open this amendment to vote Saturday, February 7th 2020, 01:30 UTC.
Wasn't this the intention (if not the phrasing) of the original allocation? Like, I always thought the CRS spots were expendable?
I mean, I'm in favor this is vote/change, but want to make that clear.
-tsunamy
[forum admin] (02-06-2020, 11:41 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Wasn't this the intention (if not the phrasing) of the original allocation? Like, I always thought the CRS spots were expendable? Perhaps. I suspect we might have briefly discussed that possibility in an earlier instance of this bill and that when the original bill failed and this addendum was created as a standalone bill, we forgot to amend the language.
When I first proposed the amendment to the Regional Officers Act, it was in the context of a proposed Cabinet expansion. The assumption I made in that was that we would have a Prime Minister, four Cabinet ministers, three CRS members, three Local Council members, and one vacant RO spot for when we need an Election Commissioner.
Adding this altogether, that would be 12 Regional Officers, which is the game-enforced cap at the moment. However, I would be supportive of amending the Regional Officers Act to give vacant spots to the CRS. EDIT: I'm also gonna have to object to the motion to vote because the following clause will have to be amended too: Quote:(6) Members of the Council on Regional Security who concurrently serve as another Regional Officer named in this Act shall be granted the powers of both offices. This will not count toward the three Regional Officer positions allotted to the Council on Regional Security. ONE MORE EDIT: Should we also change "will" to "shall" in the Regional Officers Act? Quote:The Council on Regional Security willshall be allotted... (02-07-2020, 12:39 AM)Jay Coop Wrote: When I first proposed the amendment to the Regional Officers Act, it was in the context of a proposed Cabinet expansion. The assumption I made in that was that we would have a Prime Minister, four Cabinet ministers, three CRS members, three Local Council members, and one vacant RO spot for when we need an Election Commissioner. On the last point about the Election Commissioner, I think we can also strike that from the text as the CRS generally chooses an EC from amongst its ranks. It is very unlikely that all members will be unavailable for EC duties. With that being said, if people are supportive of leaving it in there just in case such an event does happen, I am fine with that as well. (02-07-2020, 12:39 AM)Jay Coop Wrote: ... Rather than striking this portion out entirely, would it be satisfactory to amend that particular sentence to 'This will not count toward the three Regional Officer positions allotted to the Council on Regional Security'? (02-07-2020, 12:39 AM)Jay Coop Wrote: ... Is there a difference between will and shall? I have always used them interchangeably. (02-07-2020, 04:30 AM)Amerion Wrote: On the last point about the Election Commissioner, I think we can also strike that from the text as the CRS generally chooses an EC from amongst its ranks. It is very unlikely that all members will be unavailable for EC duties. With that being said, if people are supportive of leaving it in there just in case such an event does happen, I am fine with that as well. You make a good point here and I too will leave it to opinion of other legislators. (02-07-2020, 04:30 AM)Amerion Wrote: Rather than striking this portion out entirely, would it be satisfactory to amend that particular sentence to 'This will not count toward the three Regional Officer positions allotted to the Council on Regional Security'? If we go along with amending the Regional Officers act with Farengeto's proposed language, I don't see any need for this portion because, by adding "at least", there is no limit (other occupied seats notwithstanding) to how many CRS members can be appointed as Regional Officers. (02-07-2020, 04:30 AM)Amerion Wrote: Is there a difference between will and shall? I have always used them interchangeably. I suppose this could be a difference between American and Australian English, but when I see the use of the word "will", there's an implication that it shall be done at an unspecified time in the future. "Shall", on the other hand, is a strong assertion of what must be done. I mean, no action may actually be necessary if this is just me.
Personally, I'd be supportive if we generally use RFC 2119 for the definitions of "shall", "may", etc.
Given the debate and the understanding that our Delegate has more than enough BC slots (roughly 140) that they may easily re-appoint if necessary, I hereby object to the motion to waive debate time. Some thoughts on suggested changes I'd also suggest (I'm at work and just checking in for a moment, can't write a draft right now):
![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
|
![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |