| Amendment to the Legislator Committee Act |
Colleagues,
It came up recently that there had been a drop in activity of either the Chair or Deputy Chairs approving Leaves of Absence (LoAs) or changes nations holding Legislator status on the roster and other similar posts. It was then suggested that maybe LoAs should be automatically approved rather than the Chair or their Deputies having to approve them. I don't know about you but, personally, I am not expecting to have a LoA rejected at any time, I am going to be away and if that's rejected, I am still going to be away. I understand that this opens the door to Legislators giving silly reasons for LoAs, such as nipping down the bottom of the garden for a long wait, but I think in the majority of cases, Legislators are genuine and they have stated genuine reasons for needing a LoA and I think it's silly that the Chair and Deputies potentially have the power to reject them and so I propose the following amendment. Quote:
There has been at least one instance of a legislator requesting an indefinite leave of absence, so without detracting from the validity of your argument, I do think there needs to be a way to ensure that the figure of LoAs is not abused or used as a way to circumvent activity requirements. Perhaps LoAs themselves are automatic but the Chair or LegComm can end or shorten them if the leave is no longer reasonable?
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
I like Kris' suggestion better than the current draft.
But also, I am unconvinced there's a significant problem with the status quo. If applications are not being accepted, that is a failure of the Chair (and, if relevant, their appointed Deputies) in doing their job rather than the law itself. The natural recourse for such a difficulty is to (1) ask nicely, (2) ask grumpily, then (3) do a recall. In this case, it got taken care of on step (1), and I'm fine with following that same process in any future iterations. While I agree with Qaz that if you're on LOA you likely won't be paying too much attention to if your LOA is accepted or not, other members of the Assembly generally are, and if there's a structural problem with LOAs not being recognized it usually gets addressed. Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces Ambassador to Balder Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense ![[Image: rank_general.min.svg]](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/150w/rank_general.min.svg){kind=icon} ![[Image: updates_lifetime_3.min.svg]](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/150w/updates_lifetime_3.min.svg) ![[Image: detags_lifetime_4.min.svg]](https://github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/raw/master/mod/spsf/150w/detags_lifetime_4.min.svg) ![[Image: defenses_lifetime_4.min.svg]](https://github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/raw/master/mod/spsf/150w/defenses_lifetime_4.min.svg) ![[Image: ykXEqbU.png]](https://imgur.com/ykXEqbU.png)
(08-03-2021, 10:48 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: There has been at least one instance of a legislator requesting an indefinite leave of absence, so without detracting from the validity of your argument, I do think there needs to be a way to ensure that the figure of LoAs is not abused or used as a way to circumvent activity requirements. Perhaps LoAs themselves are automatic but the Chair or LegComm can end or shorten them if the leave is no longer reasonable? I would argue if there is no end date, a LoA has not been submitted because for it to be a Leave, there must be an end date.
(08-03-2021, 11:20 AM)Qaweritoyu Wrote:Why leave that up to argument when we could put it into writing quite easily?(08-03-2021, 10:48 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: There has been at least one instance of a legislator requesting an indefinite leave of absence, so without detracting from the validity of your argument, I do think there needs to be a way to ensure that the figure of LoAs is not abused or used as a way to circumvent activity requirements. Perhaps LoAs themselves are automatic but the Chair or LegComm can end or shorten them if the leave is no longer reasonable? Anyway, generally speaking, I agree with HumanSanity that there isn't really an issue with the law here. Though, I'm fine with Kris' suggestion, especially since it does seem a little weird to need the Chair to "approve" LOAs, especially for IRL reasons, in any situations where they aren't being clearly abused. (08-03-2021, 11:20 AM)Qaweritoyu Wrote:(08-03-2021, 10:48 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: There has been at least one instance of a legislator requesting an indefinite leave of absence, so without detracting from the validity of your argument, I do think there needs to be a way to ensure that the figure of LoAs is not abused or used as a way to circumvent activity requirements. Perhaps LoAs themselves are automatic but the Chair or LegComm can end or shorten them if the leave is no longer reasonable? Even if we assume that requirement, one could still effectively unlimited LoAs. Such as one that's 10 years long. And to preempt any discussions of a hard cap, you're always going to run into cases where it's still long enough to be abused and too short for some legitimate cases. Sometimes both. And furthermore even if you do regulate the time, without someone to regulate you further have the possibility of logging in just enough to endlessly submit new LoAs just before the current one expires. There's always a loophole.
The CoA will still have to go through the LoA thread for their monthly legislator checks, removing their duty to approve an LoA could potentially make the Chair forget to check the thread.
LoAs are generally a formality and the Chair's approval is more of a rubber stamp that merely prevents abuse of the system. I am against the change. Perhaps a more sensible amendment would be to retroactively approve the LoA if the Chair missed their chance to give approval. -Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions -Legislator 2/24/20- -High Court Justice 6/7/20- -South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20- -Minister of Engagement 6/17/22- -Past Roles/Positions -Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18 -Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21 -Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17 -Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18 -Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17 -Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016
(08-04-2021, 09:52 PM)Griffindor Wrote: LoAs are generally a formality and the Chair's approval is more of a rubber stamp that merely prevents abuse of the system. Which is something that should probably change. While leaves are for the most part used reasonably, there still remains the fact that Chairs should truly consider when a leave request is not reasonable and actually deny it. 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
Perhaps drafting assembly-approved guidelines that a Chair should follow to handle LoAs would suffice?
-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions -Legislator 2/24/20- -High Court Justice 6/7/20- -South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20- -Minister of Engagement 6/17/22- -Past Roles/Positions -Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18 -Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21 -Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17 -Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18 -Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17 -Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016
I always saw LoA as an official notification (to prevent accidents and in case of one there is proof to rectify it), rather than for permission.
If I lost my job suddenly and had to take a step back for a couple weeks to find a new job and acclimate to schedule/work and had to ask for permission to essentially not be removed from "citizenship" (which is effectively what Legislatorship is everywhere else), then the Chair can go kick rocks. The solution is to notify the chair in a public space, such as the thread we post LoA in. If notification is given, you will remain a Legislator and in the case of an accident you have proof to present that you aren't using LoA you never told anyone for an excuse of your inactivity because you got bored and forgot. As for indefinite LoA, I don't like that in general. If someone is gone for 3 months or more it's not likely they are gonna comeback until outside matters are resolved in some way. It shouldn't take me 3 or more months to acclimate to a new job for instance. You have better things to do than worry about having to reapply again. |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Spoiler![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |