[SEMI-PUBLIC] General Assembly - Term XIII

[unmerged(33865)]

I have submitted three pieces of proposed legislation concerning housing to the ECB for their Economic Impact Assessment. When they have completed that task I will propose them here. I had hoped to wait for the results of the census, but that seems to be taking longer than I anticipated, so I felt it necessary to put them forward now, so they are not crowded out by the flood of legislation from Mr. Leary. They are:

1. Eutopian Federal Mortgage Guarantee Corporation Establishment Act ("EFMGCEA")
2. Housing Renovation & Investment Act ("HRIA"), and
3. Land Lease/Sale Authorization Act ("LLSAA")

I view these as part of the balance that was struck to get ELP representatives to vote for a bill that primarily benefits the holders of capital, namely the reform of dividend taxes. Each of these proposals will also benefit our ecomony and shouldn't interfere with the current budget.

 

[Craig Ashley]

"Well, Per Minister, you've known for some time that welfare would be cut. There was a significant delay between the time the President introduced his budget and the actual passing of the budget. All the proposals on the floor included welfare cuts, so you knew this was coming. What steps has your office taken to ease the transition phase? Welfare cuts didn't mean you had to immediately drop anyone from the rolls. You could have weaned them off of welfare over time, as long as your total spending for the term did not exceed 13% of the federal budget. Frankly, while I can support a temporary increase to help cover the increased costs of heating this winter, I cannot support what amounts to a large roll back of the cuts due to your ministry's inactivity or poor decision making."

"However, I do think a ECB report regarding the impact of your proposed cuts would be most appropriate. And if such a report contained a price tag for helping with the temporary situation regarding heating costs, even better."

 

[unmerged(35742)]

Mr Leary I beleive that you are mistaken as can you suggest how we wean people of wealfare when they are unable to work when the are retirees you must understand that we are dealing with more than jobless people here we are dealing wiith people who are unable to work at all. Futher more I had to decide then a there who was going to be taken off the welfare roles I had no leeway I had to get some one of the role straight away. Also it would be very hard to wean people of the roles when we have had a huge amount of government funding taken away by this years budget.

 

[Craig Ashley]

"Again, you state that you had to decide who was cut. If you felt that elderly individuals who can no longer reasonably be expected to work and are currently on welfare should remain on the welfare rolls, you could have carved out an exemption for them - provided your overall cuts were still within the budget alloted to you."

"You say you had to immediately cut people, but that is not the case. No bill was passed mandating an immediate reduction of the welfare rolls. The budget merely mandated what your ministry's total spending on welfare for the term could be. Your ministry could have had weflare represent 15% of federal spending for year one, 13% for year two, and 11% for year three. The average spending for the term would be 13% - which is what the budget allocated."

 

[unmerged(35742)]

would would o had to immidately cut people as we cwould not able to support the same amount of people as we did befor the budget cut. If you can support the same amount of people as we did before the budget cuts, on 13% then you must be some sort of mircle worker.

sorry about spelling mistakes its 10:50pm over here

 

[unmerged(33865)]

The phase down Mr. Leary suggests would leave the rate in the end of that hypothetical three year term at a lower level than the average for the term, and thus would seem to presage another cut next term, which I am against and I assume the minister is against as well. In addition, by the time the budget was enacted and the ministers calculations made, we were, effectively, one year into the term, and thus already at the point when the first cuts suggested in your hypothetical schedule would be made.

Thus, taking into account the general principle that Mr. Leary suggests, but recognizing the time already elapsed, one might restore all but one-third of the budget cuts to welfare, so that the expenditure rate in the third year of this term was at the level originally proposed in the budget for the full term, which would mean, if expenditures were held at that level, the budget for next term could be at the same level as approved for this term. Thus the level of funding approved would be applied, just not immediately. Given that the prior budget was 15%, and the approved budget is 13%, the Minister's revised proposal of 14.3% appears to be implementing the cut to 13% as of the third year of the term, not the second, to allow those currently receiving this support a chance to rearrange their lives without making it a crisis. This would be consistent with permitting a 13% budget allocation for welfare in the future, which the Minister seems to feel is difficult but achievable. Cutting to 11% from 15%, in the current environment, is draconian, and should not be seriously considered, despite the numerical arguments presented by Mr. Leary. These are not just numbers in a ledger, but peoples' lives we are speaking about.

 

[J. Passepartout]

Gentlemen, I find that I am forced to be absent for the next few days, so if perhaps Mr. Leary or Admiral Tulp were to take the position of Deputy Speaker?

 

[Craig Ashley]

"I would be honored to serve as Deupty Speaker."

 

[unmerged(33865)]

That is fine with me. I hope we get to see you sue yourself for trying to throw yourself out of the General Assembly.

Are we ready to vote on the proposal of the Minister of Social Services on the adjustments in his part of the budget, or did you require more explanations about how the proposed cuts could be achieved in OmniCare?

 

[Craig Ashley]

Colin chuckles a bit. "I don't think we have to worry about that, Per Park."

"As to the minister's proposed changes, I think what we really need is an ECB impact report. We can discuss the impact of the proposed changes, but without any hard data, its all speculation. I propse we shelve discussion on the proposed budget amendment until a report is published. At which time, the proposal will again have the floor and be disuscussed and then voted upon. Any objections?"

"Moving along, assuming no one objects, I believe the Veteran's Pension Act has the floor now, as the only bill with a second. I assume discussion will be minimal here, but you never know. So, I'll open the floor for disucssion, but if none is forthcoming, I'll move it to a vote."

"A little later, I'll be proposing some procedural guidelines for the General Assembly and the role of the Speaker to help streamline things around here and clarify the powers and responsibilities of the office of Speaker. I would prefer for that proposal to be immediately debated and voted upon, as it is something this body is in dire need of."

 

[unmerged(33865)]

The budgetary implications of the Minister's proposal are known, they are the whole contents of the bill. What eventual effect that might have on the economy is, just that, eventual, so it will be a matter for the next term of the GA to deal with in their budget process. A bill that proposes some new structure be built, like a freeway, that offers a new service, like free donuts for police officers, or imposes a new tax, like 5 cents per word on political speeches needs an economic impact report, because we aren't sure what the impact on expenditure or revenues will be. It is not necessary for the Minister's amendment to his portion of the budget, because we already know. If we delay, it will either mean an abrupt dislocation for some welfare receipients if the Minister and his department try to live within the budget (and thereby kill some people because they won't be able to live within theirs), or a further delay of the time when the eventual cuts take effect. I am glad I don't have to make the choice of violating the budget and potentially getting impeached or cutting off some of the neediest. I believe we should take him out of that dilemma by acting now on his proposed bill. If no one else has anything further on the matter in the same time you are allowing for debate on Veterans' Pension Act, then the Minister's proposal should go to a vote at the same time.

As to the rules, we merely need to start with one, and the rest can be built as we go. That one would be that a 'point of order' is always in order, should be ruled on immediately by the speaker, and if someone shouts 'division' should the Speaker fail to accept the point of order, that there would be an immediate vote on the matter to decide. I expect it will be followed while you have the gavel. If you do a good job, then hopefully your successors will learn from your example. The alternative is to go with a pre-tested set of rules already adopted and used elsewhere, such as Robert's Rules of Order. I don't mind, either way, provided we don't spend much time on the process, so we can get back to the real work at hand, which is the legislation that you and I have proposed, or the legislation that someone else might want to propose.

 

[Craig Ashley]

"Perhaps the ECB is not the proper body. But my problem, and I speak here as a legislator not as the speaker, is that the minister has not produced one report, even from his own office, that states how many people he has cut, how much if at all he has reduced benefits, and what he hopes to restore with his proposed changes. He has not given us a price tag for what funds would be necessary to cover the increased heating costs people face. However, if the minister prefers not to share this information, that is his perogitive."

"I will ask the minister for two clarifications before I bring the proposal to a vote. First, your proposal shows a 2.3% increase in welfare and your cuts balance this figure, but your final spending figure for welfare is only a 1.3% increase. Obviously somewhere there is a typo or a miscalculation. Per Minister, please clarify the numbers. Second, I would like to know how the proposed cut of 1.5% will affect Omnicare and its customers. This coupled with the previous cut is a significant reduction and certainly will have some sort of impact."

 

[Craig Ashley]

"Gentlemen, I hope we can have a brief discussion and a quick vote here, so we can move on to other matters. That said, I present to you my proposed floor rules for the General Assembly."

I. General Procedure

1. A "point of order" is always in order and requires an immediate ruling from the Speaker. A member of the General Assembly may challenge that ruling by stating "division", upon which an immediate vote shall be called to decide the matter.

2. Bills shall be introduced by submitting them to the Speaker's office. Seconds shall also be filed with the Speaker's office.

3. All motions filed at the Speaker's office shall be a matter of public record.

4. A properly introduced bill with a proper second is required to have a vote, unless withdrawn by the author or dismissed by the Speaker.

5. Bills shall be amended by one of two means:

- The author accepts the proposed amendment as his own and willingly incorporates into his proposal

- The author rejects the proposal. In that case, the amendment will require a second to proceed. In the event of a second, a vote shall be taken after sufficient debate to decide if the amendment is attached to the proposal against the will of the author. A simple majority is all that is required.

6. Debate can end by one of three means:

- The Speaker rules debate has ended.

- A majority of the senior legislators representing parties that comprise a majority of the General Assembly move to end debate.

- A member of the General Assembly moves to end debate and the motion is seconded, then an immediate vote shall take place. A simply majority is all that is required to end debate.

7. The voting period for standard bills shall be no less than 48 hours (OOC: RL) unless all votes are cast before that time. The Speaker is authorized to create a longer voting window when the vote is called.

8. A quorum of 51 votes cast is required for any proposal to take affect.

II. Legislative Priority, Fast Track Legislation, and Emergency Legislation

1. Legislation which has a second and an ECB approved Fiscal Impact Report (or does not require a impact report) shall be the first priority. Bills that have a proper second shall be next in priority, followed by bills that have an ECB report, but lack a second. Lastly, introduced bills that lack a second and a ECB report shall be considered. Chronological order of the original submission shall determine which bills in the same priority level will be considered first.

2. Legislation that is of a time sensative nature or addresses an immediate and compelling national need or interest can be fast tracked by one of three means:

- The author of the bill requests the Speaker authorize his bill as a fast track bill and the Speaker approves. The Speaker may not fast track his own proposals. Instead he must ask for the Deputy Speaker's approval in the matter. Or ...

- A majority of the Senior Legislators, representing parties that comprise a majority of the General Assembly, move for a bill to be fast tracked. These requests are to be filed at the Speaker's office. Or ...

- The author requests permission to fast track his legislation from the author's of the bills that currently have priority above his. For every author that grants permission, the proposal in question shall be given priority over. These requests and acceptance of the request are to be filed at the Speaker's office.

Once fast tracked, the proposal shall become the next matter for the body to consider.

3. Legislation that addresses matters that require an immediate action on the part of the General Assembly for the sake of the nation can be declared emergency legislation by one of two means:

- The author of the bill requests the Speaker authorize his bill as an emergency bill and the Speaker approves. The Speaker may not declare his own proposals emergency bills. Instead he must ask for the Deputy Speaker's approval in the matter. Or ...

- A majority of the Senior Legislators, representing parties that comprise a majority of the General Assembly, move for a bill to be an emergency bill. These requests are to be filed at the Speaker's office.

Emergency legislation shall immediately supercede all motions on the floor. Debate shall cease until the emergency legislation has been properly addressed. The Speaker is also authorized to allow a shorter voting window for emergency legislation (OOC: 24 hours).


III. Other Powers and Duties of the Speaker

1. The Speaker shall be required to appoint a Deputy Speaker in a timely manner (OOC: 3 Days after his election). The Deputy Speaker is prohibited from being of the same party as the Speaker. The Deputy Speaker shall perform the duties of the office of Speaker in the absence of the Speaker. Should the Speaker be removed or vacate his office, the Deputy Speaker shall succeed him.

2. The Speaker is empowered to dismiss bills as frivolous, obstructionist, or repetitive.

3. The Speaker is empowered to temporarily remove members of the General Assembly who act in a manner that obstructs or distracts the General Assembly from its purposes of democracy, good government, and responsible legislation.

4. The Speaker is empowered to propose changes to the General Assembly Floor Rules. These changes must be approved by the body by a majority vote.

IV. Checks Against the Speaker

1. In matters of the Speaker ruling on ending debate, dismissing bills, approving fast track or emergency legislation, and temproarily dismissing members of the General Assembly the Speaker can be overruled by two methods:

- A majority of the senior legislators representing parties that comprise a majority of the General Assembly make a motion to overrule the Speaker.

- A vote is held and passes, after the proper introduction and seconding of a motion to overrule the speaker.

2. The Speaker shall not be allowed to serve as Senior Legislator to his own party. If the Senior Legislator of a party is elected to the office of Speaker, he shall be required to resign and his party appoint a new Senior Legislator.

V. Vacating the office of Speaker

Should the Speaker take an unannounced absence exceeding 5 days (OOC: RL), the General Assembly is empowered to declare the office vacant.

Should the Speaker take an announced absence exceeding 10 days (OOC: RL), the General Assembly is empowered to declare the office vacant.

 

[unmerged(33865)]

I understand your call for from information from the Minister of Social Services, and agree that it would be convenient if he would respond, as that may affect the way some legislators vote on his bill.

As to the rules proposed, most of them are fine, but I have problems with the following ones:

I. General Procedure
2. ...Seconds shall also be filed with the Speaker's office.

Seconds should be made on the floor. (OOC: Seconds should be considered quasi-automatic as it is likely that a back-bencher from the same bloc of same party would second. Do we want to burden the GMs with actually doing this?) Also, when a bill comes to the floor, the proposer should read it aloud or distribute it to all members present (OOC: post it in this thread, unless the speaker has already done so) and be recognized by the speaker give a speech in favor of the legislation before anyone else speaks on it.

Whenever it says "A majority of the senior legislators representing parties that comprise a majority of the General Assembly..." it should be re-written as "Any group of senior legislators representing parties that comprise a majority of the General Assembly..."

II. Legislative Priority, Fast Track Legislation, and Emergency Legislation
1. Legislation which has a second and an ECB approved Fiscal Impact Report (or does not require a impact report) shall be the first priority. Bills that have a proper second shall be next in priority, followed by bills that have an ECB report, but lack a second. Lastly, introduced bills that lack a second and a ECB report shall be considered.

Bills that lack a second have no standing. You should either modify that to specify a second from another party, which would signify that they are more general interest, or remove it.

III. Other Powers and Duties of the Speaker
1. The Speaker shall be required to appoint a Deputy Speaker in a timely manner (OOC: 3 Days after his election). The Deputy Speaker is prohibited from being of the same party as the Speaker. The Deputy Speaker shall perform the duties of the office of Speaker in the absence of the Speaker. Should the Speaker be removed or vacate his office, the Deputy Speaker shall succeed him.

I don't see why there should be a prohibition for the deputy speaker from appointing a deputy speaker being from the speaker's party. But more important, Mr. Deputy Acting Speaker, the duly elected Speaker is also Vice President and would need to take over for the President in those constitutionally specified cases. An appointed replacement is just filling in to allow our business to proceed, and has not been duly approved by a majority. If Michael Lundgren is no longer Speaker and VP we need to elect a new Speaker and VP, so the VP is legitimate, and not subject to constitutional challenge. If the new Speaker and VP doesn't want to actually preside as Speaker, they can hand the gavel to their deputy as soon as they appoint one, but we need a duly elected VP.

 

[Craig Ashley]

"I'll respond in reverse order. The reason I propose the deputy speaker be from a seperate party is because the Deputy Speaker occassionally acts as a check against abuse from the Speaker. For example the Speaker cannot fast track his own legislation. Instead the Deputy Speaker must approve this request. For this reason, I felt it best if there was some political seperation between the Speaker's office and the Deputy Speaker."

"Bills that lack a second can and have been discussed on the floor. Often a brief clarification is necessary before another legislator is willing to second. For this reason I included them in the priority listing, but placed them at the bottom."

"I purposely chose the wording 'A majority of the senior legislators representing parties that comprise a majority of the General Assembly' to make it slightly more difficult to overrule the Speaker. The Speaker should only be overruled in cases where he violates the democratic principles of our nation. I was attempting to make it difficult for a group of partisans to routinely overrule the Speaker."

"My reasoning for having seconds filed at the Speaker's office was for the sake of simplicity in record keeping for the Speaker."

OOC: The main reasoning here was to have all the "procedural" posts in one location to make it easier for the Speaker to keep track of what has been proposed and what has been seconded, ect. Your point about seconds being almost automatic is reasonable, but so far this term we have relied on player seconds. It would be up to the GMs if they would allow backbenchers to second bill.

 

[unmerged(33865)]

"I'll respond in reverse order. The reason I propose the deputy speaker be from a seperate party is because the Deputy Speaker occassionally acts as a check against abuse from the Speaker. For example the Speaker cannot fast track his own legislation. Instead the Deputy Speaker must approve this request. For this reason, I felt it best if there was some political seperation between the Speaker's office and the Deputy Speaker."

We disagree on this one. Your proposal favors a small party, and lacks a second on this matter. You can make your proposal less controversial, by dropping this attempt to over-engineer these simple rules to get us back to legislating. If you want something like this, please bring it up later, after the basic framework has been agreed.

"Bills that lack a second can and have been discussed on the floor. Often a brief clarification is necessary before another legislator is willing to second. For this reason I included them in the priority listing, but placed them at the bottom."

Legislators say all sorts of things, some of them audible, not all of them in order. The discussions of unseconded bills should be considered negotiation about the contents of draft legislation. It would be better done in a committee room, but I don't think we should punish legislators who do a bit of negotiation here, provided it doesn't get out of hand.

"I purposely chose the wording 'A majority of the senior legislators representing parties that comprise a majority of the General Assembly' to make it slightly more difficult to overrule the Speaker. The Speaker should only be overruled in cases where he violates the democratic principles of our nation. I was attempting to make it difficult for a group of partisans to routinely overrule the Speaker."

First, if the majority wants to overrule the Speaker, it is entitled to do so, without needing a supermajority to do so. Second, your declared intention was not implemented by your drafting. The MRP and PoL and either larger party consitute 'parties representing a majority of the General Assembly'. Between them, they have three senior legislators, so a majority would be two, which could be the MRP and PoL, although those two parties together are a minority of the GA. Thus, under your rule, a minority could determine something. That isn't good.

"My reasoning for having seconds filed at the Speaker's office was for the sake of simplicity in record keeping for the Speaker."

OOC: The main reasoning here was to have all the "procedural" posts in one location to make it easier for the Speaker to keep track of what has been proposed and what has been seconded, ect. Your point about seconds being almost automatic is reasonable, but so far this term we have relied on player seconds. It would be up to the GMs if they would allow backbenchers to second bill.

Many who would second a bill also want to make a speech about why. So far, seconds have been done here. If you want to maintain and display a list somewhere, you don't need our permission, but the seconds have traditionally been here, so your are tinkering with something that isn't broken.

(OOC: The GMs clearly have the right, but let us let them weigh in on this.)

 

[Craig Ashley]

We disagree on this one. Your proposal favors a small party, and lacks a second on this matter. You can make your proposal less controversial, by dropping this attempt to over-engineer these simple rules to get us back to legislating. If you want something like this, please bring it up later, after the basic framework has been agreed.

Small parties may benefit slightly as a side affect of my proposal, but again its main purpose is to represent a check against the Speaker's office. That said, if a majority of the leading members here oppose this provision, I would be willing to drop it and address it at a later date.

First, if the majority wants to overrule the Speaker, it is entitled to do so, without needing a supermajority to do so. Second, your declared intention was not implemented by your drafting. The MRP and PoL and either larger party consitute 'parties representing a majority of the General Assembly'. Between them, they have three senior legislators, so a majority would be two, which could be the MRP and PoL, although those two parties together are a minority of the GA. Thus, under your rule, a minority could determine something. That isn't good.

A majority of the body can overrule the speaker at any time. The ability of senior legislators to do so was to provide a quicker, less tedious way to do so. However, since I felt it was best to ensure that the process was more difficult. You seem to misunderstand my wording, so allow me to clarify.

"A majority of the senior legislators representing parties that comprise a majority of the General Assembly"

This provides two thresholds that must be met. First it must be a majority of the senior legislators. In the current GA, that would be 3 of the 4. Secondly, that group must come from parties that can form a majority of the GA. In the current GA, any combination of 3 parties has a majority. So for the current GA, it would take any 3 senior legislators to overrule the speaker.

 

[unmerged(33865)]

Small parties may benefit slightly as a side affect of my proposal, but again its main purpose is to represent a check against the Speaker's office. That said, if a majority of the leading members here oppose this provision, I would be willing to drop it and address it at a later date.

Mr. Leary, you are a legislator from the party with the least number of seats in the assembly. You were handed the gavel temporarily. You ruled that we should discuss rules, rather than pending resolution. I agreed, only it be done quickly and suggested two ways that could be accomplished. You instead proposed something more complicated, which has yet to be seconded. I suggested some parts were fine but some specific changes were needed for it to be supportable. The implication was that you accept them and get a seconded proposal or you look elsewhere for a second. I assure you that if you don't accept them I will propose an alternative. There is nothing special about your proposal, and a acting speaker, you would not normally be in a position to propose your own motion by your own rules, so think seriously about accepting all my proposed changes or all of what you have written will likely be for nought. The objective is to get this done quickly. You made the effort to put forth a first draft, for which we thank you, but it has, as any first draft does, what I perceive to be flaws. You argue, saying 'no', that is what you intended. Fine, they aren't flaws, they were features you intended to add. But they then are quirky or controversial, and have no part in the business at hand of quickly laying out a set of fair rules so we can get back to our agenda, not the court's, made necessary by your inappropraite filing of a suit in the first place.

A majority of the body can overrule the speaker at any time. The ability of senior legislators to do so was to provide a quicker, less tedious way to do so. However, since I felt it was best to ensure that the process was more difficult. You seem to misunderstand my wording, so allow me to clarify.

"A majority of the senior legislators representing parties that comprise a majority of the General Assembly"

This provides two thresholds that must be met. First it must be a majority of the senior legislators. In the current GA, that would be 3 of the 4. Secondly, that group must come from parties that can form a majority of the GA. In the current GA, any combination of 3 parties has a majority. So for the current GA, it would take any 3 senior legislators to overrule the speaker.

I understand your wording as the courts would understand your wording. It is you that fail to understand its import. You are too focused on your small party's position to do the math right. Any two parties except yours constitute a majority. To remind you:

PoL 16
MRP 23
ELP 28
ENP 33

So MRP plus ELP equals 23 plus 28, which is 51, a majority. And the ENP has more seats than either of those two, so they and either of the others is a majority without your party. Thus it is two parties (excluding yours) that forms a majority, contrary to what you said. Your party, if parties vote uniformly, is never necessary to form a majority. I already proposed reasonable wording. Your 'rewording' has fails to match even what you wrote immediately afterward, and if we only pay attention to the wording, which is what the courts would do, would allow a minority to dictate to the majority. Your wording cites a majority of a majority, which can be a minority. That is at odds with what you said, but what you said is not what we might be voting on and would have to live with if passed.

 

[unmerged(33865)]

To facilitate your consideration, here is an edited version. Do you accept these amendments, or shall we go back to considering legislation, while you fish around for a second?

I. General Procedure

1. A "point of order" is always in order and requires an immediate ruling from the Speaker. A member of the General Assembly may challenge that ruling by stating "division", upon which an immediate vote shall be called to decide the matter.

2. Bills shall be introduced by submitting them to the Speaker's office. Seconds shall also be filed with the Speaker's office. When the Speaker or his deputy announces that a bill is to be debated now on the floor, the proposer shall make available copies of the proposed bill to the members of the General Assembly (OOC: post in the GA thread). The proposer will have the right to speak first on his bill.

3. All motions filed at the Speaker's office shall be a matter of public record.

4. A properly introduced bill with a proper second is required to have a vote, unless withdrawn by the author or dismissed by the Speaker.

5. Bills shall be amended by one of two means:

- The author accepts the proposed amendment as his own and willingly incorporates into his proposal

- The author rejects the proposal. In that case, the amendment will require a second to proceed. In the event of a second, a vote shall be taken after sufficient debate to decide if the amendment is attached to the proposal against the will of the author. A simple majority is all that is required.

6. Debate can end by one of three means:

- The Speaker rules debate has ended.

- A majority of the senior legislators representing parties that comprise a majority of the General Assembly move to end debate.

- A member of the General Assembly moves to end debate and the motion is seconded, then an immediate vote shall take place. A simply majority is all that is required to end debate.

7. The voting period for standard bills shall be no less than 48 hours (OOC: RL) unless all votes are cast before that time. The Speaker is authorized to create a longer voting window when the vote is called.

8. A quorum of 51 votes cast is required for any proposal to take affect.

II. Legislative Priority, Fast Track Legislation, and Emergency Legislation

1. Legislation which has a second and an ECB approved Fiscal Impact Report (or does not require a impact report) shall be the third priority. Bills that have a proper second shall be next (fourth) in priority. Chronological order of the original submission shall determine which bills in the same priority level will be considered first.

2. Legislation that is of a time sensative nature or addresses an immediate and compelling national need or interest can be fast tracked by one of three means:

- The author of the bill requests the Speaker authorize his bill as a fast track bill and the Speaker approves. The Speaker may not fast track his own proposals. Instead he must ask for the Deputy Speaker's approval in the matter. Or ...

- Senior Legislators representing parties that comprise a majority of the General Assembly, move for a bill to be fast tracked. These requests are to be filed at the Speaker's office. Or ...

- The author requests permission to fast track his legislation from the author's of the bills that currently have priority above his. For every author that grants permission, the proposal in question shall be given priority over. These requests and acceptance of the request are to be filed at the Speaker's office.

Once fast tracked, the proposal shall be given second priority, and normally would become the next matter for the body to consider, in the absence of any previously fast tracked legislation or emergency legislation.

3. Legislation that addresses matters that require an immediate action on the part of the General Assembly for the sake of the nation can be declared emergency legislation by one of two means:

- The author of the bill requests the Speaker authorize his bill as an emergency bill and the Speaker approves. The Speaker may not declare his own proposals emergency bills. Instead he must ask for the Deputy Speaker's approval in the matter. Or ...

- Senior Legislators representing parties that comprise a majority of the General Assembly, move for a bill to be an emergency bill. These requests are to be filed at the Speaker's office.

Emergency legislation shall immediately supercede all motions on the floor. Debate on the current motion shall cease until the emergency legislation has been properly addressed. The Speaker is also authorized to allow a shorter voting window for emergency legislation (OOC: 24 hours).


III. Other Powers and Duties of the Speaker

1. The Speaker shall be required to appoint a Deputy Speaker in a timely manner (OOC: 3 Days after his election). The Deputy Speaker shall perform the duties of the office of Speaker in the absence of the Speaker. Should the Speaker be removed or vacate his office, the Deputy Speaker shall conduct an election for a new speaker.

2. The Speaker is empowered to dismiss bills as frivolous, obstructionist, or repetitive.

3. The Speaker is empowered to temporarily remove members of the General Assembly who act in a manner that obstructs or distracts the General Assembly from its purposes of democracy, good government, and responsible legislation.

IV. Checks on the power of the Speaker

1. In matters of the Speaker ruling on ending debate, dismissing bills, approving fast track or emergency legislation, and temproarily dismissing members of the General Assembly the Speaker can be overruled by two methods:

- Senior legislators representing parties that comprise a majority of the General Assembly make a motion to overrule the Speaker.

- A vote is held and passes, after the proper introduction and seconding of a motion to overrule the speaker.

2. The Speaker shall not be allowed to serve as Senior Legislator to his own party. If the Senior Legislator of a party is elected to the office of Speaker, he shall be required to resign and his party appoint a new Senior Legislator.

V. Vacating the office of Speaker

Should the Speaker take an unannounced absence exceeding 5 days (OOC: RL), the General Assembly is empowered to declare the office vacant.

Should the Speaker take an announced absence exceeding 10 days (OOC: RL), the General Assembly is empowered to declare the office vacant.

 

[Josephus I]

I like and support Per Park's amended version.