A few wide-sweeping changes to the SOM.
Explictly allows the denial of incomplete applications that haven’t satisfied the procedural requirements
Incorporates part of the Legislative Procedures Resolution regarding motions to vote and seconds.
Allows Magisters to petition to change their current status as a WA/Non-WA member without needing to resign and invalidating any active votes.
Allows Magisters to be suspended for failing to vote in at least 50% of all votes conducted each month.
Standing Orders of the Magisterium
SECTION I. ADMITTANCE OF NEW MAGISTERS
…1.2. The Provost shall verify whether all conditions described in Section 1.1. of these Standing Orders have been met.
…1.2.3. If the applicant has not satisfied the conditions described in Section 1.1. within 72 hours of notification of an incomplete application, the Provost shall deny their application.
SECTION II. LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE
…2.4. Any sponsor may motion the Bill to vote at any time during debate. A Magister who is not one of the bill’s sponsors must second that motion. The Provost shall be deemed sponsor if the sponsor(s) are absent as outlined in 4.8, or inactive longer than 21 days.
…2.4.1. Should a motioned Bill fail to be seconded within 48 hours, the Bill shall return to being debated. The Sponsor(s) may immediately move the Bill to vote again.
…2.4.2. Should a Bill fail to be seconded on two separate instances, a mandatory 72 hour waiting period shall apply.
…2.4.3 If a Bill fails to attain a second following the waiting period defined by Section 2.4.2, it shall immediately be tabled and may not be brought back for the remainder of the current legislative session.
…2.7 Should a Bill fail for reasons other than lack of quorum, the Bill is considered defeated and may not be brought back for the remainder of the legislative session.
SECTION VIII. CHANGE OF MAGISTER STATUS
…8.1. Magisters may petition the Provost to change the status of their membership within the Magisterium without resigning and re-applying to the Magisterium.
…8.1.1. Magisters accepted under Section 1.2.1 may convert to Non-WA status subject to a vote as outlined in Section 1.2.2.
…8.1.2. Magisters accepted under Section 1.2.2 may convert to WA status provided that the requirements of Section 1.2.1 are met by the petitioner.
…8.2 A Magister may not invoke Section VIII more than once per legislative session.
SECTION VIII IX. REMOVAL OF MAGISTERS
… 8 9.1. The Provost may hold a roll call and require that Magisters respond within 1 week, or 168 hours, to confirm their activity:
… 8 9.1.1. Any Magister not responding to such a roll call can be suspended by the Provost, Deputy Provost, or removed by a majority vote of the responding Magisters.
… 8 9.1.2. Any Magister who has informed the Magisterium of their absence shall be exempt to this rule, as long as the roll call is within the time frame of inactivity as stated by the Magister.
… 8 9.2. A Magister may be suspended by the Provost, and removed by a majority vote if:
… 8 9.2.1. the Magister has not logged into the forums for more than two weeks and has not informed the Magisterium of said absence, or;
… 8 9.2.2. the Magister has not voted or confirmed attendance in at least two successive votes initiated at least seven days apart from each other.
…9.2.3. the Magister has not voted or confirmed attendance in at least 50% of all votes conducted in each month.
8.2.3 9.2.4- the Magister was accepted under Section 1.2.1 of these Orders but currently has their WA nation outside of TEP, unless they are a verified EPSA soldier and/or following EPSA orders.
… 8 9.3. Any suspended Magister may be unsuspended by informing the Magisterium of the reason for their inactivity, and voting in any legislative proposal. If said Magister was suspended per 8 9.2.3., they must also return their WA nation to TEP and inform the Magisterium of the reason for their WA nation having been moved outside TEP.
… 8 9.4. A Magister will be removed automatically, which shall be published by the Provost, if:
… 8 9.4.1. the Magister is found to have supplied falsified information in their Magister’s Pledge or official Public Disclosure Form.
… 8 9.4.2. the Magister has no resident TEP nation.
… 8 9.5. A Magister may resign at any time.
SECTION IX X. AMENDMENTS
What exactly is a “legislative season”? Was this defined anywhere in the body of law? I assume its the date in which a Provost is elected/reelected, but It’d be nice for some clarification.
Overall, seems like a pretty good proposal, adding QOL changes to the law.
Legislative Session rather than season.
It’s not explicitly defined, but Section 7.2.2 of the Standing Orders also make reference to a “Magisterial Term”.
But essentially yes, Magisterial Term/Legislative Session is de facto the same period as each Provost term.
Which is also historically the case, as per the Record of Magisters
I like legislative session better, but should we not keep it Magisterial Term for consistency’s sake?
I think legislative session would generally work better than Magisterial Term, I’m inclined to also amend that reference as well.
This is mainly because Magisters don’t really serve a term on the Magisterium, they are there until removed or resign, whereas the Provost would be serving a term.
Each term of the Provost coincides with a
session of the Magisterium, hence 56th, 57th Magisterium etc.
If we’re going to keep legislative session, I think we should amend it elsewhere.
How soon does a second have to be made after the waiting period?
It can definitely be worded better for sure.
The intent is that after 2 failed motions, the Sponsor(s) need to wait out the 72 hours (view it as additional mandatory debating time) before they can attempt the 3rd motion for the Bill.
All motion attempts would be subject to the 48 hours timer as defined by Section 2.4.1
I dont see why this new clause is nessecary, considering sometimes bills fail with a margin kf one to two votes and it may just need to be put to vote again to pass.
My rmb voting omnibus failed by a one vote margin, for example. Probably wouldve passed if i had reproposes it.
I’m just throwing it in to see if it sticks to be honest.
Would you be more amenable if it was closer to like a 2/3 majority voting no to nix it for the remainder of the session?
I don’t hate that idea, or another vote during the same session requires a larger majority.