Standing Orders - Section II

I would like to propose the following changes to Section II of the Standing Orders. I believe that they are rather small.

The current Standing Orders:

— Begin quote from ____

SECTION II. LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE

…2.1- Any Magister may propose a bill, resolution, or amendment to the Concordat and the Magisterium shall debate that proposal immediately.
…2.2- The Magisterium shall continue to debate that proposal until a Magister has motioned to vote and another Magister has seconded that motion. Any such motion shall only be valid if 48 hours have passed after the bill, resolution, or amendment to the Concordat has been proposed.
…2.3- A Magister may motion to amend proposed legislation at any time during debate;
…2.3.1- If the author(s) of the legislation accept the amendment upon its proposal, in which case the legislation shall be amended as motioned without a vote;
…2.3.2- If that motion is not accepted by the author(s), yet receives a second, the Magisterium shall vote on the amendment for not less than 72 and not more than 96 hours;
…2.3.3- Were the motion to receive majority support, the legislation shall stand amended as motioned.
…2.4- The same procedure shall be used for nominations by the Delegate as well as motions to overrule a Delegate’s veto.

— End quote

My proposed changes (in Green):

— Begin quote from ____

SECTION II. LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE

…2.1- Any Magister may propose a bill, resolution, or amendment to the Concordat and the Magisterium shall debate that proposal immediately.
…2.2- Any Magister may motion to amend proposed legislation at any time during debate;
…2.2.1- If the author(s) of the legislation accepts the amendment they are required to post the amended proposal in the debate thread, which will then be considered the current proposal;upon its proposal, in which case the legislation shall be amended as motioned without a vote;
…2.2.2- If the author(s) of the legislation does not accept the amendment If that motion is not accepted by the author(s), yet the amendment receives a second, the Magisterium shall vote on the amendment;
…2.2.2.1- The voting period on the amendment shall begin immediately and last for a period of 72 hours or until all eligible Magisters have voted;
…2.2.2.2- If the vote on the amendment receivesWere the motion to receive majority support, the legislation shall stand amended as motioned and the authors shall be required to post the amended proposal in the debate thread, which will then be considered the current proposal;
…2.3- The Magisterium shall continue to debate that proposal untilthe Provost or Deputy Provost makes a motion to voteand another Magister has seconded that motion. Any such motion shall only be valid if at least 48 hours have passed after the bill, resolution, or amendment to the Concordat has been proposed.
…2.4- The same procedure shall be used for nominations by the Delegate as well as motions to overrule a Delegate’s veto.

— End quote

Changes are:

  • Reordering the Order to reflect the proper workflow of Proposal - Debate - Vote

  • Requiring the authors to keep an updated version of a proposal

  • Voting procedure on declined amendments to a proposal

  • Requiring that only the Provost or Deputy Provost be the one to make a motion to vote

  • Some minor language changes

Most of it seems okay. However, I am fully against the part you’ve described as “Requiring that only the Provost or Deputy Provost be the one to make a motion to vote”. I don’t believe it is a good way to go.

Let’s say, there is 5 Magisters. 2 of them are Provost and DP:
Provost and DP are against the amendment / act / whatever. They don’t motion the proposal to vote. However, rest of 3 Magisters are in favour of a proposal. But it can’t be voted on and accepted, as Provost and DP didn’t motion it. So they are blocked. It’s a case, when majority is ruled by minority.

Yeah I wasn’t sure how that would come across. I was looking at it as the Provost and DP being more like Senate or Parliamentary leaders where they are the ones to bring legislation to a vote.

I didn’t think it would be a problem since the Magisterium elects the Provost so they do have a say in who leads.

My main idea was to make the Provost role more of a leadership role as opposed to a paperwork role.

I’m thinking of something that could work to address the very real issue you brought up. Give me a little time to work it out.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

I disagree with one thing.

The Provost, as you mentioned, is a paperwork role primarily. But it’s also a leading role, in the sense that they facilitate and guide the Magisterium, and they are usually the person who is it’s figure head. So I don’t see the need for that amendment.

On the other hand. I can’t say I’m exactly against it. It probably won’t make much of a difference in how the Magisterium operates.

But I think this has a symbolic presence that’s decreased with this part of the proposal. When you’re a Magister, you become part of a body of equals. Becoming the Provost doesn’t make you the head of the pack (like it does when someone becomes a Delegate). Instead, you become the guy who earns more respect because you’re going above and beyond the call of duty while every one else is doing normal hours, if you get what I mean.

I guess it’s just that with the Provosys only able to motion a vote, one of the staple, minor things about being a Magister is thrown off and it makes the Provost, symbolically, the final sayer or naysayer on a piece of legislation before it’s put to vote. I understand you’re getting a solution ready, but even then it kinda makes the Provost seem a bit above other Magisters. But I guess, that’s what a leader is.

So, idk.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

How about:

— Begin quote from ____

…2.3- The Magisterium shall continue to debate that proposal until either;
… (a) The Provost or Deputy Provost makes a motion to vote and another Magister has seconded that motion or;
… (b) 50% or more of the Magisters request a motion to vote in the debate thread;
…2.3.1- Any such motion shall only be valid if at least 48 hours have passed after the bill, resolution, or amendment to the Concordat has been proposed;

— End quote

Based on what I’ve read in the discussion threads, we most likely would never hit condition (b) as someone would probably just suggest in the thread that the Provost or DP motion to vote, but it preserves the majority’s will in case you have a P or DP that are against that majority (or for that matter a P or DP who have gone AWOL).

To be fair, I will still oppose it. Magisters are meant to be equal. And that is what I will stand for.

Well, functionally, it works so I don’t see why not.

Symbolically. Still kinda detracts equality, but I understand that it’s what your technically going for in making the Provost a leadership position (in a good way, not bad way). In your regard, I think it works. Can’t find any loopholes

I guess we wait for others to share their thoughts on this.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

Thanks Zuk! I tried to address all your concerns.

Lib, I understand you position. We are all equals but if the body is going to pick a leader, I’d like to let them lead in the debates, even if it is only in a minor way.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

I’m fine with all the amendments except 2.3 Where only the provost and deputy provost can motion a vote. It is counter productive in my opinion. Even though, you mentioned that you would like the Provost or deputy to take on more of a leadership role. In my opinion, they already have taken the role.

My vote will be nay if the amendment for 2.3 stays.

I agree with what this bill is trying to do. These are some good changes that will make some progress toward fixing some of the bigger issues going on with regards to TEP’s law. I also think that Marrabuk makes a good point regarding the leadership role of the Provost and deputy in the Magisterium. From what I’ve been able to read and glean from conversations, this leadership role that the Provost has had is clear. Since we already operate in this manner, why don’t we just write it into the standing orders and make it as clear as can be?

I don’t think any Magister should have additional privileges. The idea that the Provost and their deputy will act fairly on every motion just because the first is elected doesn’t seem to make sense to me. The only measure to force them to motion something against their will would be to remove them from their position, which is pretty severe.

The only compromise that could work is not 50% of the Magisters but a motion and two Magisters secondeding can override the Provost and Deputy. But outside of that we might as well just remove the whole section.

Got it! 🙂
Nobody likes the Provost or Deputy Provost having more power.
Going back to the original on that item (you can all cheer now)!

— Begin quote from ____

SECTION II. LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE

…2.1- Any Magister may propose a bill, resolution, or amendment to the Concordat and the Magisterium shall debate that proposal immediately.
…2.2- Any Magister may motion to amend proposed legislation at any time during debate;
…2.2.1- If the author(s) of the legislation accepts the amendment they are required to post the amended proposal in the debate thread, which will then be considered the current proposal;
…2.2.2- If the author(s) of the legislation does not accept the amendment, yet the amendment receives a second, the Magisterium shall vote on the amendment;
…2.2.2.1- The voting period on the amendment shall begin immediately and last for a period of 72 hours or until all eligible Magisters have voted;
…2.2.2.2- If the vote on the amendment receives majority support, the legislation shall stand amended as motioned and the authors shall be required to post the amended proposal in the debate thread, which will then be considered the current proposal;
…2.3- The Magisterium shall continue to debate that proposal until any Magister has motioned to vote and any other Magister has seconded that motion. Any such motion shall only be valid if 48 hours have passed after the bill or resolution has been proposed.
…2.4- The same procedure shall be used for nominations by the Delegate as well as motions to overrule a Delegate’s veto.

— End quote

If nobody else has any comments, I’d like to motion this for a vote.

— Begin quote from ____

Got it! 🙂
Nobody likes the Provost or Deputy Provost having more power.
Going back to the original on that item (you can all cheer now)!

— Begin quote from ____

SECTION II. LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE

…2.1- Any Magister may propose a bill, resolution, or amendment to the Concordat and the Magisterium shall debate that proposal immediately.
…2.2- Any Magister may motion to amend proposed legislation at any time during debate;
…2.2.1- If the author(s) of the legislation accepts the amendment they are required to post the amended proposal in the debate thread, which will then be considered the current proposal;
…2.2.2- If the author(s) of the legislation does not accept the amendment, yet the amendment receives a second, the Magisterium shall vote on the amendment;
…2.2.2.1- The voting period on the amendment shall begin immediately and last for a period of 72 hours or until all eligible Magisters have voted;
…2.2.2.2- If the vote on the amendment receives majority support, the legislation shall stand amended as motioned and the authors shall be required to post the amended proposal in the debate thread, which will then be considered the current proposal;
…2.3- The Magisterium shall continue to debate that proposal until any Magister has motioned to vote and any other Magister has seconded that motion. Any such motion shall only be valid if 48 hours have passed after the bill or resolution has been proposed.
…2.4- The same procedure shall be used for nominations by the Delegate as well as motions to overrule a Delegate’s veto.

— End quote

If nobody else has any comments, I’d like to motion this for a vote.

— End quote

Magister Libertanny seconds the motion

Wysłane z mojego SM-J530F przy użyciu Tapatalka

I’m a bit late to the party, and again, great work by Dave and the Magisters staying on task and working our way through some more legislation clean-up, but I have a question, and that comes solely in terms of 2.1. It reads:

— Begin quote from ____

…2.1- Any Magister may propose a bill, resolution, or amendment to the Concordat and the Magisterium shall debate that proposal immediately.

— End quote

Does this mean any Magister, as in, a Magisters only? I assume so based on the wordage of 2.2. But, if that’s the case, then is only the Magisterium supposed to debate the proposal, or is it the region may comment, which is what we currently do? I’m cool with that, of course, but the wordage is muddy here. It either reads that any Magister may propose and the Magisterium shall debate but others are welcome to do so, or it reads only a Magister may propose and only the Magisterium shall debate. Does that make sense?

That’s an interesting catch, Todd. Ironically, that is the original language.

I would read it as the Magisterium as a body would begin the debate, of course as stated elsewhere (?) all citizens are allowed to contribute to the conversation.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk