Assembly Constitution Act (Debate)

Otiunos: je comprend parfaitement tes réserves quant à la qualité de mon anglais et suppose que tu parles une seconde langue toi aussi (français ou autre). Je serai honoré de t'avoir pour traduire correctement mes idées.

Did you take that?

Otiunos: I understand very well your expectation about the quality of my English and presume you speak too a second language (French or other). I will be honored to have you to translate correctly my ideas.

did you take that?

End of transalation.


Now, thank you to everybody for your comprehensive reading. I think I am one of good members here. Never hesitate to correct me, I preffer for sure a good English wording, I will not be offend at all if Otiunos is making corrections on my statements.

OK, we need to make official the Assembly. I willl open a vote with amendment on article 4 (voting right). The Assembly will be able after that to decide and vote for a Chairman. If we don't do that, we risk to lost a voice in Region. At this time the Assembly exist only on an Executive Orfer who can be removed by any other President.

Brian, you voted "No" for the Act. Can you clarify why? I want to understand.

batiska wrote:Brian, you voted "No" for the Act. Can you clarify why? I want to understand.

I thought we decided there was gonna be a required time in FS that you need to have in order to be in the FSA. To my knowledge the FSA is like a congress. And I feel we shouldnt just let every random that joins come into the FSA, but I do feel everybody should be able to debate and make proposals.

We had a Congress (before you arrived I believe) and it didn't work out too well. We didn't decide anything about a required time for voting rights. This way every Free Society member gets to affect the outcome of the region.

Rat Racecar wrote:We had a Congress (before you arrived I believe) and it didn't work out too well. We didn't decide anything about a required time for voting rights. This way every Free Society member gets to affect the outcome of the region.

I want everybody to have a say too and I feel they'll get that by the right to debate and make proposals, if their veiw is logical I feel some FSA members will agree and cast their vote in support of that veiw.

Hi Brian,
Sounds confuse for me. You say:
"I want everybody to have a say too and I feel they'll get that by the right to debate and make proposals"

That's what we offer!!! and you vote "No".

As a reminder: All member of the forum is a member of the Assembly. A member of the Assembly can debate. The only thing is before having the ability to vote, this member must be accepted by the Assembly.

Where is the problem?

Uhhh maybe you're the confused one. Yea I said all members should be able to make proposals and debate but I DONT think everybody should be able to be in the FSA. All FS members may debate, propose but only FSA members vote and not all members are in the assembly.

Hmm, you guys have got pretty much the same idea.
With Brian's as soon as you join the forum you can debate and propse, but can't vote until you're in the Assembly.
With Batiska's as soon as you join the forum you are in the Assembly, can debate and propose but only get the right to vote after you've been given it by the Chairman, correct?

They're basically the same. The only problem is this place where we debate and propose: it IS the Assembly. So yeah...

Also I dont feel one person should have the power to decide if somebody gets in or not. Also I feel there should be a requirement in order to ask for FSA eligibility. Like 5 weeks in the FS or something.

We don't need a committee to approve a person to the Assembly. It's much too bureaucratic and frankly, a legislative burden that would distract the group from other Free Society duties.

Your time requirement has, in my opinion, no real grounds for existence. What does it matter how long a member has been in the region? Does that give them less of a voice? Does it make them, automatically, less important than senior members? I just don't see a valid reason for it, unless you've thought of some aspect I've missed.

Dear Members, we had few messages and discussions and many of questions here were debate before.
You can review previous messages, but I will resume that for you too.

First, we had discussion about the fact a new members cannot vote just after being member. No, but it was also indicate a new member can debate as others.

Second, someone suggested the chairman will decide. I said no, it is too subjective. I suggested the chairman announce the elligibility to voting right of a members after around 2 weeks and asking if a vote is required.

I decided to submit a first Act to make sure we are going forward. For sure, enhancements will be required. I just want to make sure a couple of basic decision are done. If not, we can talk, and talk, and talk, and never adopt any resolution.

But please, review previous messages. You will find many keys to your questions.

Rat Racecar wrote:We don't need a committee to approve a person to the Assembly. It's much too bureaucratic and frankly, a legislative burden that would distract the group from other Free Society duties.

Your time requirement has, in my opinion, no real grounds for existence. What does it matter how long a member has been in the region? Does that give them less of a voice? Does it make them, automatically, less important than senior members? I just don't see a valid reason for it, unless you've thought of some aspect I've missed.

What is the benefit of having an assembly if everybody is automatically in? What makes it so great and special enough to be seperate from FS and have a huge debate?

The time requirement gives us an overveiw of how active and things of such. It will show if they can add substance to the assembly.

Right now I dont want a reform of this act. I want it scrapped. What if the majority of the FSA is unhappy with the chairman? How will he/she be selected? How long is their term? Is approving or denying people into the FSA their only power? Is our votes worth just as much as theirs? These are some of many questions that I have either not been imformed about or have just been unanswered.

I never said anything about anyone being let in automatically; infact, I was the one who proposed the idea of a Chairman explicitly to approve new regional members who wanted to be able to vote on current bills that will affect them as much as the rest of us.

And how much "substance" can you add with a simple yes/no vote, honestly? It's just a clear, definite opinion, that helps us determine if a given bill is a good idea or not.

And I (batiska as well, I believe) have offered my opinion on term limits and appointment procedures for the Chairman. To reiterate: Chairman elections would roll around at the same time as Presidential elections (every 2 months), and he/she would be appointed by a majority vote from all other FSA members. Their vote would not be worth more than regular Assembly members...how do you add or subtract value to a vote anyway?

To answer your final question, others have discussed whether the Chairman should have other powers; my opinion is that he should not, except for tallying the votes for each Assembly voting session. My opinion may change about that later, but that's where I stand right now.

You haven't answered all my direct questions to you, I see. Do you have any response to those yet?

Rat Racecar wrote:I never said anything about anyone being let in automatically; infact, I was the one who proposed the idea of a Chairman explicitly to approve new regional members who wanted to be able to vote on current bills that will affect them as much as the rest of us.

And how much "substance" can you add with a simple yes/no vote, honestly? It's just a clear, definite opinion, that helps us determine if a given bill is a good idea or not.

And I (batiska as well, I believe) have offered my opinion on term limits and appointment procedures for the Chairman. To reiterate: Chairman elections would roll around at the same time as Presidential elections (every 2 months), and he/she would be appointed by a majority vote from all other FSA members. Their vote would not be worth more than regular Assembly members...how do you add or subtract value to a vote anyway?

To answer your final question, others have discussed whether the Chairman should have other powers; my opinion is that he should not, except for tallying the votes for each Assembly voting session. My opinion may change about that later, but that's where I stand right now.

You haven't answered all my direct questions to you, I see. Do you have any response to those yet?

I said my time requirement shows how they may be able to be a good addition to the FSA. I put it as 'substance'. Substance meaning not only yes or no but also logical reasons why, practical and impact-making proposals, and activity in debates. I do not feel the time in FS means less a voice. As I said its to see what they can be at full potential.
And to answer your question of how could the chairman's vote be worth more would be like for example, Yes: 5 votes, No: 4 votes however the chairman voted no so he should be worth more, but thats fortunatly out of the question so lets get back on topic..

Also if some body could answer my other question of 'What if the majority of the FSA is unhappy with the chairman?' I'd appreciate it.

Missed that last question. Ideally, the FSAers would pick the best candidate for Chairman, one they trust and believe in. If not, well then that's their fault. (OUR fault, I should say.) Perhaps we could install a procedure of impeachment though (say 3/4 majority, for example) and then a by-election to fill the empty Chair position for the rest of the term.

Thanks for clarifying the "substance" bit, but wouldn't that mean that we would need an objective system to decide what defines "active" (for example, some people on this forum participate in the lighthearted cultural stuff but shy away from the political side of things). That would add another layer of complexity to an intentionally simple organization. Also on that note, like it or not, this would also imply that new members have something to prove to us before they can help shape our region. Which doesn't seem fair to me...and I'm the token Conservative of the group here!

Rat Racecar wrote:Missed that last question. Ideally, the FSAers would pick the best candidate for Chairman, one they trust and believe in. If not, well then that's their fault. (OUR fault, I should say.) Perhaps we could install a procedure of impeachment though (say 3/4 majority, for example) and then a by-election to fill the empty Chair position for the rest of the term.

Thanks for clarifying the "substance" bit, but wouldn't that mean that we would need an objective system to decide what defines "active" (for example, some people on this forum participate in the lighthearted cultural stuff but shy away from the political side of things). That would add another layer of complexity to an intentionally simple organization. Also on that note, like it or not, this would also imply that new members have something to prove to us before they can help shape our region. Which doesn't seem fair to me...and I'm the token Conservative of the group here!

An impeachment process I feel must be made before this goes through. I think a 2/3 vote is better but we can get to that when the others state their veiw.
Active to me means just giving your veiws, opinions, comments, etcs on anything whether politcal or not. I feel if the new members wanna be in the assembly and a significant part of the region doing the previous stated would not be so tough.

Also to clear up my opposition to the chairman. I dont feel we need a huge commitee. Just several long standing members of FS. What if the chairman doesnt like somebody's veiws and denies them access to the FSA? I feel if there isnt a panel there should still be some way of over ruling the chairman. Checks and balances, my friend, checks and balances.

I'd also just like to point out that I feel the whether somebody is in the assembly or not they should still have an impact.

Maybe like if +60% of the non-assembly members vote for yes (for example) they could maybe swing the vote if its close. Just an idea nothing more. I in no way wanna make this anymore complext than it already is becoming.

The original idea was to allow everyone in the forum to vote on bills. I don't see a problem with that at all. They've proved their devotion to the region just by taking the time to sign up on the forum.

And of course a member's political views shouldn't factor in the Chairman's decision; the best way to prevent this from happening is to admit them into the FSA straightaway, before really getting opinions about their beliefs.

And I'm perfectly aware of the checks-and-balances system, enough so that I recognize that it's not necessary to have a special committee to overrule the Chairman. If people don't like his policies, a call for impeachment should be made by any Assembly member, after which the issue can be put to a vote by the whole region.

I think it is important to prepare an addition to the Assembly Consitution Act to define Chairman. This way, we will have at least a basic process to manage debates and votes.

Is one of you an put togheter ideas suggested here?

Why nto include Chairman as a new position within the government? Everyone seems to have good ideas, these are all solid, but no one is tying them together.