Northeast Assembly Thread

[homelycooking]

Assemblymen:

On behalf of the SRC, I humbly request that the SRC's commission be extended to the 20th day following the passage of the bill, or this Thursday. The commission has been hard at work, but we need additional time to finish our review and assemble the final report.

hc/lcf, Chairman of the Statutory Review Commission

[homelycooking]

Shall the SRC be given until the 20th day?

[X] Yes
[ ] No

[homelycooking]

Aye

To be clear, Napoleon, the SRC hasn't finished its job yet. We'll be finished when the report gets approved by its members.

[homelycooking]

Aye.

[homelycooking]

Aye. Let's move on to more pressing matters.

[homelycooking]

Right off the bat I'd like to state my disapproval of #3. We shouldn't undo the liberalization of sex laws in this region.
I also think #14 needs to be a 24 hour nomination period followed by a vote rather than a three day waiting period.

In 24 hours, a "majority of all Assembly members" may not be present for a vote. Perhaps we should replace time-restricted language with "until such time as a majority of the membership of the Assembly comes to a consensus regarding its choice for speaker"?

Agreed on number 3. While I agree with the changes that it makes, the SRC report is not the place for it. Since it is not an issue of quality or clarity, it ought to be considered as separate legislation.

[homelycooking]

I mean a 24 hour nomination period, which would be followed by a 24 hour vote.

So you would suggest changing three to two in #14?

[homelycooking]

Fair enough. I have no problem with that. But what if a majority of the Assembly does not show up for a vote/nomination? No other business of the Assembly is allowed, perhaps, until the new speaker is elected?

[homelycooking]

I think it is, including the amendment to #14 and the removal of #3. Unless anyone else has any concerns (though myself, Napoleon and Jake have been the only active members on the floor for about the past two weeks now), let's get this done.

[homelycooking]

We can't even get half of the Assembly to discuss or take action on the biggest endeavor to come before this body this year? Shameful.

[homelycooking]

We can't even get half of the Assembly to discuss or take action on the biggest endeavor to come before this body this year? Shameful.

My greatest apologies for not voting

I wasn't referring to you. I was talking about sbane, Giovanni and Hatman, who haven't done or said anything in the capacity of Assemblyman for almost two weeks now.

[homelycooking]

Napoleon, was it your intention to exclude local jurisdictions from the purview of this bill? Nothing would prevent a town from charging admission to its local park - did you want to protect municipalities' ability to do this?

[homelycooking]

I'm all for keeping the language as it is, with the exemption for local authorities. I just wanted to know if that was your intention.

[homelycooking]

Nay

Sorry, you're too late.

[homelycooking]

I echo the governor's concerns, and would oppose an override.

Giovanni, why don't you take a few minutes and read the report? The SRC spent a lot of time on that, and it's rather insulting to see people oppose it because it's long and they're too lazy to read it and understand the changes the report makes.

In regards to the Northeast parks and recreation act, I cannot support taking away user fees from parks. We need to fund those parks somehow, whether it is through user fees or through taxes. I strongly feel that those who are actually using the parks should at least pay for a part of the costs.

User fees are not completely taken away, though they are reduced significantly (assuming most of the visitors to our parks are NE residents). We'd have to determine how our parks are currently being paid for and whether admission fees are sufficient for their maintainance.

[homelycooking]

Jake, it looks to me like wormyguy, during the debate over user fees in the Parks and Recreation Act, pulled up this old bill which, if legally passed, would have transferred all unimproved lands to the Native tribes that originally lived upon them. It looks like the worst piece of legislation I've ever seen come out of the Northeast, and it should be nullified if it was improperly passed.

But if it was properly passed, then there isn't a lot we can do. That bill transferred all of the Northeast's unimproved lands to the Native tribes - who knows if that was actually implemented or accomplished, given the massive legal and logistical headache that would cause. But by repealing the bill, the NE government would be retaking millions of square miles from the Natives without compensation.

I'm really pissed off that we're even talking about this. We have to clean up the mess left behind by a bunch of legislative flunkies who didn't give a rat's ass about good public policy. I appreciate that wormy brought it to the Assembly's attention, but not the spiteful manner in which he did so.

[homelycooking]

Sigh....

Aye to override the veto of the SRC report.

[homelycooking]

Napoleon, Giovanni is an Assemblyman as much as you are and was duly elected by the people of the Northeast. If you don't like that, shrink the size of the Assembly, institute a residency requirement, whatever - but he deserves to be called what the people of the Northeast desired him to be. Sure, he's a troll, sure, he's a carpetbagger, but that is this region's fault for being so dysfunctional. He won election here despite his residency in North Dakota by pointing out one of our region's flaws, and it is our responsibility to fix the flaws that were brought to our attention. Jake, this is why we cannot ignore Giovanni. Our response to the existence of a problem in our Region should not be to shrink from it and hope it goes away, but to address it openly (which, through the Convention, we're beginning to accomplish).

My main problem with Giovanni is that for most of the Assembly session he did not participate meaningfully in our affairs. If he is willing to have some discussion about the SRC report by bringing before this Assembly his honest concerns about the SRC report or the Nullification Resolution, or anything else, I welcome that. He is too late in this case, as we have already cast our votes for a veto override. But if he wants to obstruct our progress and waste our time, then I want him to get out of the way.

The debate in this body has become pure vitriol. I joined the game and ran for election because I thought it would be fun, competitive and engaging - but now it is one vicious verbal broadside after another. I want to stay here, to help fix up this region, to be a part of a strong community, but I have no interest in trying to cut through the cries of "troll!" "hypocrite!" "hack!": above which nothing currently can be heard.

We seriously need to calm down, have a little more respect for one another, and try to work through the SRC and the PRA as cooperatively as possible. Otherwise, what's the f-cking point? We're at each other's throats in an imaginary legislature in the imaginary government of an imaginary nation, and if it's not going to be constructive or fun, I'd rather f-ck off and play Minesweeper.

[homelycooking]

I will admit that I did not expect to win, and did not take my responsibilities seriously upon my election. That was very wrong of me, and I apologize to the Assembly for that, especially homelycooking, who I know worked very hard to reform the region. I have since changed and truly want to attempt to serve the Northeast Region. Hell, I even moved to the NE in an attempt to disperse the controversy.

I appreciate your apology very much, Giovanni, and I accept it. But considering that you are the Assembly's member from the "Carpetbaggers United Front", I must still question your sincerity. Have you really changed, or are you still a "Carpetbagger" at heart?

[homelycooking]

Aye

[homelycooking]

I will abstain from future votes on legislation in this term unless Giovanni's votes are counted and the Speaker of the Assembly recognizes that member as an Assemblyman.

[homelycooking]

Giovanni ought to be called by his rightful title up until the point that he is expelled from the Assembly by an official decision. To you, Napoleon, it might be clear that his presence in the Assembly is unwarranted and illegal, but to me it is not, and, as far as I'm concerned, the judgment of the people (the certification of Giovanni's election) holds until it is officially overruled.

If it helps, there was a vote to pass the SRC that was 1-0 followed by a vote to pass it over the governor's veto that was 4-0.

Napoleon, that vote lasted twelve minutes. The SOAP mandates a 24-hour voting period.

[homelycooking]

Sorry, Napoleon, you're right. The SRC vote was held open for a day and twelve minutes. I'm an idiot and misread the timestamp.

If people need to be expelled because of the three-vote rule, so be it. We shouldn't let too much inactivity slip by. But Napoleon, you could have done more by notifying Assemblymen of upcoming votes. It often might be the case that many Assemblymen miss a vote because they aren't online in that strict 24 hour period, forget to check the Assembly the one time they are online, etc.

[homelycooking]

Jeez I'm the Speaker, not a babysitter. I should not be held responsible for the activity of others.

You would not be held responsible for others' inactivity. I only proposed the vote notification amendment to SOAP so that turnout for votes would be higher. There is no language in that amendment which holds the Speaker liable for any member's non-participation, regardless of whether a PM is sent or not.

This was introduced in hopes of decreasing the necessity of expelling members for three missed votes, a constructive measure aimed at making that punishment more fitting for the crime. I did not mean it to be a burden for the Speaker, nor do I believe it would be if adopted.

[homelycooking]

Can we get back down to business, please?