OSPR Amendment (Absent Senators) Resolution

[Јas]

I hope the bill is fairly self explanatory. If anyone has any questions, comments or criticisms, I'd welcome them as I'm open to allow friendly alterations to the resolution. I simply want to ensure that a standard definition is in place for 'absence' for a Senator, given the importance of this in counting votes.

[Јas]

I remain unconvinced that being lazy or inactive for two weeks meets the constitutional level of being "[in]capable of discharging their offices."

I can understand such reticence, all I can say is that by failing to make any contribution to Senate business for a significant period of time, is it not reasonable to assume that they are incapable of discharging their duty to represent their constituents.

I understand the frustration of dealing with inactive Senators, but essentially removing a senator temporarily, and changing the bar for a quorum, also means certain districts or regions would be wiothout representation, but that the Senate would proceed with business without the voice of those constituents. It would essentially excuse laziness rather than deal with it by impeachment, contested elections, or removal.

I'd imagine that in most cases where Senators are deemed absent that it will proove not to be a temporary phenomenon and the declaration of absence will prove a precursor to expulsion.

I'd also note that by not contributing anything to Senate business, the Senator is hardly giving voice to his constituents, or representing them in anything greater than a nominal fashion.

Their failure to do anything is an unnecessary and, to my mind, unwelcome state that can hinder the Senate's progress and adds to the general feeling of malaise in Atlasia.

[Јas]

I would like to amend it to say unless the absent was previously noted

I'd like to ask the PPT and indeed anyone with knowledge on this matter, whether or not Senators with declared absences are currently counted towards quorum.

and does not exceed 21 days.

Why 21 days?

[Јas]

Yes, I understand, but it is one thing to have a Senator who is inactive and irresponsible; it is quite another to have laws imposed on you by what should technically be a minority of Senators. To make laws in this nation, a clear majority of regions and districts should weigh in on the matter. The Senate's business is not their own, it is the business of the people (and regions).

A fair point, but then would you not suggest that a similar form of 'injustice' exists where the Senate proceeds in it's business during the time when Senators are expelled and have not yet been replaced or when Senators are on declared absence - being in both occasions not adding to the quorum.

Mainly I wanted to let you know I do have questions with the resolution's constitutionality. Have you considered a constitutional amendment to change the formula for "quorum"? I'd be against it personally, but it would cover the bases.

I have considered it but might only pursue it if the resolution was to be found unconstitutional.

[Јas]

I'd like to ask the PPT and indeed anyone with knowledge on this matter, whether or not Senators with declared absences are currently counted towards quorum.

Declared absent Senators are not counted towards the quorum.

Thanks.

[Јas]

If someone is declared absent, they are unable to exercise powers, and thus constitutionally not part of the quorum. Would it be better if everyone were always available? Sure, but that's unrealistic.

And a "similar form of injustice"? Sure but I'd say less so since the inactive Senator is being replaced...the Senate isn't simply ignoring the fact that the member is absent w/o leave but is taking action to see to it the citizens do get representation. Yes, I'd rather see someone get expelled after 14 days than simply see the quorum number evaporate. I think the PPT has handled these inactive situations pretty well.

I have no real problem with how the PPT has handled things either, I just want to try and formalise the procedure he has applied so that it's followed in future.

I'd also say that as I've stated a declaration of absence will in most cases likely be a precursor to expulsion within a fairly short period of time, depending on circumstances.

I'd also suggest that Everett's seat should have been filled sooner. The constitution calls for vacancies to be filled within a week by election or gubernatorial replacement. I'd say after a week of not swearing in, it's fair to say the seat is vacant. That's just opinion of course.

An interesting point. As an aside, and on that basis, would you be suggesting that the Pacific seat that Jesus appointed Rob to on the 22nd of this month was arguably officially 'vacant' from yesterday until he swore-in today?

[Јas]

But I am suggesting that perhaps the Senate has more authority or leeway to define what a vacancy is than to define what a quorum is, or what constitutes "capable of discharging their duties." This might only solve the issue of elected Senators not swearing in, but it's something.

So, if I understand you correctly, are you suggesting that the resolution would be free from constitutional doubt, if 'absent' was changed for 'vacant'?

[Јas]

And let me ask this: once a bill has been introduced how many days before lack of a quorum kills the bill?

I presume lack of quorum kills it when voting time expires.

Is it reasonable to expect a Senator to visit and post in the Govt board once in that number of days?

Usually, yes. But I do understand that this might not be possible from time to time, which is why the stated period was 14 days (exclusive of declared absences).

At what point does their absence hinder the Senate's power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers enumerated in this section, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the Republic of Atlasia, or in any department or officer thereof. "?

I suppose this has no objectively definitive answer, it being properly considered on a case-by-case basis.

Maybe I shouldn't even be debating this, but as I said, the deterioration of the quorum number without provisions for either censuring or replacing the Senators is a concern. Somebody should be debating it.

Certainly, I welcome the input.

I'm so bored I'm trying to outlaw tater tots in the SE.

Keep up the good fight!

[Јas]

We're voting on DWDL's amendment "to say unless the absent was previously noted and does not exceed 21 days."

Nay
As much because I'm unclear exactly what it means/would change as anything else.

[Јas]

Proposed Amendment
That the following replace the resolution in full:
That the following be added to the OSPR as 'Article 10: Vacation of Senate Seat by Reason of Absence':

1. Where a Senator fails or neglects to post on any matter of Senate business for a period of not less than 21 days, the seat held by that Senator shall be deemed 'vacant'.
2. Clause 1 of this section shall not apply for periods of declared absence by Senators.
3. The PPT shall give notive to the Senate of such instances as when Clause 1 of this section applies and shall further notify the Secretary of Forum Affairs or regional Governor, as appropriate, of the vacancy.

[Јas]

Aye

[Јas]

Aye