Mideast Assembly Thread

[big bad fab]

Per the PASLBAG Bill, debate is now open on the usefulness of the Mideast Education Reform Statute.  Debate will last no more than 72 hours.

First, how can we read the entire text, without the ad banner by MediaWiki ?

Second, I've got some remarks on this text that may require a bill amending it:

- (section 2) the option for LSB to use only 1% of their budget (i.e. 1% of the 70%, i.e. 0.7% of the total money for education) is too small to have a real meaning: this limit should be put at about 7%, in order to stand at almost 5% of the total.
Of course, this remains only a possibility, not an obligation.

- (section 1) we can discuss for a long time on the numbers, but, with a bigger number for buildings (which might be required), we've got less for the LSB. So, I'm really not sure.
Maybe better appropriations would be 65-20-10-5. The buildings of our schools are ageing quickly and, for some years, the need to repair seems high (as a side note, that would be useful investments with a positive effect on the local economy).
If we decide for these numbers, my previous remark would be even softer (4.5% of the total).

I have no other remarks (section 3 is especially good and useful).

If a majority seems to appear among my fellow Assemblymen, I'm ready to put forward a bill amending this law.


Dear Mr. Speaker, are we going to vote on our colleague Benconstine's bill ? He doesn't seem to amend it and I'd like to introduce a new bill myself, but I don't want to do it before our work is finished on the previous bill.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[big bad fab]

You know, as I'm looking at the bill, there are some things I'd like to amend.  Would anybody object to suspending the vote?

I wouldn't. Written like that, I would cast a big "no".
But it's too far from what I think for me to propose useful amendments. So, anybody else who has ideas is welcome !

[big bad fab]

Amendment 2 is OK !
As I've said earlier, it's a question of principle and of historical basis of democracy.

Amendment 3 : can we say how the amount is set ?
I mean, are we OK it should be the court which sets it, proportionally to the importance of the violation and of the prejudice ?
If it's the case, why not writing it ?

Decapitalization of words is always a good thing... (except in titles of bills)

[big bad fab]

AYE
AYE

[big bad fab]

I have voted for the amendments but didn't realized that the first sentence doesn't seem to fit:
how can you pay the biggest of 2 things, when the second may be decided very lately and when the first is about "the next 2 years" ?

And how can we know how much the tax benefits and subsidies would amount in the next 2 years, when subsidies may change each year ?
Shoulod we take as a reference an average of the last 2 years, to say that tax benefits and subsidies are lessened by this average ?

[big bad fab]

And if the bill is written like this ?

Labor Protection Act

Article I:  Any corporation found in violation of national or regional labor laws shall undergo a forfeiture of tax benefits and subsidies for a period lasting between one quarter to two tax years.

Article II: Any employee who is able to successfully prove a legitimate labor rights violation in a court of law may be awarded up to one hundred thousand dollars as compensation for a violation of a national or regional labor law.[/size]

Could we agree on something like that ?

[big bad fab]

I put forward the amendment 4:

The Labor Protection Act is amended to read as follows:

Labor Protection Act

Article I:  Any corporation found in violation of national or regional labor laws shall undergo a forfeiture of tax benefits and subsidies for a period lasting between one quarter to two tax years.

Article II: Any employee who is able to successfully prove a legitimate labor rights violation in a court of law may be awarded up to one hundred thousand dollars as compensation for a violation of a national or regional labor law.

[big bad fab]

Who desides how long the tax benefits are forfeited for?

The one who gives them, the fiscal power: the Mideast Government.
Feel free to amend my amendment, Mr. Speaker

[big bad fab]

Who desides how long the tax benefits are forfeited for?

The one who gives them, the fiscal power: the Mideast Government.
Feel free to amend my amendment, Mr. Speaker

Did you have in mind the executive (Mideast tax collection service) or judicial branch?

Sorry, I'm unclear because of my native language and the French meaning of Government.
It's the Mideast tax collection service I had in mind.

[big bad fab]

The judicial branch should be the ones that get to decide. I can't think of a single other law were the courts allow other Goverment agencies decided the time for a fine. Just my two cents.

Thank you, Mr. Governor.
The problem with this bill is that it has evolved in a way that what we are talking about aren't fines any longer.
They are just the financial consequence of a judgement in one case, an administrative sanction in the other.

Or maybe, we can say: first, their is trial and a compensation, for the person who is the victim.
Second, given the judgement, the executive branch is able to decide a forfeiture of tax benefits and subsidies, up to 2 years.
Is it a good idea ?

[big bad fab]

It would be the Governor, not the service itself.
But, anyway, I repeal my amendment 4 and the bill can be submitted to the vote, as far as I'm concerned.

[big bad fab]

Or how would we feel about just making it so that they lose their tax benefits for 2 years and have to pay any civil penalties as well - basically they'd have to pay numbers 1 and 2 not 1 or 2.

Yes, but in this case, 2 years is big when it's a fault of small importance. That's my problem.

[big bad fab]

Or how would we feel about just making it so that they lose their tax benefits for 2 years and have to pay any civil penalties as well - basically they'd have to pay numbers 1 and 2 not 1 or 2.

Yes, but in this case, 2 years is big when it's a fault of small importance. That's my problem.

How would we feel about 1 year then?

I would prefer a range, from one quarter to one year.

[big bad fab]

As the debate on Ben's proposal isn't yet finished (even if I hope it will end soon),
I don't want to wait any longer and I introduce the 2 following proposals, the first of them within the framework of PALSBAG law :


Mideast Education Reform Statute Update Bill

Considering the need to maximize the effort to repair school buildings and installations,
Considering the need to give Local School Boards a bigger ability to fund School Vouchers Programs,
the Mideast Assembly hereby updates the Mideast Education Reform Statute.

Article I: In Section 1, the numbers "65", "20", "10", "5" are substituted to the numbers "70", "20", "5", "5".

Article II: In Section 2, Clause 1, the words "7%" are substituted to the words "1%".


Sobriety in the Mideast Public Finances Bill

Article I: From the beginning of the next fiscal year, a maximum of half of Mideast Government officers and employees retiring after the age of 60 shall be replaced.

Article II: The rule of Article I above does not apply to Mideast Government agencies working in the following fields:
- internal security,
- health and medical care,
- teaching and training,
- courts,
where employement rules shall continue to depend on the amouint of tasks to be dealt with.

Article III: The rule of Article I above shall remain in force until the Mideast Government budget is balanced.

[big bad fab]

May I suggest that, for the next debates on 2005 and 2006 laws under the PASLBAG framework, each Assemblyman explicitly say that he doesn't want to change the law, so that the debate can be closed quickly when there is no change proposed ?

As for me, even if I have this proposal on the Education Statute Law, I already know that for many other laws, I won't put forward any change or update.

[big bad fab]

Sobriety in the Mideast Public Finances Bill

Article I: From the beginning of the next fiscal year, a maximum of half of Mideast Government officers and employees retiring after the age of 60 shall be replaced.

Article II: The rule of Article I above does not apply to Mideast Government agencies working in the following fields:
- internal security,
- health and medical care,
- teaching and training,
- courts,
where employement rules shall continue to depend on the amouint of tasks to be dealt with.

Article III: The rule of Article I above shall remain in force until the Mideast Government budget is balanced.

Well, while this all sound very good in theory if you wish to cut down costs, it'd be impossible to implement in practice with so little detail and flexibility in the law. There'd need to be a more detailed plan as to which jobs we will remove, and which we would keep, so that the Mideast goverment don't crash because we have too much work but too little personnel. We'd need to know which jobs are going to disappear, and how we devide their work and responisibilities on a much smaller group of people.

The plan also need to have an end date to it, as it'd obviously be impossible to keep only replacing half of the retiering staff forever.

On the contrary, I think the executive branch, the Administration, has to remain free to decide where not to replace retiring employees.
For example, it may be decided that 3 out of 4 employees in Agricultural offices aren't replaced, while only 1 in 10 isn't replaced in Tax services. Overall, it should be 50%, but the executive branch should keep the flexibility to choose.

And I insist on the fact that it's only 50% of those retiring after 60: anyone retiring earlier or just quitting will still be replaced.

As for the end of the law, Article III may give a clue. If my fellow Assemblymen are OK, we can rewrite this Article so that the law ends after 3 years of surplus.

[big bad fab]

Or how would we feel about just making it so that they lose their tax benefits for 2 years and have to pay any civil penalties as well - basically they'd have to pay numbers 1 and 2 not 1 or 2.

Yes, but in this case, 2 years is big when it's a fault of small importance. That's my problem.

How would we feel about 1 year then?

I would prefer a range, from one quarter to one year.

With who determining the length of time?  If you have an idea, put forward an amendment and I'll weigh in.

The courts will determine it (like in the other article of the bill), we just set a range, inside which the courts are free to decide.
Am I correct ?

[big bad fab]

For me, it's perfect. Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

[big bad fab]

Sorry my mistake Fab, I missed the 3rd article for some reason. So there's no problem with the eventual end then, just me who have trouble reading apperently.

Although I consider it an aimiable goal to reduce the Mideast Regional personnel, we cannot just set a number of employees that we must get rid of without taking other factors into account first. How will the workload be devided? What percentages of Regional Goverment employes will retire within the next five years? ... and so on. This plan is not flexible enough. I admit that the fact that the Goverment can decide which ares to cut jobs makes it better, but this is still not flexible enough.

I think it's important that we cut spending, and personnel is an area which of course also needs to be reduced to get a balanced budget. But I believe that with this plan you begin at the wrong end. We can reduce our emplyees, but unless we also reduce their workload, we will just create problems by being very under staffed.

Therefor what we need to do is to begin by getting rid of all unecessary programs that currently is taking up staff. There after we investigate in which areas it would be possible to cut personnel without the new workload getting to heavy, and then we make an estimate of how many emplyees we realisticly can spare. That's the number we should aim for.

But you know Fab, if you're very eagar to cut unecessary employees there's a place where I think you can begin Assemblymen doesn't work for free. They too cost valuble tax money, and we currently have two more than we actually need. 

I think the law is here to set global aims. The executive branch will have to make choices at an infra-level.

The other issue is that, even with the same public policies, the rate of public employment is now excessive. Reorganizations and different methods and ways of working would be enough, in many cases, to deal with a diminishing level of public employees.

What is more, many administrative offices have "created" tasks and methods to justify their own existence, even when a program is dropped.

Again, it sounds big, but it's rather moderate. And it applies only to the regional government, not to local councils.
In France, currently, you've got 2,5 millions government employees and the same measure represents 40 000 to 50 000 suppressed jobs each year, i.e. about 2%.
It's really manageable.

As for the Assembly, a number of 3 or 5 for all the Mideast doesn't really make a difference.
But you're right, our 5-member Assembly hasn't confirmed hopes we could have on a more efficient work. My aim is also to try to deal with this .

[big bad fab]

AYE

[big bad fab]

AYE

[big bad fab]

Good resolution, Mr.Speaker.

And I won't amend my own proposal, even after our dear Governor made his remarks.
Of course, I'm open if any of my fellow Assemblyman wants to change something.

[big bad fab]

AYE

[big bad fab]

With debate having ended at least 24 hours ago, voting is now open on the following bill.  This will be a 48 hour vote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

AYE

[big bad fab]

The precedent Assembly was indeed rather inactive.
This one is pretty much active, I think we all can acknowledge it.

With our dear Speaker soon keeping on implementing the PASLBAG law, we'll have soon more debates on old laws and that may imply new legislative work.
I think we should wait for another term, in order to see if the PASLBAG law indeed makes every Assemblyman take part actively in the legislative work of our Assembly.

I'm myself a bit sceptical about this enlargement to five members.
But I don't think the changes in the work of our Assembly depend on the number of our Assemblymen.
In the beginning of 2009, a 3-member Assembly wasn't very active.
Then, on the contrary, in the mid-2009, a 3-member Assembly was a pretty lively one.
It has been the same for the 5-member Assemblies.

Mideasterners who want even more activity int he Assembly should be candidates.

It seems as if there will be more candidates this time...
So, let's give this enlargement one more term to prove to be efficient or not.