Northeast Assembly Thread

[cinyc]

Since most of elected (if not all) Representatives took an oath, I believe that we're now on the session.

If so (of course correct me if I'm wrong ), we should proceed with election of Speaker for the current term. From my side I'd like to say, if Smid is going to run again, I shall suport him. Otherwise, I'm considering running for speaker myself.

Has it been determined if the 7th and 8th seats were elected, or if the Governor has to appoint them?

And, yes, the Speakership election will be the first oder of business.

They were elected.

Saying it's so doesn't make it so.  The Governor has not issued any new certification.

[cinyc]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nor do I, but the Governor, as agent for the CJO, has certified nothing of the sort. We need a certification first.

[cinyc]

Congratulations to Reps. Dr. Cynic, Conor/Rocky/Montag/whatever he's calling himself today and fezzyfestoon.

Let's get to work.  I nominate Smid for Assembly Speaker.

[cinyc]

• Rep. Smid

[cinyc]

Thank you, Mr. Lieutenant Governor.

This bill was being debated when the last Assembly adjourned sine die.  Former Rep. Mr. Moderate's proposed amendment to lower the amount of the Making Work Pay Tax Credit to $400 is included in the version I've brought to the floor in this new Assembly.

For our new Representatives, my statement explaining this bill is way back on Page 14 here.

Given that we've started debate on the bill twice before, I move that we dispense with the normal 48-hour debate period and proceed to a vote on the bill.

If any new Representatives have concerns about or proposed amendments to the bill in the interim, please let me know during the 24-hour voting period for the motion to proceed to a vote.

Thank you.

[cinyc]

Aye

[cinyc]

Aye

[cinyc]

Bump - for our other representatives to vote on final passage.

[cinyc]

What the hell do the other 4 do ?!?
Eight is really too much...

Well, five Reps would be enough, but law cannot act retrospectivaly

The Amendment sponsored by Hamilton and I will try to deal with that, so that in decemer we will have a more competitive election and a better working Assembly.

FYI - I'm going to temporarily table the veto override amendment so that we can deal with the size of the Assembly amendment first.  It doesn't make sense to set an override level until we've set the size of the Assembly.  In a fixed 6-member Assembly, 2/3rds IS a majority (4/6 - unless the LT Governor breaks a tie).  Not so in a 5, 7 or 8-member Assembly.

[cinyc]

Mr. Lt. Governor -

As I stated previously, I ask that you temporarily table the Veto Override Amendment so that we can address amendments dealing with the number of Assembly seats first.  I ask that you bring the Vero Override Amendment to the floor after we vote on the number of Representatives this body should have.

Thank you.

[cinyc]

Well, no we just need to wait for 48 long hours... Proceedings are so boring !

Well, actually, debate lasts 72 hours:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, a Rep. can propose to suspend that section, although I advise a healthy amount of debate before voting on Amendments.

We lowered that to 48 hours in Mr. Moderate's amendment to the SOAP>

Here's what I don't understand: why aren't we just fixing the number of Representatives at a number - 5 or 6 - instead of making things variable again?  Isn't it simpler to vote for a known number of seats?

[cinyc]

Given the interest in setting the number of representatives at a fixed number, I'm going to formally offer an amendment to the Seats Number Amendment, which I assume will be deemed unfriendly and put to a vote:

1. Article V Section vii) of the New Northeast Constitution is deleted and replaced with the following:
2. Five Reps shall be elected.

Fixing the number of seats makes sense.  In the last election, because few Northeast citizens seemed to know how many Representatives were going to be elected, we were told to rank at least 6 choices, even though there were 8 open seats.  The result was an uncompetitive election.  Some Representatives were surprised that they had even won.  

The current formula is too complex for a simple game - and I don't think a formula tying seats to votes would be better.  No one would know how many Reps we have until AFTER the election - so no one would know how many folks they needed to vote for.  It also potentially invites fraud - getting more zombies to vote so that your seat is ensured.

I may lose my seat as a result of setting the Assembly at 5, but it's the right thing to do.  It makes more sense than setting the size at six because ties are less likely.  And it makes a 2/3rds override in the next Amendment to be brought to the floor mean something, since you'd need 4 our of 5 to support an override.  With an Assembly of 6, 2/3rds is the same as a simple majority - 4 out of 6.

[cinyc]

Article V, Section 7 of the Constitution is amended as follows:
The number of Representatives shall be set by statute.

Well, we'd need a statute for the next election for that to work - but that formulation may be workable.

As a (hopefully friendly) amendment, I think "is amended as follows:" should be replaced by "is deleted and replaced by the following:" in EVERY formulation of the Seats Number Amendment - to make clear that we're getting rid of the old constitutional language.  Otherwise "is amended" could mean that we just add whatever we pass it to the end of Article V, Section vii).

[cinyc]

The main problem I have with 6 seats is that it creates the likelihood of more ties and creates a problem for veto overrides since 2/3rds is the same as a majority, assuming all Reps vote. 

If we do go with 6 seats (or make it variable) I think we're going to have to peg veto overrides at "more than two-thirds" rather than "two-thirds".  That's the main reason I delayed the vote on the Veto Override Amendment until after we settled the Seats issue.

Can I ask other Assemblymen whether they'd prefer an Assembly of 5 or 6?

[cinyc]

Technically, if exactly 2/3 of the reps vote for veto override, this shall be considered as a tie and therefore the Lt Gov would have to break it. This is quite simple.

The proposed amendment says "by a two-thirds majority vote" - which means a vote of 4 out of 6 should be sufficient to override.  The Lt. Governor shouldn't be involved in veto overrides - there should be no ties.

[cinyc]

Yep, I support this.

1. Article V Section vii) of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following :
2. Six Reps shall be elected. This provision can be modified by law every January and July if the Assembly considers it necessary.

Would it make more sense to define when the provision can be modified by law by legislative session (i.e. "during the Legislative Assembly sessions starting in December and June") instead of a particular month (or perhaps not at all, per Xahar's suggestion)? 

Under the proposal, what if we pass something on January 30, the Governor vetoes it, and we can't override until February?  Is it still valid?

[cinyc]

I think we should get rid of the "modified in January and July" element of the Bill and let the Legislature amend the Act at any time it sees the need, just like any other piece of legislation. If there's no need/support to change it, then it won't be changed and if there is a need/support for changes, then it should be changed regardless of what month it is.

So something like "Six Reps shall be elected, unless the Assembly shall provide otherwise by Law. " (which parallels the language in Article V, Section viii)?

I probably can live with that.

[cinyc]

Indeed that is correct Moderate, it was simply too much to do.

As for the latest amendment, this Representative is highly supportive of it. Although its not what Representative Antonio originally intended, it is, in my opinion a much more realistic approach to the issue of seats this grand Assembly shall have in accordance to the Northeast's voters. Motion to vote Mr. Speaker.

Let's see if Antonio V will take this proposal as friendly first:
1. Article V Section vii) of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following :
2. Six Reps shall be elected, unless the Assembly shall provide otherwise by Law.

If so, I'll table my unfriendly amendment to set the Assembly at 5 members, which should allow us to proceed directly to a vote on the proposal.

Note that since this is a Constitutional Amendment, a two-thirds vote is necessary to pass instead of a mere majority of those who have voted (and I think we also need at least 5 of our 8 members to vote for it, as I read Article VII, Section i).

[cinyc]

If Antonio doesn't accept the amendment as friendly, we'll move to a vote on the amendment.

It's probably better to do one vote than two - so we're better off waiting a bit for Antonio V's response.  I'll send him a PM letting him know of the proposal, in case he just logs on briefly.

[cinyc]

Aye

[cinyc]

I don't think we're currently giving money to private industry.  Even if we were, I don't like this law.  The reason any company would need help is because it's in trouble and needs to restructure.  Employee layoffs are part of the equation when businesses are failing.  Would you rather companies go out of business entirely?  Everyone loses their jobs then.

[cinyc]

I don't think we're currently giving money to private industry.

Stimulus bill money is managed by Regions. Therefore, we do.

We have no law on our books distributing stimulus money to anyone.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Avoiding firing employees is totally different than baring a company from laying off workers in tough times.   Unfortunately, that needs to be done in tough economic times.  If there's no business, there's no business.

[cinyc]

I don't think we're currently giving money to private industry.

Stimulus bill money is managed by Regions. Therefore, we do.

We have no law on our books distributing stimulus money to anyone.

Northeast Relief and Recovery Act

Section 1: Acceptance of Funds

1. The Northeast hereby accepts the funds given by the Federal Government as per F.L. 32-13: 2009 Atlasian Relief and Recovery Act.

What will we do with this money ?

We haven't decided.  Some will go to pay for the tax credits (and we've already spent more than the paltry sum we're receiving on that) - if we're allowed to.  Some will go to things mandated by the bill (like road repaving).   ALL of the money comes with strings or restrictions on what we can do with it, in some form.

[cinyc]

The Nor'east is in a deep struggle right now and the Atlasian dollar is worth just under 90 cents.

Rep. Cinyc, something has to be done. We need protection for the working man and woman, and we need to ensure that grafting is eliminated.

We've already provided tax relief for Northeast residents.  We have NOT yet made any Northeast stimulus funds available to Northeast businesses.  Those are the facts.  This bill is premature - and wrong-headed.

[cinyc]

The Nor'east is in a deep struggle right now and the Atlasian dollar is worth just under 90 cents.

Rep. Cinyc, something has to be done. We need protection for the working man and woman, and we need to ensure that grafting is eliminated.

We've already provided tax relief for Northeast residents.  We have NOT yet made any Northeast stimulus funds available to Northeast businesses.  Those are the facts.  This bill is premature - and wrong-headed.

Better too soon than too late.

Once again, your bill DOESN'T distribute any stimulus funds - and the Northeast has no law distributing stimulus funds.  You're putting conditions on something that doesn't exist.  Wouldn't it make more sense to make something exist before putting conditions on it?