55th Senate PPT and Committee Declarations (Com Chair voting)

[MaxQue]

Sorry, Kal. I was going off Yankees list since I was behind from the past 3 weeks. We both screwed it up. We can do a revote if you would like.

Also, we need more declarations for chairs. I don't see one for the GOR or JUD. I assume Napoleon wishes to remain chair of IA?

Perhaps people not wanting to be GOR or JUD chairs should say it, so, we could restain the list to the people not not wanting to be chair and convince one of them to accept the chair?

[Napoleon]

I will run for Eternal Affairs Chair.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

So far, we have 1 chair declared for 1 committee, and that's Ben.

[MaxQue]

I will not declare for Judiciary Chair unless both Max and Ben are elected to chair other committees.

As I was only elected to Judiciary and than Ben will be probably be eelcted as NSC chair...
I suppose it means what I think it means?

[MaxQue]

I'll take it. As a Labor member, I prefer you focusing on being elected President than on chairing a committee. I was just not expecting it as a "freshman" senator (as in new to committee system, it wasn't existing in my previous terms, it was a while ago, I was elected as the same election than NCYankee entered Senate, so...)

I declare for Judiciary Chair.
As for the Wiki, now than I have more free time (well, not yet, I'll after tomorrow), I can try to give an hand where needed (through I have no clue on what needs to be improve).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nix hadn't been here very long when he took over the GOR committee from myself. In fact he may have even been a freshman at the time.

Really all you have to do is be a dick to the members and keep them active and avoid delays of longer than three days. Also keep in mind that any changes made to a bill in committee must be added to or alter the text in the introduction thread before a bill reaches the floor. After that point, any amendments have to be processed under normal procedures.

If X doesn't want to and Nappy doesn't want to double up, I will declare for the GOR committee chair. I did both the PPT and the GOR once before back in the late summer and early fall, but only for a Senate and a half. Such a combination does wear you down after a while, though.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The period to declare has ended and we only have 1 committee with a chair declared (or 2, if Eternal Affairs is a thing...).

Why do we have committees again?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I count three actually and a fourth provisional.

I would count Nappy as Internal Affairs as there is no other similar named committee and thus intent is pretty clear.

Maxy said "I'll take it" with regards to Judiciary and I said "I will take it if" for GOR. Maxy is declaratory thus and I am the provisional one. Since we are over time, you could just state that the period is over and that the absence of X or Nappy saying otherwise, removes the provisionality of my statement. Or just to make you happy, fine, "I will run for the Chairmanship of the GOR committee".

Because I say so Duke and isn't that sufficent enough for you?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Last time I took your word for it, we left Kal out..

If we are going merely on what they "intended to say" then I suppose we have 3 declarations. What a mess if the senate has come to this...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well I upgraded mine, so does that make you happy?

And the solution to anyone mistakes is more attenative eyes. If we had all twenty two in such a state, that would have nevered happened.

And Duke you forgot how I accidentally thought you messed up the veto override and then proceeded to lecture you on the proper way to do it, before then realized I had miscounted the nays and had to delete the post. Shame about the ten minutes I wasted on that, though.

And Kalwejt isn't the only one that I seem to have bad luck with. I remember some freak mistakes happening with Nathan at one point as well.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Why do we have committees again?

I've asked myself this question more than a few times, and never liked them to begin with. I'm proud that the lone Nay vote on their creation was from my region's Senator at the time.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Why do we have committees again?

I've asked myself this question more than a few times, and never liked them to begin with. I'm proud that the lone Nay vote on their creation was from my region's Senator at the time.

I certainly would have opposed them had I still been in the senate. It's silly for a 10 person senate.

So at any rate, based on latent intent, the following candidates for chairmen:

NSC: Ben
IA: Napoleon
JUD: Maxy
GOR: Yank

Is this list correct? I will open a vote if it is.

[Marokai Backbeat]

At the very least we should give some serious consideration to consolidating them. In the beginning it was basically intended for there to be two, or three at the absolute most. Now we have four. It's tough to fill out spots and create competition for chairmanship positions in a small body of 10 to begin with; to try and create competition with four committees, is just completely ridiculous. In aggregate there are now more seats up for grabs than the total amount of Senators.

Boiling them down to a combined National Security-Judiciary Committee and Domestic Affairs-Forum Affairs Committee setup would at least create actual competition for the seats. Maybe. Hopefully.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

If a Chairman is unopposed, can't we waive the vote?

NO CONSOLIDATING NSC.  It stands alone.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am open to consolidation, but It think Justice and GOR would be a better combination, but that would of course leave three committees instead of two. Needing only nine committee members would be more efficient though.

Also, for those elected as Chair, take advantage of the Producitve committees Resolution to ensure that we can avoid certain things that plagued us last time. Designate people to fill in for instance in accordance with the procedures established therein.

[Marokai Backbeat]

If a Chairman is unopposed, can't we waive the vote?

NO CONSOLIDATING NSC.  It stands alone.

I am open to consolidation, but It think Justice and GOR would be a better combination, but that would of course leave three committees instead of two. Needing only nine committee members would be more efficient though.

Also, for those elected as Chair, take advantage of the Producitve committees Resolution to ensure that we can avoid certain things that plagued us last time. Designate people to fill in for instance in accordance with the procedures established therein.

This is why we can't have nice things.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I'm not opposed to consolidation, but the NSC is the only committee that handles foreign affairs.  To merge it with any other committee would stretch across too many areas.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Could we just eliminate the Judiciary Committee and combine Internal Affairs and Oversight/Reform? The Judiciary would mostly be dealing with "legal" matters, which, in the context of Atlasia, would just be a fancy version of forum affairs, which can basically be covered by the game reform committee. Internal Affairs barely has enough to do on it's own, anyway. As nice as the idea of eliminating one committee is, there's much more trimming that could be done to the Committee system than just having nine seats open instead of twelve, in a body of just ten.

[MaxQue]

The period to declare has ended and we only have 1 committee with a chair declared (or 2, if Eternal Affairs is a thing...).

Why do we have committees again?

I wrote "I declare for Judiciary Chair" in the middle of my message, I thought it would be enough.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

3. Clause 3 of the Government Oversight and Reform Committee Resolution shall be amended as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

4. Clause 4 of the Government Oversight and Reform Committee Resolution shall be amended as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

SECTION 3. AMENDMENT TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY CREATION RESOLUTION.

1. The clauses of the Senate Committee on National Security Creation Resolution shall be numbered as 1-5.

2. Clause 2 of the Senate Committee on National Security Creation Resolution shall be amended as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

3. Clause 3 of the Senate Committee on National Security Creation Resolution shall be amended as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

4. Clause 4 of the Senate Committee on National Security Creation Resolution shall be amended as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

SECTION 4. AMENDMENT TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY CREATION RESOLUTION.

1. Section (3) Subsection (1) of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Creation Resolution shall be amended as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2. Section (3) Subsection (3) of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Creation Resolution shall be amended as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

3. Section (3) Subsection (4) of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Creation Resolution shall be amended as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

SECTION 5. AMENDMENT TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL AFFAIRS CREATION RESOLUTION.

1. Section (3) Subsection (1) of the Senate Committee on Internal Affairs Creation Resolution shall be amended as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2. Section (3) Subsection (3) of the Senate Committee on Internal Affairs Creation Resolution shall be amended as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

3. Section (3) Subsection (4) of the Senate Committee on Internal Affairs Creation Resolution shall be amended as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

SECTION 6. AMENDMENT TO THE OSPR SECTION ON THE SENATE COMMITTEES OVERSIGHT POWERS

1. Article 7, Section 3, of the OSPR is amended as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nice catch there Ben, at least someone remembers that gigantic text I had to compile.

If a Chairman is unopposed, can't we waive the vote?

NO CONSOLIDATING NSC.  It stands alone.

I am open to consolidation, but It think Justice and GOR would be a better combination, but that would of course leave three committees instead of two. Needing only nine committee members would be more efficient though.

Also, for those elected as Chair, take advantage of the Producitve committees Resolution to ensure that we can avoid certain things that plagued us last time. Designate people to fill in for instance in accordance with the procedures established therein.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Ease there old Marokai, I don't see what my statment does to deprive you us of "nice things"? You are back to the old demgoging ideas problem of yours once again.

Could we just eliminate the Judiciary Committee and combine Internal Affairs and Oversight/Reform? The Judiciary would mostly be dealing with "legal" matters, which, in the context of Atlasia, would just be a fancy version of forum affairs, which can basically be covered by the game reform committee. Internal Affairs barely has enough to do on it's own, anyway. As nice as the idea of eliminating one committee is, there's much more trimming that could be done to the Committee system than just having nine seats open instead of twelve, in a body of just ten.

Change occurs slowly. I would remind you that it was Scott's haste that left us with four committees last year. At the time the IA's functions were a part of the GOR.

I would have no problem with that combination suggested, however.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Since no one confirmed, we are going to vote anyway on these committees. Please vote for this wide selection of candidates.

Committee Chair vote:

NSC:
[ ]Ben

IA:
[ ] Napoleon

JUD:
[ ] Maxque

GOR
[ ] Yankee

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Nice catch there Ben, at least someone remembers that gigantic text I had to compile.

If a Chairman is unopposed, can't we waive the vote?

NO CONSOLIDATING NSC.  It stands alone.

I am open to consolidation, but It think Justice and GOR would be a better combination, but that would of course leave three committees instead of two. Needing only nine committee members would be more efficient though.

Also, for those elected as Chair, take advantage of the Producitve committees Resolution to ensure that we can avoid certain things that plagued us last time. Designate people to fill in for instance in accordance with the procedures established therein.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Ease there old Marokai, I don't see what my statment does to deprive you us of "nice things"? You are back to the old demgoging ideas problem of yours once again.

Could we just eliminate the Judiciary Committee and combine Internal Affairs and Oversight/Reform? The Judiciary would mostly be dealing with "legal" matters, which, in the context of Atlasia, would just be a fancy version of forum affairs, which can basically be covered by the game reform committee. Internal Affairs barely has enough to do on it's own, anyway. As nice as the idea of eliminating one committee is, there's much more trimming that could be done to the Committee system than just having nine seats open instead of twelve, in a body of just ten.

Change occurs slowly. I would remind you that it was Scott's haste that left us with four committees last year. At the time the IA's functions were a part of the GOR.

I would have no problem with that combination suggested, however.

It's clear there was a lot of haste when these were formed in the first place. Having committees, much less 4 of them, in a 10 person senate is a recipe for inactivity and inefficiency.

[Napoleon]

I think you're making a problem where there is none. If the Committee rodent have much on its plate, that's no big deal and doesn't harm anything. A problem would surface when the Committee should be doing something but isn't.

Nix, you only get to vote on committees you serve on.

X Napoleon

X Ben

X Yankee

[Marokai Backbeat]

The Committee debate is the SoIA's issues all over again. "It just needs a chance." "We just need to find more for it to do." "All it takes is the right people." We keep shoving more and more onto Committees plates, without any regard for if they're actually useful or not, and with very very very few exceptions, they've been an outright hindrance at worst and a pointless layer of bureaucracy at best. At least streamlining them down to two might result in more fights over seats and more interest in doing things, as opposed to the current situation.