I would like to state my opposition to this bill. It is critical that each Council have an identity of its own and that newly elected Councilors have the opportunity to propose new business. Therefore, it makes no sense for an incoming elected body to be mandated to debate legislation proposed by an ousted government.
With pending legislation no longer eliminated (per this bill), new opportunities for exploitation by outgoing Councilors would arise. Under this law, should a disgruntled legislator wish to do so, they could theoretically disrupt the transition process by proposing dozens of bills immediately prior to dissolution. The new Council would have no choice but to introduce all of these bills, even if the original sponsor was voted out or otherwise removed from office.
I affirm that legislation worthy of passage would be re-introduced if necessary.
I fully agree with this statement.
In fact, I remember introducing that part of the bill precisely because the bolded part exactly happened. In a regional version of the "legislative terrorism" performed in June, Councillor Thr introduced like 10-15 bills in a row. Now, because in Lincoln the opposition queue is separate it didn't matter (though the opposition would have a hard time doing anything). There is also a second safeguard against this.
Still the automatic tabling should be kept. Worthwhile bills should be reintroduced and sponsored again by Councillors if needed; and each council gets its own session as a blank slate.
