OSPR Amendment (Absent Senators) Resolution

[Ebowed]

OSPR Amendment (Absent Senators) Resolution
That the following be added to the OSPR as 'Article 10: Absent Senators':

1. Where a Senator fails or neglects to post on any matter of Senate business for a period of not less than 14 days, said Senator shall be considered 'absent'.
2. During such time as a Senator is considered 'absent', he shall not be considered to add to the quorum of the Senate, until such time as he once more posts on a matter of Senate business.


Sponsor: Sen. Jas

[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.

[TomC]

I do question whether it is constitutional. While the constitution gives the Senate a lot of authority to determine its own proceedings, the constitution does define what constitutes a quorum:

"The Senate shall have fulfilled a quorum if a majority of its members are capable of discharging their offices and sworn into office. A quorum of Senators shall have voted on any Resolution, Bill, Impeachment or Constitutional Amendment for it to be considered valid."

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

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.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I would like to amend it to say unless the absent was previously noted and does not exceed 21 days.

[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?

[Ebowed]

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.

[DownWithTheLeft]

and does not exceed 21 days.

Why 21 days?

Three weeks is really the longest time someone would reasonably be away from a computer and if they are going on some sort of extended thing they should really be leaving office.

[TomC]

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 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.

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).

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.

[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.

[TomC]

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.

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'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.

[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?

[TomC]

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?

Actually now that I look more closely, it's the district seats that call for elections to fill vacancies to take place within a week. With regional seats, it is left up to the governor, it seems. You did inquire of Jesus if Rob knew of the appointment, Jesus didn't seem anxious that Rob hadn't sworn in yet, but I think it would be reasonable that if Rob hadn't sworn in for a considerable period of time, Jesus would be within his rights to appoint someone else to the seat that, due to a senator not swearing in, was technically vacant. So, yes, personally, I think the seat is vacant until someone is sworn in.

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.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

I approve the amendment stated in the first post.

[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'?

[TomC]

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'?

Well, not quite that simple. Clause 2 would have to be dropped. If it's vacant, it would have to be filled, you couldn't just let the Senator return whenever. So the DoFA would have to hold an election, or the governor appoint and there might need to be some provision that the PPT has to notify the SoFA or the governors when the days have passed and the seat is vacant.

And I'm only one of three, of course, and I can't say exactly how I'd rule on a case. Perhaps others would bring up things I haven't considered. But, yes, I think the constitution is a bit vague on the definition of vacancy. To me, it's quite clear on what a quorum is, both in the text as well as several Court precedents.

And let me ask this: once a bill has been introduced how many days before lack of a quorum kills the bill? Is it reasonable to expect a Senator to visit and post in the Govt board once in that number of days?

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. "?

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

[Colin]

I agree with DWDL that it should be made 3 weeks or a total of 21 days absent. I also believe that it might be easier to just make the seat vacant after a set amount of days rather than declare the person on a stated leave of absence.

Also I think it would be good to include a provision for recall like Senator Ernest has suggested in another thread, as then it would take such decisions out of the hands of impersonal laws and into the hands of the people.

[Ebowed]

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

[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.

[minionofmidas]

Nay

[Colin]

Nay just because it isn't clear enough. If the Senator would like to propose an amendment that states which clause will be struck and what numbers changed than I would happily vote in the affirmation.

[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.

[Ebowed]

Nay