Mideast Assembly Thread

[Badger]

"bonnet blanc et blanc bonnet"

More people need to use this expression.

A quick google tells me I have no idea what that means. Although from BBF's context I imagine it has something to do with "doing something for the sake of doing it."

Sorry. It means that two things, two persons, are the same thing, the same person or would have the same consequences, the same policies, despite seeming to be different or even opposed.

The communist candidate said that about Pompidou and Poher in 1969 French presidential election. In the run-off there were only the centre-right and the gaullist candidates. So, for the PCF, this was equally evil and they abstain or vote blank.


Anyway, Sweedish, your a) idea must be discussed, but I don't think that's a good one, as our regional Senator is elected to deal with national matters, after a strictly political election, with national stakes.

b) pleases me, because it means that a bill should be widely supported to pass and that's a way to oblige us to seek consensus.
And, well, 5 assemblymen would be better: if it's 2 ayes, 1 no, 2 abstain for example .

Sorry for being a bit inactive, but family, gardening, wood (and woods...), wines and food make me busy this week-end again .
I'll be back on Monday with some proposals.


BTW, Badger, do you want me to post some amendments to my Public Procurement Policy Bill or do you still intend to put some forward ?

Both! ;-)

Mine won't come until after the weekend; Wednesday at latest I hope.

[Badger]

I have been pondering the referendum idea, and I think Inks is right that it could be very easily abused, and since no one else seem to be that enthustiastic about it either, I think we should scratch that idea.

Since most peopel don't seem that happy about giving the Governor the power either, I believe that leaves us with the following opptions:

a) Give the power to break a tie to our Regional Senator, which was something I thought of yesterday that could work.

b) A tie means the proposal automaticly fails (this is how it is now)

c) We recreate the office of Lt. Governor.

As I've said, I'm not a huge fan of either b) or c)
 

Nor I

A tied vote should fail. A vote of 1 Aye, 1 Nay and 1 Abstain is the equivalent of 1 Aye and 2 Nay in that case, but if a bill cannot garner majority support it shouldn't pass. I believe that was the logic in place when we removed the position of Lt. Governor.

While I believe defering to the elected federal senator is an interesting idea, and at least as good as the auto-referendum idea which was also ok, I have to say I'm leaning towards PS's statement above.

[big bad fab]

I'd like to make some amendments (directly in the text) to my earlier proposal:

Public procurement policy Bill:

1. The government and all public institutions of the Mideast, when they intend to purchase goods, works or services, shall make a call for tenders. In their call, they shall explain the consistence of goods, works or services required, the cost estimate, the ceiling set for public spending, the process for bidding, the information required from the bidders, the criterias set to be selected.

2. Among the criterias set to select among the bidders the one who will provide the goods, works or services, the public institution shall include the compliance with existing standards and labels of sustainable development, organic agriculture and environmental quality.
This criteria shall be the first one in 15% of calls for tenders in 2010, in 30% in 2012, in 50% in 2014, in 65% in 2016, in 75% in 2018 and in 90% in 2020 and thereafter.

3. A priority shall be set in public calls for tenders for businesses whose production, employees or registered office are is located in the Mideast.
When two bidders are on a par with the other criterias, the business whose production is the most located in the Mideast shall be selected, then the business whose employees are the most numerous to work in the Mideast shall be selected, then the business whose registered office is located in the Mideast.

4. A priority shall be set in public calls for tenders for small and middle-sized businesses. When two bidders are on a par with the other criterias, including those set in clause 3, and when they are both located in the Mideast, the smaller business shall be selected. The size of a business shall be set in the call for tenders, by a mix between the number of people employed by the business and the amount of its sales.

[big bad fab]

Even if I know there is already a debate on an Amendment proposed by our respected Speaker, and because our session isn't a very long one,

I wish to introduce the following constitutional amendment proposal to the Assembly:

Reinforcement of Rights Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

I. The clause 1. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"1.  No person shall be denied of Life without due process of Constitutional Law. No person shall be denied of Liberty or Property without due process of Law, Nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of Law."

II. The words "private properties," are included after the word "houses," in the clause 11. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution.

III. The clause 13. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"13. Private property shall not be used for private use of other people without Constitutional Law allowing it. Private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation set by Law."

IV. The clause 18. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"18. All persons under eighteen shall have the right to a publicly funded, well-balanced education. All persons under fourteen are required to receive education along lines and minimal requirements set by Law, in public or private institutions or in families."


The hierarchy of legal rules (is that the right phrase for "hiérarchie des normes" ?) should be better written in our Bill of Rights, especially for Life and Private Property. Hence my proposals:

My first aim is here to constitutionalize the protection given to Life. The death penalty should be authorized only by a constitutional level of Law, not only a legislative level.

My second aim is to give a greater protection to private property, as I think it's a sacred principle, as stated, for example, in the French Bill of Rights and Declaration of Human Rights (Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen de 1789).
So, reducing private property for public use would always be allowed by legislative ruling. However, reducing private property for another private use should be possible only by constitutional law.

My third aim is to state that education is compulsory until the age of 14. Of course this education can be given in public, private institutions or in families. But every child should be protected in this need to receive a proper education.

[Badger]

I'd like to make some amendments (directly in the text) to my earlier proposal:

Public procurement policy Bill:

1. The government and all public institutions of the Mideast, when they intend to purchase goods, works or services, shall make a call for tenders. In their call, they shall explain the consistence of goods, works or services required, the cost estimate, the ceiling set for public spending, the process for bidding, the information required from the bidders, the criterias set to be selected.

2. Among the criterias set to select among the bidders the one who will provide the goods, works or services, the public institution shall include the compliance with existing standards and labels of sustainable development, organic agriculture and environmental quality.
This criteria shall be the first one in 15% of calls for tenders in 2010, in 30% in 2012, in 50% in 2014, in 65% in 2016, in 75% in 2018 and in 90% in 2020 and thereafter.

3. A priority shall be set in public calls for tenders for businesses whose production, employees or registered office are is located in the Mideast.
When two bidders are on a par with the other criterias, the business whose production is the most located in the Mideast shall be selected, then the business whose employees are the most numerous to work in the Mideast shall be selected, then the business whose registered office is located in the Mideast.

4. A priority shall be set in public calls for tenders for small and middle-sized businesses. When two bidders are on a par with the other criterias, including those set in clause 3, and when they are both located in the Mideast, the smaller business shall be selected. The size of a business shall be set in the call for tenders, by a mix between the number of people employed by the business and the amount of its sales.

A good start. You may want to amend the phrase "or registered office" to "and registered office" to avoid the problems and loopholes I mentioned earlier.

I promise, baring some sudden event at work or home, to propose some amendments by Wednesday, particularly to flesh out some of the standards criteria in Section 2.

Again, good improvement here Fab.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

To go back on the tie breaker / referendum idea...I think it'd be acceptable if you give the Governor the option to veto the bill.

By "option to veto the bill" do you mean the power to prevent the bill from being submitted for referendum after a tied assembly vote?

No - I mean some way so that if the bill goes from tie vote to referendum, it still has to then go to the Governor's desk where he can either sign it or veto it.  Otherwise, it leaves the Governor completely out of hte process.

[Purple State]

To go back on the tie breaker / referendum idea...I think it'd be acceptable if you give the Governor the option to veto the bill.

By "option to veto the bill" do you mean the power to prevent the bill from being submitted for referendum after a tied assembly vote?

No - I mean some way so that if the bill goes from tie vote to referendum, it still has to then go to the Governor's desk where he can either sign it or veto it.  Otherwise, it leaves the Governor completely out of hte process.

I am reluctant to give the Governor the power to reject the voice of the people.

[HappyWarrior]

To go back on the tie breaker / referendum idea...I think it'd be acceptable if you give the Governor the option to veto the bill.

By "option to veto the bill" do you mean the power to prevent the bill from being submitted for referendum after a tied assembly vote?

No - I mean some way so that if the bill goes from tie vote to referendum, it still has to then go to the Governor's desk where he can either sign it or veto it.  Otherwise, it leaves the Governor completely out of hte process.

I am reluctant to give the Governor the power to reject the voice of the people.

I am in total agreement with Purple State on this issue.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Garrghhh!!!

I just wrote a long post, but my computer effed up and froze when I was working on the last paragraph, and it was lost. *Sigh*

Too tired to retype it again right now, so I hope you all forgive me if I wait until tomorrow before I try to comment on the new debate and the newly introduced legislation.

Sorry

 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

To go back on the tie breaker / referendum idea...I think it'd be acceptable if you give the Governor the option to veto the bill.

By "option to veto the bill" do you mean the power to prevent the bill from being submitted for referendum after a tied assembly vote?

No - I mean some way so that if the bill goes from tie vote to referendum, it still has to then go to the Governor's desk where he can either sign it or veto it.  Otherwise, it leaves the Governor completely out of hte process.

I am reluctant to give the Governor the power to reject the voice of the people.

But you see the problem?  If the Assembly knows the Governor will veto something and they don't have the power to override it, one person can just not vote and hope that it passes as a referendum, and then the Governor never gets a say on the bill.  IT completely leaves the Governor out of the process.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I do not think the Governor should have the power to veto a bill the voters clearly approved in a referendum. But neither do I want to create a system that would allow future, more mischiveus aseemblymen to abuse it for their own political agenda.

That's why I dropped the referendum idea, because at a closer examination, it doesn't appear to be as good of an idea as I first thought.

Although I'd prefer there to be some tie-breaker in one form or another, it is not my main goal with this legislation. What I truely want is for the rules of how to deal with a tie to be more clearly distiguished in the constitution. Maybe it has to do with me not being a native English speaker (or maybe I'm just a bit slow ) but I had to re-read the constitution several times before I understod how the rules actually worked, and even then I didn't feel 100 % sure. So I'd be more than willing to compromise with the idea that a tie means the legislation fails, as long as we have an amendment  that more clearly states that this is in fact the rules for this kind of situation, in order to avoid future confusion.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Moving on...

Reinforcement of Rights Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

I. The clause 1. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"1.  No person shall be denied of Life without due process of Constitutional Law. No person shall be denied of Liberty or Property without due process of Law, Nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of Law."

II. The words "private properties," are included after the word "houses," in the clause 11. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution.

III. The clause 13. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"13. Private property shall not be used for private use of other people without Constitutional Law allowing it. Private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation set by Law."

IV. The clause 18. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"18. All persons under eighteen shall have the right to a publicly funded, well-balanced education. All persons under fourteen are required to receive education along lines and minimal requirements set by Law, in public or private institutions or in families."

Much of this amendment I like very much, while other parts I feel more uncertain about.

I'm against the death penalty and think it is a good idea to have it banned not only by common law, but also by the regional constitution.

I'm even more positive on strengthening our citizens' right to education. It is with knowlage and education we build a modern nation. (Hey that rhymes) That our people is well-educated is esential to the well being and prosperity for us as a country. Therefore I fully support this, and I wouldn't even mind to make fifteen or sixteen the youngest age of which you are legally allowed to drop out of school.   

Now to what I feel more doubtful about... You and me obviously have a slightly different view on certain elements of property right, as discovered during the whole Freedom to Roam debate. So I'm not certain if these paragraphs are something I can support.

I'd also like to say that I think it was probably a good idea to introduce this at the same time as the other amendment is being discussed, because if they pass around the same time, we will be able to have both laws up for referendum at the same time in stead on different occations

[big bad fab]

Basically, private property can be protected by the Constitution when there are conflicting private interests. The legislative level can still infringe private property for public interests.

Of course, the Freedom to Roam bill makes me re-read our Bill of Rights and I've compared it with the French Declaration of Human Rights, which is a really both protective and liberal -in the old sense- document.

Of course, this is more a philosophical than law problem. I think it's essential for a society to protect privacy, and private property is essential to it. It's, among other things, a way to provide quietness and security in families in the long term. And that's the better thing to allow people to concentrate on one of their most important task, to breed respectful and integrated children, so preparing a more peaceful future for the whole society.

As for education, we shouldn't set a too low age, because we need to let professional and specialized educations be possible. So, 14 seems to be a good compromise for "general" education.

[Badger]

Grrr. Stupid real world responsibilities.

OK. Amendments proposed tomorrow I swear.

[Purple State]

To go back on the tie breaker / referendum idea...I think it'd be acceptable if you give the Governor the option to veto the bill.

By "option to veto the bill" do you mean the power to prevent the bill from being submitted for referendum after a tied assembly vote?

No - I mean some way so that if the bill goes from tie vote to referendum, it still has to then go to the Governor's desk where he can either sign it or veto it.  Otherwise, it leaves the Governor completely out of hte process.

I am reluctant to give the Governor the power to reject the voice of the people.

But you see the problem?  If the Assembly knows the Governor will veto something and they don't have the power to override it, one person can just not vote and hope that it passes as a referendum, and then the Governor never gets a say on the bill.  IT completely leaves the Governor out of the process.

I agree with your point as well, which is why I believe the status quo is perfectly acceptable.

[Badger]

Public procurement policy Bill:

1. The government and all public institutions of the Mideast, when they intend to purchase goods, works or services, shall make a call for tenders. In their call, they shall explain the consistence of goods, works or services required, the cost estimate, the ceiling set for public spending, the process for bidding, the information required from the bidders, the criterias set to be selected.

2. Among the criterias set to select among the bidders the one who will provide the goods, works or services, the public institution shall include the compliance with existing standards and labels of sustainable development, organic agriculture and environmental quality.
This criteria shall be the first one in 15% of calls for tenders in 2010, in 30% in 2012, in 50% in 2014, in 65% in 2016, in 75% in 2018 and in 90% in 2020 and thereafter.

3. A priority shall be set in public calls for tenders for businesses whose production, employees or registered office are is located in the Mideast.
When two bidders are on a par with the other criterias, the business whose production is the most located in the Mideast shall be selected, then the business whose employees are the most numerous to work in the Mideast shall be selected, then the business whose registered office is located in the Mideast.

4. A priority shall be set in public calls for tenders for small and middle-sized businesses. When two bidders are on a par with the other criterias, including those set in clause 3, and when they are both located in the Mideast, the smaller business shall be selected. The size of a business shall be set in the call for tenders, by a mix between the number of people employed by the business and the amount of its sales."

Upon, review, I suppose the only necessary change was bolded above for previously stated reasons.

[Badger]

Upon further reflection, SC, I have to say I oppose the proposal for breaking tie votes in the Assembly at this time. In addition to the other concerns previously mentioned, I realize that if 1/3 the Assembly abstains on a bill (even if that 1/3 is one person) and the rest of the members are split, than the bill shouldn't be passed baring legislative referendum (which I also agree should not be subject to gubernatorial veto).

Now if we had a larger assembly, the issue of breaking tie votes becomes much more germane. IMHO, 7 members: certainly; 5 members: maybe. While I'm extremely proud of the work this assembly has done in the last year, we're not quite ready for a 7 member assembly. But I believe we have grown and matured enough in regional identity and interest in regional government to warrant a 5 member assembly. And accordingly, having thought long and hard about this, would offer the folowing amendment (which Swede can either take as friendly or the matter be handled as a new bill):-)

1) The Mideast Constitution shall be amended to read as follows:

"Article III - Legislation and Recall
Section 1: The Assembly
The legislative power of the Mideast shall be vested in the Mideast Assembly.
The Assembly shall be composed of three five members, each of whom shall be registered voters residing in the Mideast Region.

Section 2: Legislation
All ordinary legislation shall first be considered in the Assembly.
Legislation shall be considered by the Assembly upon petition of any Assembly member, the Governor, or two Mideast citizens.
Should the Assembly pass ordinary legislation by a majority vote, then the Governor may sign such legislation into Law, or veto such legislation. A veto may be overturned upon the unanimous two-thirds vote of the Assembly. "

2. The effective date of this amendment shall be concurrent with the November 2009 Mideast Assembly Elections.



The first section is self-explanatory. Simply put, the Mideast is ready. The second part establishes that the rest of this session will be conducted in accordance with the last election of three members, and the new 5 person assembly will accordingly be elected by the voters to begin the next session. I suggest we see how it works with five members, and then see if a need for a tie breaking authority of some sort (governor, speaker, regional senator, etc) is needed.

[Purple State]

I am torn on expanding the Assembly. On one hand, I would like to see competitive elections, while on the other I would like to see a greater number of voices heard. I just think that until there are more than four people running for the seats, the region isn't ready.

[big bad fab]

Public procurement policy Bill:

1. The government and all public institutions of the Mideast, when they intend to purchase goods, works or services, shall make a call for tenders. In their call, they shall explain the consistence of goods, works or services required, the cost estimate, the ceiling set for public spending, the process for bidding, the information required from the bidders, the criterias set to be selected.

2. Among the criterias set to select among the bidders the one who will provide the goods, works or services, the public institution shall include the compliance with existing standards and labels of sustainable development, organic agriculture and environmental quality.
This criteria shall be the first one in 15% of calls for tenders in 2010, in 30% in 2012, in 50% in 2014, in 65% in 2016, in 75% in 2018 and in 90% in 2020 and thereafter.

3. A priority shall be set in public calls for tenders for businesses whose production, employees or registered office are is located in the Mideast.
When two bidders are on a par with the other criterias, the business whose production is the most located in the Mideast shall be selected, then the business whose employees are the most numerous to work in the Mideast shall be selected, then the business whose registered office is located in the Mideast.

4. A priority shall be set in public calls for tenders for small and middle-sized businesses. When two bidders are on a par with the other criterias, including those set in clause 3, and when they are both located in the Mideast, the smaller business shall be selected. The size of a business shall be set in the call for tenders, by a mix between the number of people employed by the business and the amount of its sales."

Upon, review, I suppose the only necessary change was bolded above for previously stated reasons.

Dear Badger, I respectfully don't agree on your amendment, even if I think we in fact agree on the heart of this bill.
As you've seen, I kept the registered office as a criteria, but only third in the hierarchy of choice.
I think that you were right and production and employees should be more important criteria. But I think we need to keep the registered office as a third criteria because some of our taxes on businesses are based on the registered office.
So, it's a good thing to keep this as an alternate and final criteria.
Of course, "ties" between candidates after the environmental criteria, the production criteria, the employees criteria may not be very numerous, but, as we are in to put lines on the public procurement policy, I think we shouldn't prevent ourselves from setting another criteria which is good for our tax revenues.

So, if my fellow assemblyman and if our dear Speaker agreed on it, I would like the Assembly to consider the bill as I've amended it.


As for the membership of the Assembly, I was about to table a similar proposal .
I strongly agree on this one, as I think they may be enough willing and competent citizens in the Mideast region to have 5 good members in the Assembly.
Debates would be even more alive and we could have an even wider area of personal competences from which the Assembly can benefit highly.
Ties would be scarcer, at least a bit.

It may be theoretically more difficult to have competitive elections. But 5 aren't 6 or 8 and we aren't on a "Northeastern" path.
And the Mideast now seems to be appeased and, even with only 3 seats, the elections aren't very passionnate.
On the contrary, I think this first step (5 seats) would lead us to think and debate about the electoral system later, which may be a safer way to have more competitive elections.

What is more, with 5 members, the Assembly would be able to designate an assemblyman to assess existing laws and review them periodically (I have some ideas on the subject...) and propose, when it's needed, some changes.
I mean, to spread the laws between the members in order to make them review less laws.

The second part establishes that the rest of this session will be conducted in accordance with the last election of three members, and the new 5 person assembly will accordingly be elected by the voters to begin the next session. I suggest we see how it works with five members, and then see if a need for a tie breaking authority of some sort (governor, speaker, regional senator, etc) is needed.

Our fellow Badger is especially right here: let's try ! We are pragmatic and reasonable people and will be able to analyze quietly and cleverly the new functioning of our Assembly then.

May I add that with more members in the Assembly, I think we'll have more candidates (even surprising ones ), because the chances to be elected would be higher. So the elections may be more competitive.
That may sound paradoxical, but it's statistically logical...

So, I suggest we move forward rather quickly on Badger's proposal, without forgetting to debate on my own constitutional amendment .

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Badger has 24 hours to either defend or withdraw his amendment if he wants to. I'll probably be able to open a vote on it before this week's over.


It seems I'm in the minority on the extended Assembly issue. I personally think it works well with three assemblymen, and I believe that increasing the number to almost the double of its current size would probably kill competive assembly elections.

If we take the next upcoming election for example, two candidates have declared, and asuming both me and Badger run for re-election, that makes us four. So in order for there to be any real competition we'd need at least two more, and at least one to be able to actually fill the assembly.

Now the assembly should work as a training ground for new members to stretch their wings and gather necessary knowlage in order for them to become mature and ready politicians. So I think it's fair that everybody should be given a chance to be a member, but one of the necessary things you need to learn is how to run a succesful campaign. If we remove the element of competition, the new members will not learn how to do that. If we have five seats, and only five candidates, you'd be able to just annouce your candidacy, show up and vote for yourself, and win a seat without having to do anything else.

I just fear that we would put ourselves in a situation were we'd have more seats than candidates. I'm therefore strongly leaning no on this issue.

[big bad fab]

There are only 2 candidates so far but the election is still far away. So I don't think you can use it to argue against Badger's proposal.

As for the campaign thing, well, you may make the best of campaigns in Atlasia, it's always disrupted by unimportant facts or it's completely ignored. The real training comes inside the regional assembly.
To answer to your point here, I think having Assemblymen elected for 3 months and not only 2 would be better, to fulfil the training aim of all this.
That's another debate and I don't want to open it here, but you may see that we may have some other little changes that may answer your point.

When the Assembly is extended, there will be more candidates, as the chances are greater and as, inside political parties, if some are restraining from being candidates in order not to harm their mate's chances, they would be freer to be candidates with 5 seats.

[big bad fab]

On the Public Procurement Policy Bill, what do you intend to do, Mr. Speaker ?

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This on the other hand is something I'm more than willing to support. I've often thought that two months is a too short time period to actually get much done, and that the time might be increased to three months instead.

I do disagree with you though that more seats will mean more candidates. There have been times when even getting three people to run has been quite hard in the assembly's history. So even if those seats were easy to obtain, there still weren't a lot of candidates.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I want to hear Badger's reply before I make up my mind completely, but I think you make a good argument as to why the registered office should remain as a criteria, so I think I will either vote nay, or abstain to the amendment. As I said I want to hear Badger's reply first before I make any final decissions. 
 

[Badger]

I am torn on expanding the Assembly. On one hand, I would like to see competitive elections, while on the other I would like to see a greater number of voices heard. I just think that until there are more than four people running for the seats, the region isn't ready.

More seats will likely result in more candidates. We already have two non-incumbents officially declared for next month's elections, and I'm sure more will follow after this month's elections and focus shifts to the assembly races. I feel we're at greater risk in the region of 3 being too small for divergent views and voices than we are for 5 being too large to get enough interested quality candidates.

[Badger]

Public procurement policy Bill:

1. The government and all public institutions of the Mideast, when they intend to purchase goods, works or services, shall make a call for tenders. In their call, they shall explain the consistence of goods, works or services required, the cost estimate, the ceiling set for public spending, the process for bidding, the information required from the bidders, the criterias set to be selected.

2. Among the criterias set to select among the bidders the one who will provide the goods, works or services, the public institution shall include the compliance with existing standards and labels of sustainable development, organic agriculture and environmental quality.
This criteria shall be the first one in 15% of calls for tenders in 2010, in 30% in 2012, in 50% in 2014, in 65% in 2016, in 75% in 2018 and in 90% in 2020 and thereafter.

3. A priority shall be set in public calls for tenders for businesses whose production, employees or registered office are is located in the Mideast.
When two bidders are on a par with the other criterias, the business whose production is the most located in the Mideast shall be selected, then the business whose employees are the most numerous to work in the Mideast shall be selected, then the business whose registered office is located in the Mideast.

4. A priority shall be set in public calls for tenders for small and middle-sized businesses. When two bidders are on a par with the other criterias, including those set in clause 3, and when they are both located in the Mideast, the smaller business shall be selected. The size of a business shall be set in the call for tenders, by a mix between the number of people employed by the business and the amount of its sales."

Upon, review, I suppose the only necessary change was bolded above for previously stated reasons.

Dear Badger, I respectfully don't agree on your amendment, even if I think we in fact agree on the heart of this bill.
As you've seen, I kept the registered office as a criteria, but only third in the hierarchy of choice.
I think that you were right and production and employees should be more important criteria. But I think we need to keep the registered office as a third criteria because some of our taxes on businesses are based on the registered office.
So, it's a good thing to keep this as an alternate and final criteria.
Of course, "ties" between candidates after the environmental criteria, the production criteria, the employees criteria may not be very numerous, but, as we are in to put lines on the public procurement policy, I think we shouldn't prevent ourselves from setting another criteria which is good for our tax revenues.

So, if my fellow assemblyman and if our dear Speaker agreed on it, I would like the Assembly to consider the bill as I've amended it.

Hmmmmm. I didn't realize that the "registered office" was listed third out of precedence given the amount of production and employees used within the region. Nor did I realize that "registered office" meant basically a "taxable" corporate or regional HQ as opposed to maybe a PO Box or single office cubicle. You have assumedly used the term as it is used in Mideast tax law, I'm sure. ;-)

With that futher explanation of the meaning of "registered office" and how it fits within the bill, I'm now satisfied and withdraw the amendment. :-)