Opinion of the Arbiter: The Economic Bill.
Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 6:45 pm
As the arbiter I feel I would be remiss in my duties if I did not point out that the passage, and in fact the entire handling of the Economic Bill recently before the Landsraad, violating the Procedures of the Landsraad that were in place when the bill was active. I shall innumerate them below, along with how severe a violation I believe them to be.
1. The bill was open for greater then 4 days. (Moderate to severe based on length of extension)
2. The bill was not initially written as a change to the Lawbook (minor, and I corrected this myself)
3. The bill was divided into two parts, when the Procedures clearly prohibit this. (moderate to minor)
4. The bill was cosed with part 1 passing and part 2 failing, then part two was passed AFTER the vote had ended. (Severe violation of Procedure)
5. The discussion itself was full of minor charter violations due to charter violations in the Procedures of the Landsraad. (minor/indirect)
Most of these violation I honestly would overlook myself.
1. precedent shows that this happens regularly by accident.
2. More a matter of bookkeeping, and would have had to be correct anyway. Was corrected.
3. Once again, more a matter of bookkeeping and there is SOME precedent of this happening in the past, though in many cases it was such a situation as we have here.
4. I find this violation extremely troubling, and a gross violation of procedure and decorum by the those involved.
5. unimportant.
Since I have no implicit authority over the Procedures of the Landsraad, I cannot take any action in this situation. It is the role of the Prætor to enforce these Procedures, and once again, I am not legally authorized to censure him for failure to uphold the Procedures.
1. The bill was open for greater then 4 days. (Moderate to severe based on length of extension)
2. The bill was not initially written as a change to the Lawbook (minor, and I corrected this myself)
3. The bill was divided into two parts, when the Procedures clearly prohibit this. (moderate to minor)
4. The bill was cosed with part 1 passing and part 2 failing, then part two was passed AFTER the vote had ended. (Severe violation of Procedure)
5. The discussion itself was full of minor charter violations due to charter violations in the Procedures of the Landsraad. (minor/indirect)
Most of these violation I honestly would overlook myself.
1. precedent shows that this happens regularly by accident.
2. More a matter of bookkeeping, and would have had to be correct anyway. Was corrected.
3. Once again, more a matter of bookkeeping and there is SOME precedent of this happening in the past, though in many cases it was such a situation as we have here.
4. I find this violation extremely troubling, and a gross violation of procedure and decorum by the those involved.
5. unimportant.
Since I have no implicit authority over the Procedures of the Landsraad, I cannot take any action in this situation. It is the role of the Prætor to enforce these Procedures, and once again, I am not legally authorized to censure him for failure to uphold the Procedures.
