|
Post by thevalleianorders on Mar 18, 2018 18:35:43 GMT -5
The Confederate Parliament
Law #006
A Bill For An Act Entitled: The Chartered Organization Act
18th of March, 2018
Member of Parliament: The Valleian Orders
Parliament Proposal
Resolved by the Confederate Parliament of the Confederacy of Free Nations, that the following article is proposed as a law under the jurisdiction of the Confederacy of Free Nations, enforceable by all of its institutions.
Be it enacted by the Members of Parliament of the Confederacy of Free Nations, in Confederate Parliament assembled, that
Section I
Chartered Organizations, Government Institutions, and Charters
ss.1. A Chartered Organization shall be defined as an organization or institution in the Confederation that holds a section on the COFN forums, and is structured by a charter, and does not explicitly assist in the governance of the Confederation. ss.2. A Government Institution shall be defined as and Organization or Sub-Organization chartered by Parliament that assists in the governance of the Confederacy. ss.3. A charter shall be defined as a document that defines the purpose and procedures of a Chartered Organization or Government Institution.
Section II
Chartering Government Institutions
ss.1. A charter for an Government Institution must start as a motion for approval in the Confederate Parliament Assembled. ss.2. These motions for approval shall have four days of debate in Parliament, unless otherwise specified by the author of the motions. ss.3. Following the debate period, the motion shall be voted for using the voting procedures prescribed by the Constitution. ss.4. A forum folder shall be created for newly established Government Institutions no more than one week after the motion’s passing in Parliament.
Section III
Chartering Organizations
ss.1. Charters for Organizations not relative explicitly to Government shall be submitted to the Ministry of Internal Affairs for review. ss.2. Charters are to be reviewed by the Ministry for the criteria listed in Section I, sub-section 3, and for the Organization’s appropriateness. Charters may be approved or denied by the Ministry according to these criteria. ss.3. A forum folder shall be made for a newly Chartered Organization no later than one week from the charter’s approval.
Section IV
Inactive Organizations and Dissolutions of Inactive Organizations
ss.1. A Chartered Organization shall be considered Inactive after no posts related to the Organization’s purpose on its forum thread have been made for four consecutive months. This status shall be made known to the author of the organization’s charter upon the change of status. ss.2. Unless otherwise stated in an organization’s charter, an organization that has been Inactive for two consecutive months shall be moved into the Graveyard archives of the forums.
|
|
|
Post by Continental Commonwealths on Mar 18, 2018 21:37:24 GMT -5
Order.
At the request of the author, this bill has now been moved to debate for a period of four days. Debate shall commence immediately, and conclude at 11:00pm Eastern on March 22, 2018. Edits to the bill are permissible at this time should the author desire to make any.
Order, Order.
|
|
|
Post by Unfallious on Mar 19, 2018 10:27:35 GMT -5
Firstly, I applaud how quickly you've become engaged in Parliament and I hope to see additional legislation coming from you in the future.
Moving to the actual bill, I'm unable to support it in its current state. The bill doesn't particularly feel necessary; I'm not entirely sure what a chartered organisation would be or what they would be able to do, I feel the definition set out in the bill is rather vague on that. Additionally, I also feel like anything that would fall into the realm of being a 'chartered organisation' wouldn't particularly need to be endorsed by Parliament. Even if it did, the recent University Charter Resolution has already set the precedent that a charter can be endorsed by Parliament which would render this bill unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by Vista Major, MP on Mar 19, 2018 16:02:33 GMT -5
For some of the reasons already expressed, I am going to tenatively support this bill in its current form. While the University Charter motion does set a precedent, it does not establish a standard procedure, and Lord knows we need one, lest we fall into an issue of semantics. In its current form, the bill could be expanded upon, but it provides a good amount of flexibility nonetheless. Besides, we can always amend this bill if it passes.
|
|
|
Post by thevalleianorders on Mar 19, 2018 17:22:55 GMT -5
I have noted that many people believe Parliament shouldn’t be involved in the chartering of Organizations; thinking that I should edit the bill to delegate the chartering authority to the MoIA instead. Any other things that seem vague?
|
|
|
Post by thevalleianorders on Mar 19, 2018 21:40:18 GMT -5
New edits to the bill include: -A separation of government and non-Government Institutions -MoIA authority over non-Government Institutions.
|
|
|
Post by Unfallious on Mar 20, 2018 17:23:17 GMT -5
I believe the alterations to the bill make it more problematic, not less. The discussion on the expansion of the government occurs roughly every time Vista tables a bill and it's universally agreed that we do not wish to expand the government at this time until the region is more active. Whilst I know this bill doesn't expand the government itself, it provides the procedure by which the government may be expanded and, in the opinion of this member, encourages future expansion through the establish of 'institutions'. Not to mention, I'm unsure if we actually need any government institutions at this time, it appears that each respective Ministry has a wide field of responsibility and they handle it well.
I would have been willing to abstain on this particular bill in its previous form with the non-government organisations because, as the honourable member for Vista Major points out, we do need some kind of codified procedure for adding organisations to the forums (although I was reliably informed that the government was supposed to be codifying the forums in another bill, which may come into conflict with this); however, in its current form, my stance on this bill is a hard denounce due to the risk it poses to facilitate an unnecessary expansion of government.
|
|
|
Post by thevalleianorders on Mar 20, 2018 18:06:25 GMT -5
Honorable Member, Thank you for your insight! And yes, while the concern for the expansion of government is quite true, these motions still have to go through Parliament debates and votes. With our Parliament’s historical votes going against the expansion of government, any notion of government expansion seems unlikely, whether or not using the processes defined in this bill.
I personally believe that even if the government won’t expand in the immediate future, there may come a time that such expansions may need to be enacted. So, whenever that time comes, a procedure has been set up to facilitate the necessary expansion of the future. Like the honorable member Vista Major noted, we do need a codified method of creating organizations. Thank you for your time.
|
|
|
Post by Jaslandia on Mar 23, 2018 18:48:38 GMT -5
I really like this bill. While I can understand the concern regarding government institutions, I feel that even if we don't make use of it now, it's good to have such a clause. In fact, I could even argue now is a great time to have the option of Section II available to us: If a minister wants to create an unnecessary and bureaucratic institution at a time when the region is inactive, Parliament can vote down the institution on those grounds, whereas before the minister could have created such an institution without any parliamentary oversight.
|
|
|
Post by Continental Commonwealths on Mar 23, 2018 21:06:17 GMT -5
Order, Order.
The debate on this bill has come to an end, and it will now be moved to a vote. Voting will commence immediately and last for seven days, concluding at 10:00pm on Friday, March 30. The author is reminded that there shall not be any edits to the bill during the voting period.
Those in favour show let it be known by stating “endorsed”; those opposed should let it be known by stating “denounced”. All those who do not vote shall be considered to have abstained.
Order.
|
|
|
Post by Peng on Mar 24, 2018 15:06:49 GMT -5
Aye / Endorsed
|
|
|
Post by Vista Major, MP on Mar 24, 2018 16:22:22 GMT -5
Endorsed.
|
|
|
Post by Unfallious on Mar 25, 2018 15:45:14 GMT -5
Denounced.
|
|
|
Post by Jaslandia on Mar 26, 2018 22:35:19 GMT -5
Endorsed
|
|
|
Post by Lex Caledonia on Mar 29, 2018 12:22:04 GMT -5
Endorsed
|
|