Bill: Pending Show Up for Work Act

[greymc]

CONGRESS OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
​

---

A BILL TO

AMEND THE CONSTITUTION




​

---

The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law:


​

PART I — PRELIMINARIES

1. Short Title and Enactment

(1) This Act may be cited as the ‘Show Up for Work Act’

(2) This Act shall be enacted when either the 40th House of Representatives or Senate have been called to order.

(3) This Act has been authored by Speaker _GreyMC.

(4) This Act has been co-sponsored by Deputy Speaker HatManMC and Deputy President of the Senate ElegantAlly.

(5) This Act amends the Constitution

(6) This Act shall require a four-fifths majority in both chambers, pursuant to Part VIII, §52 of the Constitution.

2. Reasons and Intent
(1) A democratic government is one that shows up. Having Representatives and Senators not vote on bills is the same as hiring an employee who doesn’t show up for work. They are paid (via UBI) and hired (voted on by the players) to pass laws, aka voting on bills.

(2) An extension on dereliction may seem harsh, but like noted in subsection (1), it is their job to show up. LOAs exist if they cannot show up.

(3) This bill will amend the Constitution to make dereliction happen when a Representative or Senator does not vote on 5 bills or motions. It removes the exception if it fails for quorum, instilling that it is their job to show up for work.

(4) Moreover, now Congressional members will be removed automatically, unless their chamber votes to save them.

PART II - AMENDMENTS

3. Constitution

(1) Part I, §11 of the Constitution shall be amended as follows:

11. Removal of Congress Members

(1) Representative Removal. A Representative can be removed from Congress early by the relevant presiding officer with the consent of four fifths of their chamber (excluding the individual in question).

(2) Senator Removal. A Senator can be removed from Congress early by the relevant presiding officer with the consent of all members of their chamber (excluding the individual in question).

(3) Removal shall only require a simple majority if the individual in question has committed dereliction of their duties.
(3) Dereliction. If an individual has been found to have committed dereliction of their duties, they shall be removed from their position within 72 hours, unless their chamber has moved to keep them as a member by motion passed with a simple majority.

(a) If the motion fails, the individual shall be immediately removed. An individual may not be removed via dereliction if there is a motion to keep them as a member.

(b) Should the motion pass, the individual can still be removed by a simple majority of members in their chamber.

(2) Part VIII, §52 of the Constitution shall be amended as follows:

52. Dereliction
A Congressional Member will be deemed to have committed dereliction of their duties if they fail to vote on 5 or more bills/motions which fail due to not meeting quorum, or fall below the playtime required to vote in elections. If these offenses occur while the Congressional Member is on Leave of Absence, they will not be deemed to have commited dereliction of their duties. Changing the definition of Dereliction will require four-fifths majority in Congress.
A Congressional Member will be deemed to have committed dereliction of their duties if they either fail to vote on 5 or more motions (given that voting on those motions was open for the full voting period as defined by their chamber’s standing orders), or fall below the playtime required to vote in elections during a Congressional session. If a Congressional Member is on a Leave of Absence during an offense, the failure to vote will not be counted towards them, and they will be deemed to not have committed dereliction of their duties if it comes from a lack of playtime. For the purposes of this section, a motion will also include bills and resolutions. Changing the definition of Dereliction will require a four-fifths majority in Congress.

 

[ameslap]

Nay! I agree that members need to show up for work. But this bill goes too far by turning 5 missed votes into automatic removal, even if Congress is still functioning and a quorum is present. A member of Congress missing a single day without being on LOA now means that they are automatically removed, depending on how many votes were had that day. Show up to work, sure, but how many of us want to be at work 24/7?

Additionally, most motions or bills close when a majority is reached. If a member intended to vote but it was closed before they could... now that's a strike against them.

 

[greymc]

- I understand the concerns with this bill, but there's a reason it's specified that the entire time has to play out. 48 hours are given. If you know something is coming up, or don't have time to read a bill, abstain/go on an LOA.

 

[Kaizered]

- Both sides have valid points that I agree with.

 

[HatManMC]

Genuine question: does this imply that if a motion is closed due to reaching majority, that counts against them? That implies one of the following two things:
1) We have random quorum failures because you weren’t part of the first 6 to reach a motion.
2) We have to keep motions up much longer than necessary to give folks the allowed time to vote.

I think it’s a reasonable idea, and I’m pro strengthening dereliction’s responsibilities. But I fear the motion bit may start a “bad choice road” of quorum failures and prolonged congressional action.

For this reasoning, will be changing from aye to abstain until I can get a proper explanation on the matter.

 

[greymc]

Genuine question: does this imply that if a motion is closed due to reaching majority, that counts against them? That implies one of the following two things:
1) We have random quorum failures because you weren’t part of the first 6 to reach a motion.
2) We have to keep motions up much longer than necessary to give folks the allowed time to vote.

I think it’s a reasonable idea, and I’m pro strengthening dereliction’s responsibilities. But I fear the motion bit may start a “bad choice road” of quorum failures and prolonged congressional action.

For this reasoning, will be changing from aye to abstain until I can get a proper explanation on the matter.

I would assume it's pretty clear that it's only dereliction that applies when a bill was up for the 48 hours. It says given, it doesn't force a bill to be open.

 

[HatManMC]

I would assume it's pretty clear that it's only dereliction that applies when a bill was up for the 48 hours. It says given, it doesn't force a bill to be open.

Yes, but it’s typical practice for a bill or motion to be closed before it’s fully voted on or 48 hours have passed. For example, H-52/39 motion had only 6 votes on it and was preemptively closed. This bill implies that a strike would be given to any member that didn’t vote on that. The way this would likely be resolved is to stop closing motions and bills before 48 hours have passed, which is fairly impractical. I could see doing so for bills, but motions especially would be a complete waste of Congress’s time.

 

[greymc]

Yes, but it’s typical practice for a bill or motion to be closed before it’s fully voted on or 48 hours have passed. For example, H-52/39 motion had only 6 votes on it and was preemptively closed. This bill implies that a strike would be given to any member that didn’t vote on that. The way this would likely be resolved is to stop closing motions and bills before 48 hours have passed, which is fairly impractical. I could see doing so for bills, but motions especially would be a complete waste of Congress’s time.

I'm sorry, but I thought this clause addresses it. If you feel it doesn't please inform me.

(given that voting on those motions was open for the full voting period as defined by their chamber’s standing orders)

 

[HatManMC]

I'm sorry, but I thought this clause addresses it. If you feel it doesn't please inform me.

I interpreted this differently in my reading but now I know what you were going for, apologies and changing vote back.