Honored Citizen Restriction Amendment Completes Unlikely Journey

---

---

Honored Citizen Restriction Amendment Completes Unlikely Journey
By Deepest House

---

---

​

---

---

---

---

(Europeia – May 27, 2017) – The citizens of Europeia collectively voted “Aye” in support of the Honored Citizen Restriction Amendment referendum held May 25-26. The referendum passed 35-27. The amendment removes the right of honored citizens to speak in the Senate without invitation.

The final vote in the referendum completes the long and unlikely journey that started in the Citizens’ Assembly. While the amendment enjoyed debate in the CA, the region’s junior legislative body ultimately failed to pass the bill and advance it to the Senate for consideration.

Senator Leo introduced the amendment to the Senate on May 15, continuing the discussion in newly started legislative session. It is unusual for a piece of legislation to flounder in the CA and then be brought to the Senate for consideration. “In my right as a senator, I propose this amendment proposed in the Assembly that is worth discussion on the senate floor,” Senator Leo said at the time. The Senate debated the amendment for a week before passing the bill four votes to two.

The final stop on the journey would’ve been the desk of President Darcness. However, despite considering the amendment overnight, the president exercised his authority to pass the bill on to public referendum, ultimately citing the “deeply split” Senate and public. “I hereby request that the issue of the People's Assent be discovered via referendum,” President Darcness declared.

The president’s declaration of a deeply split Senate elicited critical comments from a number within Europeia, while others backed the president’s decision. Supreme Chancellor Mousebumples opened the official public comment and debate period, which resulted in an often heated back and forth exchange between supporters of the amendment and its opponents.

"While it's unfortunate that the debate turned divisive, the amendment was an important step forward in improving the institution of the Senate," Speaker McEntire said. "I'm gratified for the public support, as I know are my fellow senators who supported this amendment."

Editor's Note: This story has been updated with Speaker McEntire's statement, which the EBC had previously requested.

 

[Aexnidaral]

 

[Kylia Quilor]

<_<

 

[Ervald]

opkorn:

 

[Cat]

 

[A Random User]

Nice article DH

 

[hyanygo]

Eagerly wait to see the improvement. I've PM'ed Mc so I could speak in the Senate: no response and my free time has now gone. Lol.

 

[McEntire]

Eagerly wait to see the improvement. I've PM'ed Mc so I could speak in the Senate: no response and my free time has now gone. Lol.

Apologies that I didn't respond to your message yesterday, Hy. I saw it and meant to, but was a little busy with life stuff yesterday. I'm considering your request carefully, because if I'm going to start handing out carte blanche speaking invites, I'd rather do it with a group of people than just to whomever requests first. In the meantime, there is a more official place to make such requests, rather than a Discord message and a post in the EBC: http://s6.zetaboards.com/Europeia/topic/10007959/2/#new. I will get back with you shortly, as soon as a determination is made.

 

[Trinnien]

I'm considering your request carefully, because if I'm going to start handing out carte blanche speaking invites, I'd rather do it with a group of people than just to whomever requests first.

I want everyone to read this nice and slowly. And then read it again. So Speaker McEntire is either expecting A) a slew of people suddenly requesting Senate speaking rights (which has never historically happened), B) waits for a group which will likely (shockingly) consist of experts on various aspects of law and other topics which, ironically, will most likely be Honored Citizens or C) plans on using his discretion on if a person should be granted speaking rights at all and if he (The Speaker, not necc Mac) believes the person making the request is relevant or not.

You're making it damn difficult for me to focus on my RL right now Mac. Really damn hard.

 

[Aexnidaral]

 

[McEntire]

I'm considering your request carefully, because if I'm going to start handing out carte blanche speaking invites, I'd rather do it with a group of people than just to whomever requests first.

I want everyone to read this nice and slowly. And then read it again. So Speaker McEntire is either expecting A) a slew of people suddenly requesting Senate speaking rights (which has never historically happened), B) waits for a group which will likely (shockingly) consist of experts on various aspects of law and other topics which, ironically, will most likely be Honored Citizens or C) plans on using his discretion on if a person should be granted speaking rights at all and if he (The Speaker, not necc Mac) believes the person making the request is relevant or not.

You're making it damn difficult for me to focus on my RL right now Mac. Really damn hard.

Any Senator can grant speaking rights. If I'm not getting back to someone within 24 hours and they have something absolutely crucial to say on the floor at that time, there are 5 other people that they can talk to regarding that. What Hyanygo has asked me for, and what I think deserves some careful thought, is a completely discretionary speaking pass, at least as long as I'm Speaker. Hyanygo is certainly at the top of the list of someone deserving of such a pass, and I expect that everyone that I give one to will likely be an Honored Citizen. Again, the point of the amendment was not to block out Honored Citizens. I will invite our great legal scholars to speak in the Senate at their leisure, I just don't have the time to sit down and think about that at this moment.

I do not understand what the issue is here. I am not trying to be unreasonable or tear anyone down or block anyone from the Senate, just trying to take a more thoughtful approach. We might be better served having this conversation off of the forum, that way you can more thoroughly explain to me exactly what I've done that has offended you. It's clear to me that your issue with my approach extends well beyond this specific conversation.

 

[Trinnien]

As a non-voting member I do not have access or posting rights in the Grand Hall or The Republic Square - thus, I follow along Senate and CA discussion; read EBC articles and comment from there.

The issue in your response to Hyanygo is that you stated you would prefer a group approval instead of "whomever comes first" - are you really expecting a multitude of guests asking for carte blanche speaking rights? Just reply back to the individual, yes or no. The likelihood of multiple people asking for free reign speaking rights is practically nil. Moreso, just point them to the ESPA which has limited speaking rights to specified topics and not a wide open door for a couple of years now, its not like you're making some radical change. Better yet, be on top of the legislative agenda and say "Hey this topic would likely really benefit from expert input. I am going to reach out to X" instead of waiting for X to come to you (which, mind you, is something ALL Senators should be cognizant of).

The referendum has passed, and it is what it is. Maybe I have a cynical view of people, but I can't say that I'm expecting our Senators to be suddenly on top of communicating and inviting experts and seasoned members when few Senators have ever shown such initiative in the past. I fully expect our legislative work and the quality of debate to go downhill as Senators avoid the CA and GH and just plain don't think to invite experienced voices.

In a discussion I had with, I believe WL, but may have been someone else - I wondered why does the CA still have a subforum on Senate matters and likewise why doesn't the Senate have a Public Gallery like the High Court does?

It would seem that if HC voices were taken away, it would've been smart to keep a public gallery within the Senate forum for public comment; much like how the Court has the Public Gallery for comment on its cases. The CA, now being more akin to a pre-legislative house should likely drop the Senate discussion forum as it doesn't really make much sense there as the CA is now structured.

In short, there should have been a broader and better discussion on how communication and debate works in the region as a whole, but instead - only this one area was dealt with and because so much else was ignored/not improved upon, it does not actually help the overall discourse. You are not the first, nor will you be the last, Senator or elected official that can't see the forest for the trees.

And you haven't offended me - I just believe that you are willfully or absently ignoring the historical behavior of Senators and how they interact with the public and how they approach debate.

For now, we will just have to see how the remainder of this Senate term proceeds and how you (and the other Senators) handle "being on their own"

 

[XIV]

As I said elsewhere, I still believe that in a few terms we will see HC speaking rights voted back into effect... and then Drecq will punch everyone for making him work.

 

[Mr. Verteger]

The whole motivation was to make Drecq work. That's what this is all really about.

 

[Drecq]

Actually, while any Senator can invite a person to speak only the Speaker can add them to the joinable group (Senate Guests) necessary to actually talk in the Senate. So, McEntire is wrong saying that if he cant get to it in time any of the other Senators can do it too, because the other Senators then need to go to him in order to get it done.

 

[hyanygo]

As far as I can see since May 2016, the following has occured:

Invitations that have occured in the Senate: Jan 23rd 2017, Jan 21st, Dec 28 2016, Nov 16, Oct 29, July 6 and perhaps, only a few more.

I've collated all the data for every post here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jz0wsYwmW7sJxjnlqM5PvHzmMCdoMX7UHRPhLXZ4hno/edit?usp=sharing

It's pretty obvious that honoured citizen contribution is pretty impactful even if it only accounts for about 8% of total word count (most of it coming from Malashaan).

And given that most of it has come from Malashaan, HEM and myself that's who you'll be shutting out (and even then I only went to town on one post http://s6.zetaboards.com/Europeia/single/?p=8292526&t=8960939). And given that HC contributions tend to be impactful and considered. you're looking at a ~10% reduction in Senate quality if not more.

 

[McEntire]

In a discussion I had with, I believe WL, but may have been someone else - I wondered why does the CA still have a subforum on Senate matters and likewise why doesn't the Senate have a Public Gallery like the High Court does?

It would seem that if HC voices were taken away, it would've been smart to keep a public gallery within the Senate forum for public comment; much like how the Court has the Public Gallery for comment on its cases. The CA, now being more akin to a pre-legislative house should likely drop the Senate discussion forum as it doesn't really make much sense there as the CA is now structured.

In short, there should have been a broader and better discussion on how communication and debate works in the region as a whole, but instead - only this one area was dealt with and because so much else was ignored/not improved upon, it does not actually help the overall discourse. You are not the first, nor will you be the last, Senator or elected official that can't see the forest for the trees.

And you haven't offended me - I just believe that you are willfully or absently ignoring the historical behavior of Senators and how they interact with the public and how they approach debate.

For now, we will just have to see how the remainder of this Senate term proceeds and how you (and the other Senators) handle "being on their own"

You know, Trinnien, the idea about a public Senate gallery is not a bad one. I think we've discussed the fact that there are plenty of areas to discuss, for instance the CA or GH, but that's a good point, that it may be better to centralize them. As for the rest of what you've said, it seems we just disagree, and I'm sorry that you have what I believe to be misconceptions. We see things differently. The only way that I can really make a counter-argument to you is by being effective.

In fact, that sort of really goes for everyone. Hy, your argument is fallacious. You're very likely to get a permanent invite to the Senate, as is Malashaan. So just cool your jets. Drecq, that's a fine point, all I'm saying is that any Senator could grant the speaking rights. I still haven't actually seen a post in the request thread that I put up a link to.

But again, if I haven't convinced you, you won't be convinced. The amendment is passed, folks, I hate to tell you. 66 percent of the Senate voted for it, as did 55 percent or so of the people. I will convince you by doing good work. And let's leave it at that.

 

[Aexnidaral]

Damnit, Mac, you go away for one day during a holiday weekend for Memorial day and it all goes to shit! :violentgun:

 

[Trinnien]

In fact, that sort of really goes for everyone. Hy, your argument is fallacious. You're very likely to get a permanent invite to the Senate, as is Malashaan. So just cool your jets. Drecq, that's a fine point, all I'm saying is that any Senator could grant the speaking rights. I still haven't actually seen a post in the request thread that I put up a link to.

But again, if I haven't convinced you, you won't be convinced. The amendment is passed, folks, I hate to tell you. 66 percent of the Senate voted for it, as did 55 percent or so of the people. I will convince you by doing good work. And let's leave it at that.

If you're going to give Hy and Mal permanent speaking rights anyhow, it would seem that this whole journey was for naught.

But I'm only really going by the Senate and EBC commentary so who knows what nuance I may have missed.