Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on February 12, 2026, 06:18:33 PMLooks ok to me
Quote from: mximo on February 14, 2026, 11:12:28 PMAzul,
This is the kind of loophole we want to correct.
We always assumed that the vote finish when everybody have vote or when the fourteen days are over.
Mximo
Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on February 14, 2026, 02:26:56 PMGood morning to my now-fellow Pastours -- I apologize for the delay, I wanted to make sure my appointment was official in line with provincial constitutional procedure.
In line with my previous pledge to do so, I abstain on Resolution 5. I believe this means the measure will pass with eight votes in favor, none opposed, and one abstention. However, do I correctly see no provision for the early closure of votes when their outcome is assured? If that is the case, per the bill's sponsor under Article IV, Section 3, voting is still open for ten more days, though I am happy to be corrected in the event I've missed something hiding in the Constitution somewhere. I apologize if this creates a bit of a needless delay, but given the highly unusual nature of Florencia's current executive arrangement, I'd prefer we really do things by the letter of the law to avoid any issues.
(If I am correct, that may be a good example of a reform for the Committee to keep in mind...)
Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on February 14, 2026, 02:34:59 PMFor my part, at least when I was assembling the Belacostan Unified Statute, I combed through the old Benitian section of Witt XI to see what laws were still ostensibly on the books.
Its Florencian counterpart may be the closest thing that currently exists to any official archive. Speaking personally, that sounds like a good reason to create a Florencian version of el Lexh or the BUS, but perhaps this is a change best saved for after questions of constitutional reform.