Rules of procedure?

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

If the plan is to have Informal Sessions every month, maybe it is time for us to determine some basic rules of procedure so we don't have to reinvent the wheel each time.

As I understand it, the last time we had anything of the sort was in 2022, during the 57th Cosă, with the now-Seneschal as Túischac'h. As such, would you like to share your experience with me and assist with writing a new set of hopefully permanent rules, @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu ? If all goes well, I'd like to have the rules passed as a bill once they're finalised.

If anyone else has questions or ideas, feel free to share them here.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I don't remember it very well, but my Talossa notes have a lot of info.  As I recall, almost none of this was necessary, since not a lot happened and there was no need for any of the appointed officers.  The Doorkeeper and Sergeant at Arms was just appointed to manage the Zoom, I think.

Planned Agenda
I. Chair formally opens the Living Cosa and reviews rules very briefly.
II. Appointment by the chair of a Doorkeeper and Sergeant at Arms, to which the power to maintain order
is delegated as necessary.
III. Appointment by the chair of a Chaplain, who will be invited to give an invocation (non-religious).
IV. Apologies.
V. Invitation by the chair to the Seneschal to address the assembled Ziu.
VI. Invitation by the chair to the Leader of the Opposition to address the assembled Ziu.
VII. Terpelaziuns
VIII. Clark Business.
    A. Reading by the chair of the current votes on the submitted bills, followed by voting on the bills.  Each bill is handled individually.
    C. Reading by the chair of the current confidence votes.
    D. Voting on confidence.
IX. Adjournment.


Rules
Rules are drawn from standard rules of order for organizations.

Any MZ may make a motion during an appropriate time by asking to be recognized by the chair.  Once the motion is stated, the chair will ask for a mick.  If there is a mick, then the chair will restate the motion and debate will begin.  Debate will continue until there are no more speakers who wish to be heard.  Debate can be ended by a motion to consider the previous question, if micked and affirmed by a majority of MZs.

The Clarked bills may not be tabled, sent to committee, or amended.

There is only one privileged motion.  At any time after a ruling of the chair, an MZ may move to overrule the chair.

At any point, an MZ may raise any of the following:
-Point of Order: Draws attention to a breach of rules, improper procedure, breaching of established practices, or so on.
-Point of Information: A member may need to bring up an additional point or additional information so that the other members can make fully informed votes.
-Point of Inquiry: A member may use a point of inquiry to ask for clarification on a matter of fact to make better voting decisions.
-Point of Personal Privilege: A member may use point of personal privilege to address issues pertaining to the comfort of the meeting, such as volume, muting, connection quality, or so on. Members may also use it to address the accuracy of published reports or the accuracy of a member's conduct.
These points may not be abused for personal commentary, debate outside of the established order, or other conduct not becoming a member of the Ziu.  The chair may decline to recognize a member in such circumstances.

All rules for terpelaziuns will be scrupulously followed, but members are warned that officials of the Government are not required to be present at the Living Cosa and will not be expected in case of their attendance to have every fact on hand.  Terpelaziuns which pertain to specific data or questions of fact should be lodged with the official in question through the normal procedure prior to the Living Cosa, so that the official may make inquiries.  The terpelaziun period shall be cordial and orderly.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

This obviously heavily draws from my experience in local government and activist groups, using rules for order common to a lot of groups.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

This obviously heavily draws from my experience in local government and activist groups, using rules for order common to a lot of groups.

That's perfectly fine. Most of my 'experience' with these things come from watching Bundestag broadcasts, so I'm grateful for every bit of real know-how that I can get!

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

Especially the proviso "majority of MZs" is confusing to me. Would, when voting on procedure, every attending MZ get one vote? Considering how the Cosă is composed, this seems unfair to me. But on the other hand, if MCs get as many votes as they have seats, how many votes do Senators get? Just one (extemely unbalanced), 25 (=200/8, but sort of arbitrary), some other number?

As a sidenote, it's because of things like this that I think of the status quo as a hindrance to more face-to-face events that needs to be overcome rather than something worth hanging on to.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

It means a majority of the people present at the LC.  This is problematic in some ways, such as the one you noted.  A much bigger problem is that it privileges those people in attendance.  I've been in a government meeting where the outcome hinged on the fact that one of the other people on the committee had the flu!  Thankfully, people are usually cognizant of the fact that their reputation and working relationships with others do matter.

I gave serious thought to just running the meeting autocratically, and that's probably the better way to do it -- no vote to overrule the chair allowed.

And I'd agree with your side note, generally, and I think it's a good goal to move to a Real Cosa someday.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

Here is a first draft. I'm prone to overthinking and overplanning, so there is a decent chance that this is way too much overhead and we won't end up needing any of it. Let me know if that's the case, or if you want to make other comments.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

My advice:

Delete 1b; you don't want people to be able to vote in new officers with arbitrary powers during proceedings.

1c should either be not specific or more specific; right now the only thing the chair would be able to do to enforce order would be to reprimand people.  Just keep the first sentence.

These rules institute a filibuster, which I'm not sure is a good idea.  Having a motion to end debate with a 2/3 majority requirement means that a minority can stop a bill from passing if they're willing to just talk until people quit.

What does "killing" or "indefinitely postponing" a bill here mean?  Usually those would be covered by the term "tabling," which is when a bill is set aside (on the table) and no longer actively considered.  Unless you're talking about the UK, in which case "tabling" a bill means that it is being actively considered.

You might want to reorganize your motions to separate out the privileged motions into their own category (points of order or personal privilege).

You decided to weight Senats votes for procedural votes by assigning them 25 seats, it seems like.  This makes sense because it gives their chamber equal weight to the Cosa.  I'm trying to think of ways to game this system, and nothing comes immediately to mind.