STF

Office of the President - Bill #2

Posted Jan. 22, 2019, 8:27 p.m. by Rear Admiral Steve Johnson (EGO) (Steve Johnson)

Posted by Admiral Katherine Dedul (Academy Commandant / Chief EGO) in Office of the President - Bill #2

Posted by Fleet Captain Adam W. (Current Ruler of the Club) in Office of the President - Bill #2

Posted by Fleet Captain Adam W. (Current Ruler of the Club) in Office of the President - Bill #2
Posted by… suppressed (4) by the Post Ghost! 👻
Bill #2

January 20, 2019

The entire section titled “Yearbook” is removed from the Personnel Department edICT (PDICT) bylaw.

Adam W.
President

As Chief EGOist, I am calling for a veto of this bill. The wording as it stands is not appropriate for bills. It needs to be written in the following format:

-Old bylaw text of relevant section (does NOT have to be full bylaw).
-The changelog (aka “This section is hereby removed”)
-Text explaining what bylaw should look like when updated (ie: “The section entitled “Mentor’s Program” will now be followed immediately by the section entitled “Statistics”).

The aim of this structure is to make abundantly clear to everyone what is being changed

-Kat, Chief EGOist

I second this veto.

Steve, EGO

And just to keep things all tidy, me three.

~Linds, EGO

I believe EGO is required by their bylaw to include the title and number of the bill being vetoed in their explanation when they veto.

Adam

Also I’d be interested to hear more information on the basis of these requirements and what the difference is between this bill and say Archer Bill #2 or Lerner 2 Bill #2, which have very similar wording to this one.

Adam

Very well, I hereby Veto Adam W. Bill #2, for the following reasons:

  1. The best example I found in my research of a removal of a section of bylaw, was DeSpain Bill #1. There was replacement text going in of course, but the entirety of the section was changed enough that, in my opinion, it was essentially a new section of a bylaw.

  2. It is the opinion of this panel that your wording as it stands is not making it very clear how the bylaw is now supposed to be read, as well as not really explaining why the change was really necessary (ie: poor wording, changing wording to reflect a change in department struction, etc.). Remember these bills need to survive historical tests, that is, someone reading this 10 years down the road when everyone who discussed it is gone (or can’t remember the discussion entirely, both of which are completely possible scenarios) may misinterpret. That is why bills should include a changelog that identify, as best as possible, WHY the change is being made.

-Kat

To keep this clean. I second this veto of Adam W. Bill #2.

Steve Johnson - EGO


Posts on The Command Ship

In topic

Posted since


© 1991-2021 STF. Terms of Service

Version 1.12.1