Monzievard Committee

Report: System
transition inquiry
2019

28 April 2019
The Monzievard Committee
Appointed by the Senate on April 16th 2019 to consider constitutional reforms for the
regional governing system and what can be done to enhance it.

Monzievard Committee members

 Monzievard (Chair), Senator
 NewLeinster, Founder, Speaker of the Senate
 Common Union of the States V2, Senator, Government Secretary
 The Catt Thess, Senator
 Aelipif, Senator, Deputy Secretary-General

Introduction
1. On 14 April 2019 NewLeinster submitted SM017 – “System transition inquiry” calling
for an inquiry committee (henceforth called “The Committee”) to form to discuss
constitutional changes to the Red Wolf Alliance.
2. The Report and the Committee serve multiple purposes:
a. To decide whether extensive constitutional reforms, to the point of a complete
system transition and canon reset, are necessary;
b. To suggest which changes should be made to the Constitution;
c. To suggest a system transition of deemed necessary.
3. The Committee met between April 16 and April 2019
Summary of events – Status of the Constitution and Laws in the region
1. The Constitution, in the state that it is now, was passed on 6 February 2019, along
with the Senate and Court guidelines and the Code of Conduct.
2. Member count on 6 February was 20 nation, 10 of them being “Alliance Members”
which was the name of Citizens at that time. With many of the original Alliance
Members of that time no longer with us
3. Since the passage of the Constitution, 76 bills have been proposed, 59 becoming
laws, and 52 are still valid.
Summary of events – Approval of the Committee
1. The Committee proposal was put forward to the Senate as SM017 – “System transition
inquiry” by the Founder and Speaker of the Senate, NewLeinster, and was debated in
the Senate for 1 day as mandated by the Senate guidelines.
2. During the debate the motion was publicly endorsed by Senator Pavanpur (GRN),
Monzievard (IND), Aelipif (IND), while Senator Common Union of States V2 (PP) raised
a point on the necessity of the motion.
3. SM017 was sent to the voting chamber on 5 February 2019 where it passed with 4
votes in favour, 1 abstention, and 4 non-cast votes.
4. The Committee was formed on 6 February 2019, immediately after the vote closed
and votes tallied up.
Committee findings and recommendations
Committee verdict on the Amendments Committee
1. The first topics the Committee considered were from questions asked in the
“Legislature Reform Poll” performed by the Speakership, and among those was the
status of the Amendments Committee.
2. The Committee finds the Amendments Committee does not present satisfactory
results on the following points:
a. Proportional Representation – the way the Committee is structured allows for
small opposition parties to block bigger parties due to every party and
independent having 1 representative flat. This means a party that holds a
majority in the Senate can very easily be overvoted by 2 to 3 opposition parties
that have 1 representative.
b. Activity – the Committee finds that the Amendments Committee does not
provide satisfactory rates of activity and that debate on amendments is not
active enough for the level of importance it has.
c. Bureaucracy – the Committee finds that the Amendments Committee does not
add any bonus to the Senate procedure but only gives duties, that can easily be
done by the legislature itself, to a 3rd body only creating more bureaucracy.
3. Therefore, the Committee recommends, unanimously, that the Amendments
Committee should be abolished and its powers devolved back to the legislature.
Committee verdict on the introduction of a bicameral legislature
1. The Committee finds there are benefits to a bicameral legislative system on the
following points:
a. Scrutiny of legislation – having another body further scrutinise, debate and
amend legislation allows for passing legislation that is far better thought
through than it would’ve been having passed only one body due to it providing
another opinion on the bill and giving time to fix any mistakes the other body
would’ve missed.
b. Activity – the Committee finds that introducing another legislative house also
introduces more jobs and therefore incentive for new nations to stay in the
region and keep busy.
2. Therefore, the Committee recommends, unanimously, that introducing a bicameral
legislature would benefit the region in many ways.
3. The Committee also recommends that the new bicameral legislature works on the
principle of “parliamentary ping-pong” where legislation upon passing the legislation
in one house but failing in another gets “ping-ponged” back to the house it came from
to be amended. The house that rejected the piece of legislation should also send an
explanatory note stating its reasoning on the rejection.
4. The Committee further details its proposal for a bicameral legislature in it’s verdict on
performing a system transition.
Committee verdict on tiebreakers
1. The Committee finds that tiebreakers should be abolished due to making no
difference if a piece of legislation fails because of a tie or because of the Speaker
casting a vote in favour of the Status Quo.
2. Therefore, the Committee recommends abolition of tiebreakers and instead
recommends that legislation immediately fails if a tie occurs.
Committee verdict on performing of a system transition
1. The Committee finds that there are benefits to performing a system transition on the
following points:
a. Activity – the Committee finds that introducing a new governmental system to
the region, one that offers more “low governmental positions” (like senators,
members of the Speakership, officers, moderators…), would increase the
amount of somewhat low effort jobs that new citizens could occupy and
therefore keep them active and involved
b. Simplification and reform – performing a transition of the governing system
allows us to locate problems that weren’t noticed when the Constitution was
written and allows us to do damage control knowing what we know now on how
our system functions
2. Therefore, the Committee strongly recommends the governing bodies, as well as
voters, to consider a transition into another system of governance. The Committee
recommends some guidelines on what the new system should contain:
a. General suggestions
i. The new system should keep aspects of democracy and the democratic
election of government
ii. The new system should keep the separation of power of the three
branches of government: the executive, the legislative and the judicial
b. Head of Government
i. Elected directly through a two round instant runoff election by the voters
ii. 3 months terms
iii. Proposes their cabinet to the legislative body
iv. Should keep all the powers the current Secretary-General holds
c. Government
i. Should keep the current system where the Head of Government picks
what offices exist in their Government
ii. The Deputy Secretary-General should not be its own office, but should be
given as an additional title to own of the officers in the Government. The
Head of Government should pick who receives the title
d. Legislative
i. There should be a bicameral legislature
1. The Committee suggests that the lower house be called the
Alliance Council (its members called councilors), and the upper
house be called the Senate of the Red Wolf Alliance (its members
called senators)
ii. The Alliance Council
 1. Every citizen should be a part of the Alliance Council, thus
establishing something the likes of a Citizens’ Assembly
2. Every citizen can submit legislation to the Council
3. In the Council, Bills shall have 3 readings, with a vote after each
reading:
a. 1st Reading – General principles
i. The bill as originally written by the author(s) shall be
read in front of the citizens present in the Council and
shall be debated on it’s principles for 1 day
b. 1 vote – Vote on the principles
st

i. The Council shall vote whether or not this bill should

be considered. If the bill passes the vote it shall move
up the legislative procedure, while if it fails it shall be
immediately discarded
c. 2 Reading – Amendments stage
nd

i. The bill shall be read again, as authors will have a

chance to change parts of their bill between the 1st and
2nd reading, and citizens may submit amendments to it
following the regular procedure for amendment. The
debate shall last 1 day.
d. 2 voted – Amendments vote
nd

i. Citizens shall vote on the amendments proposed

e. 3rd reading – Final draft
i. The final version of the bill shall be read, after which
the bill can no longer be changed by the author, and
debated for 2 days.
f. 3 vote – Final division
rd

i. Citizens shall vote to pass or reject the bill in the

Alliance Council
4. If there are no amendments submitted during the 2nd reading, no
vote has to take place and the bill is immediately eligible for the 3rd
reading.
5. After a bill is passed by the Council, it is sent to the upper house to
be further debated and scrutinized.
6. Motion have only 1 reading and vote, and can not be amended.
7. The Alliance Council shall elect its speaker at the start of each term
a. The procedure shall be similar to general elections but
shorter. There should be 3 days to candidate oneself and
campaign, and a 1-day vote in the Alliance Council.
iii. The Senate of the Red Wolf Alliance
1. Senators are elected for a 3-month term in a General Election using
the Single Transferable Vote method.
a. General Elections should happen 30 days after a Presidential
Election
2. The number of senators in the Senate depends on the amount of
citizen in the region at the point of the election
 a. The general rule is 1 senator per 4 citizens, but the final
count of Senators shall be left to the Founder to announce
when announcing an election
3. Only Senators and Government members may submit legislation to
the upper house
4. Bills that have come from the Alliance Council shall have 2 readings
and 2 votes:
a. 1st Reading – Discussion & Amendments
i. The bill shall be read in front of the Senate and during
this read Senators shall discuss all aspects of the bill
and submit amendments. The debate should last 2
days.
b. 1 vote – Amendments
st

i. Senators shall vote on the proposed amendments

c. 2 Reading – Final proposal
nd

i. Senators shall debate the final proposal of the bill. The

debate shall last 1 day.
d. 2 vote – Final division
nd

i. Final vote in which Senators vote to either approve or

reject the bill. If the bill is approved, it becomes a law.
If it is rejected, it is sent back to the Alliance Council to
change it. Bills that are rejected in the Senate start
their repeated process in the Alliance Council in the 2nd
reading.
5. The RWA Houses shall function on the principle of “ping-pong”
where legislation, once rejected by one house, doesn’t fail
immediately but is returned to the house it came from to be
changed. A bill can be rejected 3 times before it is finally discarded
from the legislative docket and process.
6. Motions have only 1 reading and vote, the same as in the Alliance
Council.
7. The Speaker of the Senate shall be the Founder.
iv. Bills that are proposed to either house of Parliament have to pass both
houses independent of where and by whom they were submitted. If a bill
is proposed in the upper house, then the system is simply “flipped” and
the bill that was submitted in the upper house has the 3 readings set out
in Section (d)(ii)(3), and when that bill reaches the Alliance Council is has
the 2 readings set out in Section (d)(iii)(4). This ensures all bills are equal,
no matter where they’re proposed.
e. Judicial
i. The Committee suggests the return of a semi-permanent Supreme Court
ii. The Court should consist of 3 justices in total: Chief Justice and two
Assistant Justices
iii. Court members shall be proposed by the Head of Government to the
Senate for a 4-month terms (120 days), the Senate has to approve each
justice with a 2/3rd majority
 iv. If a Court Justice resigns or ceases to exist, the Head of Government shall
propose another justice who shall serve a 120-day term independent of
how long the previous justice had served for
v. The Committee suggests that the Court Guidelines should be kept but
the Government and Senate should look into working with the Supreme
Court to better define Criminal Law and what is an offense/isn’t an
offense.
Committee verdict on canonship and the canon reset
1. The Committee recommends that a canon semi-reset is performed on the region.
a. All laws, except those listed in Section 1(b), and executive orders should be
decanonized and thereby declared repealed.
i. New legislation that is based off of a piece of legislation, or multiple
pieces of legislation, should be allowed to be re-proposed
b. Laws the Committee recommends are not decanonized are:
i. SB007 – “Special Elections Act”
ii. SB009 – “Media Organizations Act”
iii. SB010 – “Direct Democracy Act”
iv. SB033 – “Canonship Act”
v. SB037 – “Discord Clarity Act”
vi. SB070 – “Citizenry Reform Act”