Fwurg

[Nehket Aeka]

"Fellow senators,

During my campaigning, I promised to increase bureaucratic transparency and to pass legislature to formalize the Union's use of public tenders.

One of the tasks of the Union is the maintenance of the Bozzy Spine and the Union Military. For this purpose, services and goods have to be acquired. A tradition of issuing a public tender has arisen, allowing every Union members to participate in this process. To improve the transparency with which these tenders are handled, and to allow Union members to observe and check this process, and to improve the clarity of the process I propose to formalize this tradition.

I propose a first draft of the Public Tender Act for your consideration. This act is modelled after the current tradition and is based on accepted practice."

A message was sent to all delegations, containing the draft text of the act:

Public Tender Act

1. For the acquisition of materials, products, special goods and services the Union will default to issueing a public tender. Other methods of acquisition may be employed when a public tender can not, within reason, be employed to achieve the same.
2. Any minister can open a public tender.
3. Definition
   A public tender must adhere to the following:
   
   • A public tender has a closing date; a public tender is open until 23:59:59 of the day of the deadline.
     
   • A public tender is opened for at least 14 days, which includes the day of the opening.
4. Opening
   The minister opens the public tender, and clearly communicates the public tender to all Union members. The minister is allowed to delegate the opening of a vote to any part of their ministry or authorize a third party to act on behalf of the Union. Clear communication includes at least the following information:
   
   • the necessary goods or services,
   • the closing date for the public tender
   • constraints upon the public tender such as (a) the location(s) of delivery or service, (b) the expected rate of delivery and constraints upon delivery and (c) the maximum price per good, for the whole set of goods or for the service.
   • priorities used to select bids, such as 'the least expensive' or 'the fastest'
5. Bidding
   Once the public tender is opened, all Union members may place one or more bids.
   
   1. Bids are placed publicly. A bid can be placed by direct announcement, or by registering the bid with the minister, who will report the bid as soon as reasonably possible.
   2. A bid is legal if and only if it adheres to the following conditions:
      
      • A bid must be placed after the public tender is opened, and before the public tender is closed
      • A bid must clearly indicate the price, rate of delivery or quality of service, and other information necessary to judge the bid
      • Bids may not be changed, withdrawn or otherwise altered
6. Closing
   The minister closes the public tender any time after the deadline, at their leisure.
   
   1. The minister may allow additional time to vote at the request of a Union member, or at their leisure.
   2. If the accumulated extension time exceeds 2 days, the minister must produce a valid reason for the extension.
7. Selection of Bid
   After the public tender has been closed, the minister selects one of the bids.
   
   • The bids will be considered based on the priorities stated in opening of the public tender
   • If several bids are tied, the minister will select one using their best judgement with preference being given to the least expensive bid
   • The selected bid is announced publicly

[Nehket Aeka]

"It seems that this proposal is met with enthusiastic silence. As no comments have been given I shall open a vote on this issue in the coming week."

[Atheos]

"Do not take our silence as disinterest. We have merely read the proposal and do not have anything to contest. But now that I am here and talking, Point 6.1 says "The minister may allow additional time to vote at the request of a Union member, or at their leisure.". What voting does this refer to? Should this not be about bidding?"

[Nehket Aeka]

"Ah yes. That is indeed an unfortunate mistake. That word should indeed be 'bid'."

[Senator Harek]

"The proposal looks good. In paragraph 7.2 maybe and extra addition is needed. In case there is still a tie the earliest posted or a random bidder will be chosen."

[Maria Latharion]

"Chancellor, who decides whether or not these materials acquired through public tenders are necessary?

With the current proposal a bid can be opened based on the judgement of a single minister. A judgement that might be considered wrong by the majority of the senate. Would it not be wise to take precautions to prevent such matters from occurring?

I propose to change article two to this: 'Any minister can open a public tender, after a majority vote in the senate has deemed the materials requested for by the public tender to be necessary.'"

[Nehket Aeka]

"Senator Harek, a provision is already made to break ties: 'If several bids are tied, the minister will select one using their best judgement with preference being given to the least expensive bid'. This prevents the introduction of randomness to our laws, something which is not desirable at all. It also allows the minister to take into account less quantifiable factors, such breaking a tie by as assigning the tender to a smaller economy in order to help them grow."

"As to the point raised by senator Latharion. Up till now, the Union has made large amounts of purchases of all kinds of materials, and the responsible party for all these purchases have ultimately been the ministers. For the repair of Union fleets, for the maintenance of the Bozzy Spine, for the maintenance of large parts of Unity City, and the list goes on for a while. The addition of a mandatory vote for any purchase will not only unduly delay all of those purchases, it will also flood the senate with useless votes."

"With both ties and the opening of tenders, the minister is the final party responsible. If the senate feels strongly one way or the other, they can express themselves through established channels. Debate in can be held in the senate to ask the responsible minister to explain themselves. And there are already provision in place for the senate to express their opinion that a minister has shown poor judgement. Both the Motion of Sadness of the Motion of No Confidence allow the senate to do so. These are, in my opinion, perfectly suitable to prevent such matters."

[Maria Latharion]

"And I, chancellor, respectfully disagree. A motion of sadness provides little to no incentive, as it has no consequences. While a motion of no confidence is much to harsh for the mistakes of one minister. Even more so if the rest of the cabinet is doing well.

With the complete authority of whether the goods requested by a public tender and the opening of one at the leisure of individual ministers, it invites abuse of power. While I am certain the current cabinet is above such things, can you say with certainty future ministers will be as well?

And lets not forget the biggest advantage the Union has over our neighbouring superpowers. Should ministers not take advantage of the multicultural views on subjects that the senate can provide?

You are correct that materials purchased regularly or are bought for such things as connecting a new member to the Bozzy Spine needn't be voted on. But it is the purchases that fall outside those that can benefit from having the senate look at them. So their necessity can be judged and alternatives can be discussed."

[Nehket Aeka]

"I strongly disagree that a motion of sadness has no consequences. It has serious consequences for those found responsible, their proposals will be subject to the utmost scrutiny, and they will most likely not be elected to office for the foreseeable future."

"I think that the senate should make policy, not execute said policy or continuously second-guess those appointed to implement policy. The cabinet is appointed with the task of implementing policy decided upon by the senate. If we take away the ministers' options to implement the policies decided upon by the senate by demanding that half of their decisions are to be vetted by the senate first, we are effectively crippling the Union's ability to react to situations.

A mandatory vote before opening a public tender would severely restrict the use of a ministries contingency budget, further reducing the ability of a minister to act in according with the duties of their office. If a minister feels the need for input on how to implement a certain policy, or for possible alternative solutions to a problem, they can do so by opening a debate or putting a motion of input into action."

[Senator Danar Tassar]

"We of the Teprogrenaian Consensus thinks that it doesn't solve the voting flood problem when materials which are purchased regularly or for such things as connecting a new member to the Bozzy Spine don't require a vote. As we of the Senate still need to determine what these materials are and what purchases we need to vote for and which not. So instead of voting for the purchase of the materials, we will be voting for the necessity of a vote of purchasing materials. This will become an untenable situation.

We of the Teprogrenaian Consensus believes a motion of sadness is a very decent provision. Maybe the motion itself has no direct consequence according to the law, but the whole discussion has serious impact. It creates a high pressure from the senate for the minister to change his or her decisions. Otherwise the minister will not be elected as minister or chancellor, and other factions are less inclined to make nice trade deals with the faction of the minister. The minister has proven to be unreliable after all.

The motion of Sadness forces all members of the Senate to think about the issue and to take a stance. So instead a single faction or senator expresses its dissatisfaction, whole parts of the senate will display their dissatisfaction."

[Maria Latharion]

"And what situation, that could only be solved by a public tender, would require such a swift reaction? And lets not forget the time a public tender takes. If a situation really requires that swift of a reaction, I doubt a public tender would be a wise choice. Article one of the current proposal already covers that.

Yes, it is the task of the senate to make policy. But it is also the duty of the senate to keep the cabinet in check. If that can only be done after something has gone wrong the Union stands to lose a great deal. We need to be able to prevent problems before the occur. If not by voting on whether a public tender should be opened or not. Then by some other means."

[Nehket Aeka]

"We already have those means: motions of sadness, a motion no confidence and chancellor elected by vote. If you deem those methods unfit, I propose that you come up with an alternative method. Still, I question the use of such a method. If, as you say, the cabinet can not be trusted, what do you think that the mininster whos' trustworthiness you doubt would do: ask permission to the senate for their abusive actions or just do them?"

"What you propose is replacing the mininsters with powerless administrators that are too afraid to do anything because the senate is always looking over their shoulder. That would not leave the Union in capable hands, but in the hands of a slow and bureaucratic system of checks and balances that exist purely because the senate is afraid that those they themselves elected are untrustworthy."

"However, even though you seem the sole representative of your view on the matter, it is a valid point of view. I will include an alternative option in the vote to represent your opinion."

[Storyteller (Brend)]

((OOC: I have handed out 2 to all Union members involved in this discussion as per the influence points rules. I was torn between giving 1 and 2 . On one hand, it was a short discussion that warrants a small reward, but on the other hand we should encourage people to RP in these discussion, so a larger reward (in line with the rules) seemed okay.))