I don’t think we need to make people wait for an accepted citizenship application to apply for legislatorship. That means we can’t do something like adding an ‘apply for legislatorship’ checkbox to the application wizard even though applying for legislator status doesn’t really involve anything additional.
An application for legislator status must at least:
- […]
- any relevant updates to their citizenship application that changed since the application was made.
You forgot the include at the beginning of b
I think this is good, provided that the application is held until the citizenship is approved. Security checks and all.
That’s how I read 1(1)a. Do you read it differently?
Not alone, but when you read it in conjunction with 1.1a it makes sense.
I think there might also be a snag with 2.1b requiring a newly made citizen to update their app, which might not happen. Maybe having the chair take that step? Or have CitComm inform the chair?
I’m not sure I follow. If someone has no updates to their application, they don’t need to do anything?
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Griff’s point is that the legislation seems to require a newly accepted citizen to affirmatively update their legislator application with news of their acceptance as a citizenship, otherwise the Chair will not be authorized to approve their application. And since a new citizen might not know / think to do that, it creates another bureaucratic step that could discourage activity. I wonder if there is a way to write the statute so that the Chair can simply take account of the approved citizenship application when it goes through and process the legislator application accordingly?
2 Likes
Hm, okay. I don’t read our laws that way — the Citizenship Act states that an application consists of the applicant’s nation, aliases, etc., but not whether the application is pending. To me, that’s a status assigned to the application, not really part of the application itself. It’s not like CitComm edits the application; they just accept or reject it. So if CitComm just changes the status of the application, that doesn’t mean the application itself has changed.
But I don’t mind just making that explicit. Would “updates to the contents of their citizenship application” or “updates to the information contained within their citizenship application” be better?
Okay, I still think this is an awkward point in the application process. Here’s a new draft.
We could theoretically have a more flexible system for “add-ons” to citizenship applications in the way we used to have a unified application for joining the Assembly and joining ministries, but I am fine leaving that to future iteration. I’m not sure it really provides much benefit given we’d basically just use it for legislator applications only.
Motion to vote.
The motion is for the new draft, correct?
Yeah, this most recent one.
1 Like
I second this motion
We are now at vote!