(Passed) Emergency Measure on WASC Act Amendment

UnitedStatesOfScouting Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:54 pm

Scouting hereby requests that the President of the WASC issue an Executive Order to place the "WA Voting Reforms Act" into law. We feel that the majority of the WASC is incompetent and cannot pass anything as a whole, as such we feel it necessary that the President of the WASC issue the Order, to prevent further harm to the region.

New Rhodinia wrote:
The WA Voting Reforms Act

Upon seeing recent failings of perfectly reasonable resolutions, I think it's about time we made sure some of these resolutions actually passed or otherwise received a fair ruling outside of "death by abstention". This legislation aims to alleviate any lame outcomes for any resolution that passes through the WASC.

The original plan for this legislation was brought up by Vice-President Xolox and as such, Xolox will be considered a co-author to this proposal.

Here are the proposals thus far:

That nations failing to vote on propositions (and subsequently counted as abstentions) be excluded from the final vote tally.

That the final vote requirement of 3/4 majority be abolished and instead replaced by a 2/3 majority ruling.

That this proposed WA Voting Reforms Act be affected by its own guidelines upon discussion and voting process.

That (if necessary) we remind that nations under effect of any including resolution not be counted towards the final vote tally.

That past resolutions (as of today, January 24, 2015) that have been dismissed via abstention saturation be re-evaluated under the guidelines of this proposed WA Voting Reforms Act.

Amendment: I'm extremely upset over how the previous proposal went. The third guideline CLEARLY states that this act would be following its own guidelines when in a vote. It never saw the opportunity to do so due to Great Eurussia's premature dismissal. I want to make it clear that this act, above any other currently in proposal, be affected by it's own guidelines. In addition, I will be continuously setting up this proposal until it gets the result it deserves.

UnitedStatesOfScouting Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:55 pm

Furthermore, note that the last time the WASC passed anything as a Governing Body was last year, right after Christmas.

Great Eurussia Mon Jan 26, 2015 11:27 pm

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:Scouting hereby requests that the President of the WASC issue an Executive Order to place the "WA Voting Reforms Act" into law. We feel that the majority of the WASC is incompetent and cannot pass anything as a whole, as such we feel it necessary that the President of the WASC issue the Order, to prevent further harm to the region.

New Rhodinia wrote:
The WA Voting Reforms Act

Upon seeing recent failings of perfectly reasonable resolutions, I think it's about time we made sure some of these resolutions actually passed or otherwise received a fair ruling outside of "death by abstention". This legislation aims to alleviate any lame outcomes for any resolution that passes through the WASC.

The original plan for this legislation was brought up by Vice-President Xolox and as such, Xolox will be considered a co-author to this proposal.

Here are the proposals thus far:

That nations failing to vote on propositions (and subsequently counted as abstentions) be excluded from the final vote tally.

That the final vote requirement of 3/4 majority be abolished and instead replaced by a 2/3 majority ruling.

That this proposed WA Voting Reforms Act be affected by its own guidelines upon discussion and voting process.

That (if necessary) we remind that nations under effect of any including resolution not be counted towards the final vote tally.

That past resolutions (as of today, January 24, 2015) that have been dismissed via abstention saturation be re-evaluated under the guidelines of this proposed WA Voting Reforms Act.

Amendment: I'm extremely upset over how the previous proposal went. The third guideline CLEARLY states that this act would be following its own guidelines when in a vote. It never saw the opportunity to do so due to Great Eurussia's premature dismissal. I want to make it clear that this act, above any other currently in proposal, be affected by it's own guidelines. In addition, I will be continuously setting up this proposal until it gets the result it deserves.

The Presidency requests the proponent to cite provisions of international laws, granting Eurussia, either as President or Founder, to issue an executive order to the Security Council giving effect to a proposed international legislation.

UnitedStatesOfScouting Mon Jan 26, 2015 11:36 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:
UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:Scouting hereby requests that the President of the WASC issue an Executive Order to place the "WA Voting Reforms Act" into law. We feel that the majority of the WASC is incompetent and cannot pass anything as a whole, as such we feel it necessary that the President of the WASC issue the Order, to prevent further harm to the region.

New Rhodinia wrote:
The WA Voting Reforms Act

Upon seeing recent failings of perfectly reasonable resolutions, I think it's about time we made sure some of these resolutions actually passed or otherwise received a fair ruling outside of "death by abstention". This legislation aims to alleviate any lame outcomes for any resolution that passes through the WASC.

The original plan for this legislation was brought up by Vice-President Xolox and as such, Xolox will be considered a co-author to this proposal.

Here are the proposals thus far:

That nations failing to vote on propositions (and subsequently counted as abstentions) be excluded from the final vote tally.

That the final vote requirement of 3/4 majority be abolished and instead replaced by a 2/3 majority ruling.

That this proposed WA Voting Reforms Act be affected by its own guidelines upon discussion and voting process.

That (if necessary) we remind that nations under effect of any including resolution not be counted towards the final vote tally.

That past resolutions (as of today, January 24, 2015) that have been dismissed via abstention saturation be re-evaluated under the guidelines of this proposed WA Voting Reforms Act.

Amendment: I'm extremely upset over how the previous proposal went. The third guideline CLEARLY states that this act would be following its own guidelines when in a vote. It never saw the opportunity to do so due to Great Eurussia's premature dismissal. I want to make it clear that this act, above any other currently in proposal, be affected by it's own guidelines. In addition, I will be continuously setting up this proposal until it gets the result it deserves.

The Presidency requests the proponent to cite provisions of international laws, granting Eurussia, either as President or Founder, to issue an executive order to the Security Council giving effect to a proposed international legislation.

While there is no law denying or allowing the right of the President to issue an Executive Order, I feel that in this circumstance, it calls for extraordinary measures. You as the founder need to take the reins and handle this situation. This is a time to do something right, not necessarily legally. I'm fairly certain that you won't receive heavy opposition, as you're doing your duty as the Founder to preserve the region's governing body.

Great Eurussia Tue Jan 27, 2015 12:06 am

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:
While there is no law denying or allowing the right of the President to issue an Executive Order, I feel that in this circumstance, it calls for extraordinary measures. You as the founder need to take the reins and handle this situation. This is a time to do something right, not necessarily legally. I'm fairly certain that you won't receive heavy opposition, as you're doing your duty as the Founder to preserve the region's governing body.

If that is the case, the Presidency raises the following points to the proponent of the proposal:

1) What are the grounds for the Presidency to consider taking a unilateral action and invoking its Founder powers to impose extraordinary measures such as bypassing the required 75% majority approval for legislations?

2) Eurussia is only in favor on removing on the final vote tally all the default abstentions (or failed to cast votes) and remained unconvinced on adopting the 2/3 vote?

3) The Presidency requests the proponent to gather a formal petition of at least 6 nations (EU counted) supporting for the Presidency to make a unilateral action on the issue of changing the voting requirements of the Security Council. This is to ensure that the action will not be overturned by an opposition move from other WASC members.

UnitedStatesOfScouting Tue Jan 27, 2015 12:23 am

Great Eurussia wrote:
UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:
While there is no law denying or allowing the right of the President to issue an Executive Order, I feel that in this circumstance, it calls for extraordinary measures. You as the founder need to take the reins and handle this situation. This is a time to do something right, not necessarily legally. I'm fairly certain that you won't receive heavy opposition, as you're doing your duty as the Founder to preserve the region's governing body.

If that is the case, the Presidency raises the following points to the proponent of the proposal:
1) What are the grounds for the Presidency to consider taking a unilateral action and invoking its Founder powers to impose extraordinary measures such as bypassing the required 75% majority approval for legislations?
2) Eurussia is only in favor on removing on the final vote tally all the default abstentions (or failed to cast votes) and remained unconvinced on adopting the 2/3 vote?
3) The Presidency requests the proponent to gather a formal petition of at least 6 nations (EU counted) supporting for the Presidency to make a unilateral action on the issue of changing the voting requirements of the Security Council. This is to ensure that the action will not be overturned by an opposition move from other WASC members.

1) In both votes, there has been no opposition currently and the last vote on this legislature ended in dismissal due to a failure in obtaining the required # of votes. Secondly, no legislature or resolution has been passed by the WASC as a whole since shortly after Christmas last year. We're experiencing a "Government Shutdown" due to the lack of votes, which would constitute "Extraordinary Measures" to be taken to prevent further damage.

2) In many democracies a bill only needs a simple majority to pass. Representation is deal out by continents, not by if 3/4ths of the region agrees. Continents have certain needs that others may not have. They may also have opinions that other continents may not have. In all honesty, I would have pushed for a 51% vote for passage, but this is not my piece of legislature and I still support the dropping of the % to 66%. This will allow for some more room to breathe.

3) So we need 4 more votes, if I count your vote and my vote, correct?

UnitedStatesOfScouting Tue Jan 27, 2015 12:24 am

Scouting is in Favor of Executive Action.

Great Eurussia Tue Jan 27, 2015 12:58 am

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:

1) What are the grounds for the Presidency to consider taking a unilateral action and invoking its Founder powers to impose extraordinary measures such as bypassing the required 75% majority approval for legislations?
2) Eurussia is only in favor on removing on the final vote tally all the default abstentions (or failed to cast votes) and remained unconvinced on adopting the 2/3 vote?
3) The Presidency requests the proponent to gather a formal petition of at least 6 nations (EU counted) supporting for the Presidency to make a unilateral action on the issue of changing the voting requirements of the Security Council. This is to ensure that the action will not be overturned by an opposition move from other WASC members.

1) In both votes, there has been no opposition currently and the last vote on this legislature ended in dismissal due to a failure in obtaining the required # of votes. Secondly, no legislature or resolution has been passed by the WASC as a whole since shortly after Christmas last year. We're experiencing a "Government Shutdown" due to the lack of votes, which would constitute "Extraordinary Measures" to be taken to prevent further damage.

3) So we need 4 more votes, if I count your vote and my vote, correct?

Citing the reasonable grounds of the proponent, Eurussia, holding the Presidency and Foundership, and due to the required extraordinary measure that has to be undertaken to maintain the efficiency of the Security Council, is hereby invokes and revises the following provision:

WA Security Council Act

Section 3 - Functions
The WASC shall have the de facto supranational powers over the executive, legislative, and judicial matters in the WA which shall be enforced through a seventy five percent concurrence of all its member states. ...

Be changed into,

Section 3 - Functions
The WASC shall have the de facto supranational powers over the executive, legislative, and judicial matters in the WA which shall be enforced through a sixty six percent or two thirds concurrence of all its voting member states.

This is an official petition. To ensure fairness, six motions of support, including that of Eurussia, or half of the current composition of the WA Security Council, shall be required for the WASC Presidency to grant the effectivity of the emergency changes to Section 3 of the WASC Act.

So ordered.

Kingdom of Scottlands Tue Jan 27, 2015 1:50 am

I am against this. Scouting is acting like he can change the Security Council the way he wants. We should follow the law.

UnitedStatesOfScouting Tue Jan 27, 2015 1:52 am

Scottish Republic wrote:I am against this. Scouting is acting like he can change the Security Council the way he wants. We should follow the law.

Wait. So you're IN FAVOR of the law, but NOT in favor of enacting it with lesser votes?

EDIT: Furthermore, this bill allows for MORE DEMOCRACY, not less! This is not a Dictatorship! Even Executive Action requires the approval of at least half of the WASC...

Kingdom of Scottlands Tue Jan 27, 2015 1:55 am

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:
Scottish Republic wrote:I am against this. Scouting is acting like he can change the Security Council the way he wants. We should follow the law.

Wait. So you're IN FAVOR of the law, but NOT in favor of enacting it with lesser votes?

This should not be allowed. You are doing shortcuts just to pass your proposal? Asking for executive action while proposing another?

UnitedStatesOfScouting Tue Jan 27, 2015 1:56 am

Scottish Republic wrote:
UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:
Scottish Republic wrote:I am against this. Scouting is acting like he can change the Security Council the way he wants. We should follow the law.

Wait. So you're IN FAVOR of the law, but NOT in favor of enacting it with lesser votes?

This should not be allowed. You are doing shortcuts just to pass your proposal? Asking for executive action while proposing another?

This is not my bill! This is New Rhodinia's bill! Learn to read.

Kingdom of Scottlands Tue Jan 27, 2015 1:59 am

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:
Scottish Republic wrote:
UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:
Scottish Republic wrote:I am against this. Scouting is acting like he can change the Security Council the way he wants. We should follow the law.

Wait. So you're IN FAVOR of the law, but NOT in favor of enacting it with lesser votes?

This should not be allowed. You are doing shortcuts just to pass your proposal? Asking for executive action while proposing another?

This is not my bill! This is New Rhodinia's bill! Learn to read.

Then why propose it again and again?

New Rhodinia Tue Jan 27, 2015 2:01 am

Considering how apparently obsolete the third guideline is in this bill, an executive order seems like the only way this bill has a chance of actually doing good. And even if it doesn't, the WASC still exists and still has the power to repeal legislation such as this. If you feel so adamant in denying this bill an opportunity like this, feel free to ask for a repeal; I won't stop you.

That said, for clarity, New Rhodinia is in favor.

UnitedStatesOfScouting Tue Jan 27, 2015 2:03 am

Scottish Republic wrote:
UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:
Scottish Republic wrote:
UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:
Scottish Republic wrote:I am against this. Scouting is acting like he can change the Security Council the way he wants. We should follow the law.

Wait. So you're IN FAVOR of the law, but NOT in favor of enacting it with lesser votes?

This should not be allowed. You are doing shortcuts just to pass your proposal? Asking for executive action while proposing another?

This is not my bill! This is New Rhodinia's bill! Learn to read.

Then why propose it again and again?

New Rhodinia originally proposed the law:

"WA Resolution Voting Act"
https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t680-dismissed-wa-resolution-voting-act

It failed with a vote of: 6 Favor, 0 Against, 1 Abstain (You)

New Rhodinia re-proposed the law with a couple of changes.

"WA Voting Reforms Act"
https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t697-pending-wa-voting-reforms-act

In which you've already voted in favor for.

I don't think that this bill will pass without executive action because of the inactivity and default abstentions of other WASC members. Your "neutrality" and abstentions on other laws don't help either.

Kingdom of Scottlands Tue Jan 27, 2015 2:04 am

New Rhodinia wrote:Considering how apparently obsolete the third guideline is in this bill, an executive order seems like the only way this bill has a chance of actually doing good. And even if it doesn't, the WASC still exists and still has the power to repeal legislation such as this. If you feel so adamant in denying this bill an opportunity like this, feel free to ask for a repeal; I won't stop you.

That said, for clarity, New Rhodinia is in favor.

You should cancel your proposal if you support this.

New Rhodinia Tue Jan 27, 2015 2:04 am

Scottish Republic wrote:
New Rhodinia wrote:Considering how apparently obsolete the third guideline is in this bill, an executive order seems like the only way this bill has a chance of actually doing good. And even if it doesn't, the WASC still exists and still has the power to repeal legislation such as this. If you feel so adamant in denying this bill an opportunity like this, feel free to ask for a repeal; I won't stop you.

That said, for clarity, New Rhodinia is in favor.

You should cancel your proposal if you support this.

That would kind of defeat the purpose since there would be no proposal to issue an executive order on...

UnitedStatesOfScouting Tue Jan 27, 2015 2:05 am

Scottish Republic wrote:
New Rhodinia wrote:Considering how apparently obsolete the third guideline is in this bill, an executive order seems like the only way this bill has a chance of actually doing good. And even if it doesn't, the WASC still exists and still has the power to repeal legislation such as this. If you feel so adamant in denying this bill an opportunity like this, feel free to ask for a repeal; I won't stop you.

That said, for clarity, New Rhodinia is in favor.

You should cancel your proposal if you support this.

Should this pass, the proposal would be obsolete, as these proposals are the same, with exception that this one is requesting executive action to be taken. Once this passes, the original proposal becomes the passed legislature, due to the Executive Action taken on it.

Kingdom of Scottlands Tue Jan 27, 2015 2:06 am

New Rhodinia wrote:
Scottish Republic wrote:
New Rhodinia wrote:Considering how apparently obsolete the third guideline is in this bill, an executive order seems like the only way this bill has a chance of actually doing good. And even if it doesn't, the WASC still exists and still has the power to repeal legislation such as this. If you feel so adamant in denying this bill an opportunity like this, feel free to ask for a repeal; I won't stop you.

That said, for clarity, New Rhodinia is in favor.

You should cancel your proposal if you support this.

That would kind of defeat the purpose since there would be no proposal to issue an executive order on...

Do you read Eurussia's executive order that is change? Supported by Scouting? It does not talk about your proposal but still the same thing

UnitedStatesOfScouting Tue Jan 27, 2015 2:08 am

Scottish Republic wrote:
New Rhodinia wrote:
Scottish Republic wrote:
New Rhodinia wrote:Considering how apparently obsolete the third guideline is in this bill, an executive order seems like the only way this bill has a chance of actually doing good. And even if it doesn't, the WASC still exists and still has the power to repeal legislation such as this. If you feel so adamant in denying this bill an opportunity like this, feel free to ask for a repeal; I won't stop you.

That said, for clarity, New Rhodinia is in favor.

You should cancel your proposal if you support this.

That would kind of defeat the purpose since there would be no proposal to issue an executive order on...

Do you read Eurussia's executive order that is change? Supported by Scouting? It does not talk about your proposal but still the same thing

Those are the terms Eurussia set forth for the Executive Action to pass, if you see my original post on this thread, it quotes New Rhodinia's bill. This is an Executive Action to PASS New Rhodinia's Bill.

New Rhodinia Tue Jan 27, 2015 2:09 am

Scottish Republic wrote:
New Rhodinia wrote:
Scottish Republic wrote:
New Rhodinia wrote:Considering how apparently obsolete the third guideline is in this bill, an executive order seems like the only way this bill has a chance of actually doing good. And even if it doesn't, the WASC still exists and still has the power to repeal legislation such as this. If you feel so adamant in denying this bill an opportunity like this, feel free to ask for a repeal; I won't stop you.

That said, for clarity, New Rhodinia is in favor.

You should cancel your proposal if you support this.

That would kind of defeat the purpose since there would be no proposal to issue an executive order on...

Do you read Eurussia's executive order that is change? Supported by Scouting? It does not talk about your proposal but still the same thing

...

What?

Excuse me if I'm reading this wrong, but this is titled "Issue Executive Order for WA Voting Reforms Act"; both Great Eurussia and Scouting are talking about my proposal. There is no other proposal titled like this in the WASC forum right now, so how could this possibly be about anything BUT my proposal?

UnitedStatesOfScouting Tue Jan 27, 2015 2:11 am

New Rhodinia wrote:
Scottish Republic wrote:
New Rhodinia wrote:
Scottish Republic wrote:
New Rhodinia wrote:Considering how apparently obsolete the third guideline is in this bill, an executive order seems like the only way this bill has a chance of actually doing good. And even if it doesn't, the WASC still exists and still has the power to repeal legislation such as this. If you feel so adamant in denying this bill an opportunity like this, feel free to ask for a repeal; I won't stop you.

That said, for clarity, New Rhodinia is in favor.

You should cancel your proposal if you support this.

That would kind of defeat the purpose since there would be no proposal to issue an executive order on...

Do you read Eurussia's executive order that is change? Supported by Scouting? It does not talk about your proposal but still the same thing

...

What?

Excuse me if I'm reading this wrong, but this is titled "Issue Executive Order for WA Voting Reforms Act"; both Great Eurussia and Scouting are talking about my proposal. There is no other proposal titled like this in the WASC forum right now, so how could this possibly be about anything BUT my proposal?

This is the problem with Scottlands, he simply doesn't read sometimes. Either that or he must just rush through and read only what Eurussia says.

Kingdom of Scottlands Tue Jan 27, 2015 2:27 am

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:
New Rhodinia wrote:
Scottish Republic wrote:
New Rhodinia wrote:
Scottish Republic wrote:
New Rhodinia wrote:Considering how apparently obsolete the third guideline is in this bill, an executive order seems like the only way this bill has a chance of actually doing good. And even if it doesn't, the WASC still exists and still has the power to repeal legislation such as this. If you feel so adamant in denying this bill an opportunity like this, feel free to ask for a repeal; I won't stop you.

That said, for clarity, New Rhodinia is in favor.

You should cancel your proposal if you support this.

That would kind of defeat the purpose since there would be no proposal to issue an executive order on...

Do you read Eurussia's executive order that is change? Supported by Scouting? It does not talk about your proposal but still the same thing

...

What?

Excuse me if I'm reading this wrong, but this is titled "Issue Executive Order for WA Voting Reforms Act"; both Great Eurussia and Scouting are talking about my proposal. There is no other proposal titled like this in the WASC forum right now, so how could this possibly be about anything BUT my proposal?

This is the problem with Scottlands, he simply doesn't read sometimes. Either that or he must just rush through and read only what Eurussia says.

You are not the one reading.

Kingdom of Scottlands Tue Jan 27, 2015 2:29 am

Great Eurussia wrote:

1) In both votes, there has been no opposition currently and the last vote on this legislature ended in dismissal due to a failure in obtaining the required # of votes. Secondly, no legislature or resolution has been passed by the WASC as a whole since shortly after Christmas last year. We're experiencing a "Government Shutdown" due to the lack of votes, which would constitute "Extraordinary Measures" to be taken to prevent further damage.

3) So we need 4 more votes, if I count your vote and my vote, correct?

Citing the reasonable grounds of the proponent, Eurussia, holding the Presidency and Foundership, and due to the required extraordinary measure that has to be undertaken to maintain the efficiency of the Security Council, is hereby invokes and revises the following provision:
WA Security Council Act
Section 3 - Functions
The WASC shall have the de facto supranational powers over the executive, legislative, and judicial matters in the WA which shall be enforced through a seventy five percent concurrence of all its member states. ...

Be changed into,
Section 3 - Functions
The WASC shall have the de facto supranational powers over the executive, legislative, and judicial matters in the WA which shall be enforced through a sixty six percent or two thirds concurrence of all its voting member states.

This is an official petition. To ensure fairness, six motions of support, including that of Eurussia, or half of the current composition of the WA Security Council, shall be required for the WASC Presidency to grant the effectivity of the emergency changes to Section 3 of the WASC Act.

So ordered.

Read Scouting.

UnitedStatesOfScouting Tue Jan 27, 2015 2:31 am

Scottish Republic wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:

1) In both votes, there has been no opposition currently and the last vote on this legislature ended in dismissal due to a failure in obtaining the required # of votes. Secondly, no legislature or resolution has been passed by the WASC as a whole since shortly after Christmas last year. We're experiencing a "Government Shutdown" due to the lack of votes, which would constitute "Extraordinary Measures" to be taken to prevent further damage.

3) So we need 4 more votes, if I count your vote and my vote, correct?

Citing the reasonable grounds of the proponent, Eurussia, holding the Presidency and Foundership, and due to the required extraordinary measure that has to be undertaken to maintain the efficiency of the Security Council, is hereby invokes and revises the following provision:
WA Security Council Act
Section 3 - Functions
The WASC shall have the de facto supranational powers over the executive, legislative, and judicial matters in the WA which shall be enforced through a seventy five percent concurrence of all its member states. ...

Be changed into,
Section 3 - Functions
The WASC shall have the de facto supranational powers over the executive, legislative, and judicial matters in the WA which shall be enforced through a sixty six percent or two thirds concurrence of all its voting member states.

This is an official petition. To ensure fairness, six motions of support, including that of Eurussia, or half of the current composition of the WA Security Council, shall be required for the WASC Presidency to grant the effectivity of the emergency changes to Section 3 of the WASC Act.
So ordered.

Read Scouting.

I can read. It's exactly as New Rhodinia's proposal reads.

Sponsored content

(Passed) Emergency Measure on WASC Act Amendment

(Passed) Emergency Measure on WASC Act Amendment

Re: (Passed) Emergency Measure on WASC Act Amendment

Re: (Passed) Emergency Measure on WASC Act Amendment

Re: (Passed) Emergency Measure on WASC Act Amendment

Re: (Passed) Emergency Measure on WASC Act Amendment

Re: (Passed) Emergency Measure on WASC Act Amendment

Re: (Passed) Emergency Measure on WASC Act Amendment

NOTICE

Re: (Passed) Emergency Measure on WASC Act Amendment

Re: (Passed) Emergency Measure on WASC Act Amendment

Re: (Passed) Emergency Measure on WASC Act Amendment

Re: (Passed) Emergency Measure on WASC Act Amendment

Re: (Passed) Emergency Measure on WASC Act Amendment

Re: (Passed) Emergency Measure on WASC Act Amendment

Re: (Passed) Emergency Measure on WASC Act Amendment

Re: (Passed) Emergency Measure on WASC Act Amendment

Re: (Passed) Emergency Measure on WASC Act Amendment

Re: (Passed) Emergency Measure on WASC Act Amendment

Re: (Passed) Emergency Measure on WASC Act Amendment

Re: (Passed) Emergency Measure on WASC Act Amendment

Re: (Passed) Emergency Measure on WASC Act Amendment

Re: (Passed) Emergency Measure on WASC Act Amendment

Re: (Passed) Emergency Measure on WASC Act Amendment

Re: (Passed) Emergency Measure on WASC Act Amendment

Re: (Passed) Emergency Measure on WASC Act Amendment

Re: (Passed) Emergency Measure on WASC Act Amendment