Referéu acest proxhet àl Comità. (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2268.0)
Edited (see here (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2367.msg19625#msg19625)):Ün proxhet [legeu] per inovar el CRL - The Update of the CRL Bill [Act].WHEREAS given the nature of the Ziu, it is important to try to improve the quality of legislation;
WHEREAS the CRL's task in the legislative process should not be a duplication of the Hopper but should be focused primarily on the technical quality of legislation;
WHEREAS it is better to make this purposes explicit in the law;
WHEREAS it is considered appropriate for Scribery to fulfil its advisory role in this regard already provided for in Lexh.C.1.3.2;
WHEREAS in view of the other tasks of the Mençéi and the Túischac'h, it is appropriate to add potential flexibility providing for the possibility to appoint a Senator or MC to carry out their role in the CRL on the condition that they remain the ex officio members so that the CRL always has a quorum and that they can revoke this delegation at any time;
BE IT ENACTED by Regeu, Cosă and Senäts in Ziu assembled that Lexhatx § H.6.5 which currently reads
Quote6.5. A Legislative Advisory Committee of Talossa (in Talossan, el Comità da Redacziun Legislatïu; and hereinafter, "the CRL") shall review or revise all legislative items from the Hopper once they have moved to committee; and may recommend acceptance or rejection, or suggest amendments in their best judgment.
6.5.1 The CRL shall conduct all its deliberations openly in the Hopper.
6.5.2 The CRL shall consist of the incumbent Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral.
6.5.3. The CRL may create further committees to which their functions may be delegated, as concerns any bill or category of bills. Such a committee must have at least 3 members, including at least 1 MC and at least 1 Senator.
shall be amended to read as follows:
Quote6.5. For each Cosă term is created a Comità da Redacziun Legislatïu (in english Legislative Advisory Committee), hereinafter "the CRL", which shall review or revise all legislative items from the Hopper once they have moved to committee; and may recommend acceptance or rejection, or suggest amendments in their best judgment.
6.5.1 The main, but not exclusive, purpose of the CRL, with the assistance of the Scribery, shall be to evaluate bills from the technical point of view of the quality of the legislation, the correctness of the language, the internal consistency of the document and consistency with existing legislation.
6.5.2. The CRL shall conduct all its deliberations openly in the Hopper.
6.5.3. The CRL shall consist of the incumbent Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral.
6.5.3.1. The Mençéi and the Túischac'h may at any time appoint and dismiss one Senator and one Membreu dal Cosă, respectively, to serve as a member of the CRL in their place.
6.5.4. The CRL may create further committees to which their functions may be delegated, as concerns any bill or category of bills. Such a committee must have at least 3 members, including at least 1 Membreu dal Cosă and 1 Senator.
Uréu q'estadra så:
Üc R. Tärfâ (MC, FREEDEM)
Approved.
I mostly approve, but I'd like to inquire about 6.5.3. Is there a reason or substantive effect to making the language more complicated?
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 26, 2023, 07:44:25 AMI mostly approve, but I'd like to inquire about 6.5.3. Is there a reason or substantive effect to making the language more complicated?
As I explained in the Hopper, the reason is to add flexibility to our legislative process to allow the CRL to always have a quorum also in situations where one or more of its members are not available for a period (like holidays).
No, I'm asking why you want to substitute the Latin jargon ex officio in there. It makes it a little harder for laypeople to read, so I wanted to know if there was a substantive reason for the change. Is it necessary, in your opinion, for the new subclause to work?
Mmm... To me it better conveys the fact that they are full members and anyone appointed to perform their functions are deputising for them without bring full members. But as I'm neither a layperson nor an English native speaker, and in my native language those Latin jargons are familiar to laypeople as well (in many high schools Latin is compulsory) I won't probably be the best judge on that. If you feel that "full member" conveys the same meaning and if
@Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB believes that it won't be a substantial change to the hoppered bill, I'll be happy to modify it.
Before proceeding to that question, I just want to make it clear that the law says that a bill that has cleared this CRL may be put on the Clark, with or without changes - by letter and spirit, that means that you can and should change it as necessary to clear this committee. It has not been past practice to hold over a bill for another month because it has been changed in response to CRL feedback, and that won't be changing in the future. A bill should not be changed after the CRL process is over, I think, unless it's brought back for another quick review, but you can absolutely make changes to the bill here in response to feedback without needing to go through the process again.
Anyway, I approve the bill as it is. I'm not a huge fan of complicated language for its own sake, and the original language in this respect seemed completely fine and more clear, but it's not a question of form or function, really.
Done.
Oh, also you misspelled a word in the first sentence. The.