Mick and welcome back!

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 05, 2024, 01:26:40 PMWhomever is the provincial executive of Benito can gain access to ALL citizen emails of Benito for the sole purpose of election balloting for provincial-based elections.

Following up on this, as our Legislature has now completed the required steps to hold a provincial referendum. May I get approved for access to email addresses on the Database? Thanks!

Azul, that is correct and we would like the Chancery to keep conducting our Senatorial elections, as is tradition.

Again, the crux of the matter is that we're operating on vibes in two substantial ways: the definition of a bill (and in particular how we handle bills compared to big boy legislatures) and the operation of the CRL (or more accurately the fact that a standing committee is the wrong tool for the job, if it is not expected to operate as such).

This would necessarily be a long, nerdy ramble that I don't have time to write right now. For now, I hope that my Scribery proposal above can at least address the CRL part and why there could be more agile and flexible ways of proofreading legislation.

Anyway, while I doubt anyone is interested in seeing my point regarding my interpretation that originated this all, I really want to reiterate the assumptions I was operating under.

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 27, 2024, 10:06:44 AMThe CRL shouldn't be able to say "hey this bill changed a lot, start over." That isn't really its function.

The law stipulates that the CRL is implicitly called to make a judgement about whether a bill, having spent 10 days in the Hopper, is eligible to be moved to committee or not. To me, it seemed trivial that even though it shared the same Hopper thread, "The Vacant Throne (We Really Mean Business Now) Amendment" was not the same bill (in title, effects and content) as "The Succession Amendment" first posted by Miestră on the 17th, then amended by AD on the 20th. So as Sir Txec says, it shouldn't, but it does.

Honestly, it pains me to be a stickler for procedure in this particular instance, given the lively and productive Hopper debate that originated; but if this is allowed, then there's no reason why someone couldn't Hopper an uncontroversial bill (say, adjusting the party registration fee), replace it wholesale on day 10 with a different, "malignant" bill on the same topic (say, stipulating that the fee may only be paid in person), get a CRL review and get it Clarked with no opportunity for a debate on merit. I was simply trying to avoid setting bad precedent.

My current idea is putting Lex.C.1.3.2-5 into practice and having the Scribery manage a pool of "proofreaders" (call them whatever you want) that can suggest amendments about form at any point between Hoppering and Clarking.

• Proofreaders would work as a team, rather than independently like CRL members - and only one proofreader is required for each bill, possibly divvying up work more efficiently;
• Proofreaders don't hold their office by virtue of another office (IMO a flaw of the CRL);
• Proofreaders need not be members of the Ziu or Government, but I heavily suggest that major parties do recommend to the Scribe a proofreader each, to build lawmaking expertise;
• Proofreaders are expected to largely advise according to "good practice guidelines" on style and form for bills;
• Input may come from any proofreader as soon as a bill is Hoppered without the need to ask; but if no input is provided by a set date before the next Call for Bills opens, the bill proponent could be required to ask for input before Clarking (but an answer must come before the Call for Bills opens, or the proponent is allowed to assume silence means assent);
• No provision for proofreaders to block or reject a bill - they may only okay it or suggest amendments;
• As a further help to lawmakers that may not be familiar with procedure, it may be stipulated that suggested amendments are automatically applied by the Secretary of State upon Clarking, as long as they're judged to be in order (ie. they only concern the form of the bill);
• Proofreaders's analysis on form takes place freely within the Hopper debate on merit, rather than halting debate by moving the bill to committee;
• Proofreaders are allowed to advise about anything that comes before the Clark, instead of the Lex.H.2.1.2. exceptions to the CRL's authority;
• No need for proofreaders to concern themselves about "what a bill is" and whether a bill has or has not spent 10 days in the Hopper in order to be eligible for the CRL.

Yes, I agree there's a lot of ambiguity not just in the definition of a bill, but also in the role of the CRL (and relatedly in what "passing", "moving to committee", and so on actually mean).

I do think I have tended to interpret things from a "big boy Parliament" standpoint, thus thinking about a bill as a more-or-less well-formed piece of legislation and not as an overarching idea, and the CRL as a fixed link in the Hopper-to-Clark process, irrevocably placed immediately before floor passage as a proofreading step; and to be fair, several passages in existing legislation do support this stricter interpretation, which is why I never assumed I was pulling stuff out of my ciul!

Perhaps there's a disconnect between form and practice, since AFAIK, in "big boy Parliaments", it's not committees that normally do the CRL's proofreading job, but rather non-MP entities such as clerks and the Table Office - and to be fair, this would be the case in Talossa too, since the Scribery is technically tasked with basically the same job as the CRL by Lex.C.1.3.2-5.

All this said, it may be counterintuitive but I do agree with Miestră: much as in other areas (exibit 1 and exibit 2), I am in favour of more flexibility as long as it's clearly spelled out in law. (I would honestly be even more radical and get rid of the CRL entirely, but I'll reserve my actual recommendations for another time.)

Sure, go forth and Clark.

I would like to Clark The Flexible State Opening Act, please.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 22, 2024, 06:19:53 PMAttention CRL: @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu , @Ian Plätschisch , @Sir Lüc . This bill is now ready for your perusal, as sponsored by myself and @Breneir Tzaracomprada .

I must note that this bill is substantially different from the one first presented when this Hopper thread was created; and its earliest similar version was posted on the 17th of April, meaning that if that's taken to be the time the current proposal was first Hoppered, the bill will only be ready for CRL consideration in three days's time.

It shouldn't be any issue clearing it in time for the next Clark, so I'm just trying to avoid setting a bad precedent.

I vote Për.

No, a motion is not a request for unanimous consent; but I vote in favour of my own motion, and seeing as the vote has been sitting open for well over two weeks now, declare it closed and S:r Autófil duly elected.

I vote Për. Let's get this done.

Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on April 13, 2024, 05:03:32 AMI do intend to clark this next round. Any thoughts from the commission on the merits of the bill?

Also, I'm interested whether there are any further thoughts on leaving business days for clarks at 19:30 or moving to 17:00 along with the elections?

Speaking as an MC and regarding the bill's merits, I'm personally in favour and plan to vote accordingly. I'm personally ambivalent on the business hour bit, but I guess it's less important anyway.

QuoteIf there are no further comments perhaps this could be moved back to the hopper now that it has passed the CRL so anyone is welcome to comment again before this goes to a vote.

This is a bit of an issue as I'd love to encourage further debate, but I don't know if that's possible under the rules we currently operate under. I suppose we could stipulate that if any amendments are made, the bill must go through the CRL again. I'd love to hear what the A-X and Mençei think.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 12, 2024, 12:06:39 PM

Quote from: Sir Lüc on April 12, 2024, 11:20:44 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 11, 2024, 08:02:25 AM@Sir Lüc I am requesting this amendment be moved to the CRL for review.

I would friendly suggest you held off on this as lively debate on merits seems to still be going on; remember there's plenty of time for CRL review before the next Call for Bills opens.

Agreed, sorry I forgot to post that I was withdrawing my request for movement to the CRL. It looks like we are now focusing on the amendment proposed by Miestra so this one is now on hold.

No worries and noted!