Wittenberg

Whereas, the intent of the CRL to provide a forum for the improvement of bills was honorable, and

Whereas, this can be achieved with a longer stay in the Hopper and without that extra body.

---

Therefore, be in enacted, that the Ziu of the Kingdom of Talossa enacts the following changes in El Lexhatx:

H.2.1.5 through H.2.1.6.2 are repealed in their entirety:

Quote2.1.5. 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.
2.1.5.1. 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.
2.1.5.2. The CRL shall conduct all its deliberations openly in the Hopper.
2.1.5.3. The CRL shall consist of the incumbent Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral.
2.1.5.3.1. The Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral may at any time appoint and dismiss one Senator or one Membreu dal Cosă, to serve as a member of the CRL in their place.[716]
2.1.5.4. 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.
2.1.6. After the CRL has given its recommendation, or if it gives no recommendation within 30 days of the bill having passed to committee, the bill has passed the Hopper and the sponsor of the bill may ask for it to be Clarked, with or without amendments.
2.1.6.1. The same bill can not be submitted to the Clark more than once in the same Cosa, unless the original bill was vetoed, the original bill had been retired or voted down by its main sponsor during the voting period, or the bill has been substantially amended, as judged by the Secretary of State.
2.1.6.2. Bills must be submitted to the Secretary of State more than 24 hours before the publication of the Clark. Bills received less than 24 hours before publication of the Clark shall be published in the next Clark or postponed for one Clark, at the Secretary of State's discretion.

H.2.1.3 which currently reads as:

Quote2.1.3. A bill has passed the Hopper if it has spent at least 10 days in the Hopper and at least half of the Senators and 2/3 of Cosă seats express their support in the Hopper for clarking the bill.

is revised to read as follows:

Quote2.1.3. A bill has passed the Hopper if it has spent at least 10 20 days in the Hopper, and at least two of the following officers (Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral) have recommended approval or have no objections after evaluating the bill 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.
2.1.3.1 If there is no collective recommendation (review by at least two of the following: Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral) within 30 days of the bill's introduction to the Hopper, the bill has passed the Hopper and the sponsor of the bill may ask for it to be Clarked, with or without amendments.

H.2.1.4 which currently reads as:

Quote2.1.4. After a legislative proposal has spent at least 10 days in the Hopper, its proposer may request that it "move to committee." No bill may be Clarked without being "moved to committee", except as provided by Lexh.H.2.1.2. or Lexh.H.2.1.3.

is revised to read as follows:

Quote2.1.4. After a legislative proposal has spent at least 10 20 days in the Hopper and been approved or cleared by the necessary officials, its proposer may request that it be clarked. No bill may be Clarked without being "moved to committee", except as provided by Lexh.H.2.1.2. or Lexh.H.2.1.3.
2.1.5 The Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral may at any time appoint and dismiss one Senator or one Membreu dal Cosă, to serve as a reviewer of the Hopper bills in their place.

I support the elimination of the CRL and the doubling of required Hopper time.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 27, 2024, 04:00:56 PMI support the elimination of the CRL and the doubling of required Hopper time.

Ah thanks, this is an excellent start.

So I've taken a wack at the Lex edits. I left the A-X in there though I would personally prefer it be the Scribe instead. But I'm more interested in eliminating the need to move legislation before Clarking and combining the CRL elements into a longer sitting time in the Hopper.

I'll start the Hopper clock today for the CRL transfer.

By doubling the time in the hopper and eliminating the CRL, I worry that the quality of bills that make it onto the Clark may suffer. If nothing else, the CRL has worked well in making sure that bills are properly formatted and are essentially error free. I can't recall any bill that was not sent to the CRL that did not ultimately gain approval.

Additionally, the language you are using now would basically require a supermajority of the Cosa before bills can even be Clarked at all. That language was left intact to allow for bills to effectively short-circuit the process of the CRL and get onto the Clark. Your new language has the same effect as having a CRL as the same three people still have to approve a bill.

Basically, from what I can see, all this proposal does in essence is double the time in the Hopper while keeping the same 3 person approval firmly in place, just not in a different thread.

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on October 29, 2024, 11:16:10 AMBy doubling the time in the hopper and eliminating the CRL, I worry that the quality of bills that make it onto the Clark may suffer. If nothing else, the CRL has worked well in making sure that bills are properly formatted and are essentially error free. I can't recall any bill that was not sent to the CRL that did not ultimately gain approval.

Additionally, the language you are using now would basically require a supermajority of the Cosa before bills can even be Clarked at all. That language was left intact to allow for bills to effectively short-circuit the process of the CRL and get onto the Clark. Your new language has the same effect as having a CRL as the same three people still have to approve a bill.

Basically, from what I can see, all this proposal does in essence is double the time in the Hopper while keeping the same 3 person approval firmly in place, just not in a different thread.

Hi, the language was copied over from the existing language in Lex but I can remove it as we have not really been following it anyway? (Note: I went ahead and removed it from the revised section but is in Lex currently)

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on October 29, 2024, 11:16:10 AMYour new language has the same effect as having a CRL as the same three people still have to approve a bill.

Yep, this is administrative easing. We are simply combining the threads, Txec, so removing the need to move to committee and doubling the time in the Hopper instead. How would this lead to a decrease in quality?

I've always interpreted the supermajority requirement as a method to avoid the CRL, for example, for bills that need speedy approval.

As for the quality of bills, they may not decrease in quality, but for the ease of Clarking, instead of having to search a potentially long thread in the Hopper, it is far easier to search in the CRL for approval when the SoS looks for bills to be Clarked. I really don't see how this bill simplifies anything at all. Keep in mind, this is just my two cents.

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on October 29, 2024, 11:37:55 AMI've always interpreted the supermajority requirement as a method to avoid the CRL, for example, for bills that need speedy approval.

As for the quality of bills, they may not decrease in quality, but for the ease of Clarking, instead of having to search a potentially long thread in the Hopper, it is far easier to search in the CRL for approval when the SoS looks for bills to be Clarked. I really don't see how this bill simplifies anything at all. Keep in mind, this is just my two cents.

In reading 2.1.3 it doesn't seem like an option rather a requirement currently that we've not been following. I may be reading it incorrectly.

I thought it would be easier to have things in one thread rather than two and that finding indications of reviewer approval would not really be any more difficult than moving bills and then reviewing long responses threads there. The longer time in the Hopper was intended to account for the additional review period in the current CRL.

The intent was only to combine threads but keep a similar amount of time for review and keep the requirement from the three officials. I would repeat I do think the Scribe would be a better member of the reviewer team than the A-X but that is not worth arguing over for me.

The Avocat-Xheneral is probably one of the better people in theory to review bills as they are supposedly more legal minded. Anyway, I was just thinking about your bill and wanted to provide some input. Thanks.

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on October 29, 2024, 11:50:05 AMThe Avocat-Xheneral is probably one of the better people in theory to review bills as they are supposedly more legal minded. Anyway, I was just thinking about your bill and wanted to provide some input. Thanks.

Your input is valued, Txec, and I am grateful for it. This bill might not go anywhere after additional input but I wanted to try a different method for proposing bills personally.

@þerxh Sant-Enogat
@Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB
@Sir Lüc
@Ian Plätschisch

Would one of you be a gem and move this bill into the CRL thread for slaughter review?

Hello good people designated below:

@þerxh Sant-Enogat
@Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB
@Sir Lüc
@Ian Plätschisch

Would one of you please move this bill into the CRL thread?

@Glüc da Dhi S.H.
@Ian Plätschisch
@þerxh Sant-Enogat

Assuming it will be moved soon please feel free to do your CRL review here, if you'd like.

moved

I think this bill would be more elegant if the new 2.1.3 and the new 2.1.4 were one single provision, since they are very similar.

I have several thoughts on the functioning of the CRL. Unfortunately I have been to lazy all year to properly write these down. Apologies. I suppose if this passes it would be a moot point. I do think the CRL serves some useful purpose and I do think it can be improved.

I do note that in the current situation bills do not actually need approval from CRL members to pass the hopper. The current text just says the bill has passed the hopper if the CRL has given its recommendations, which I interpret as meaning the bill still passes even if all CRL members recommend rejection. In this proposal it would need actual approval in order to pass in 20 days instead of 30. I'm not saying thats a good or a bad thing. Just wanted to point it out.

I also agree with Ians point about merging 2.13 and 2.14, but that's a minor point.

I don't have any technical objections or further recommendations.

To avoid the term "approval" leading to think that a technical acceptance could be interpreted as a positive vote of the bill, I propose the following wording :

Quote2.1.4 A bill is said to have "passed the Hopper" if either one of the two following conditions :

- it has spent at least 20 days in the Hopper, and at least two of the following officers (Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral) have expressed that they have no objections after reviewing the bill 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; or

- it has spent at least 30 days in the Hopper without any objection from more than one of the following officers (Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral)

For the purpose of the review described above, the Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral may at any time appoint and dismiss one Senator or one Membreu dal Cosă, to serve as a reviewer of the Hopper bills in their place.

2.1.5. The sponsor of a bill may ask for it to be Clarked only if this bill has passed the Hopper, except as provided by Lexh.H.2.1.2. or Lexh.H.2.1.3.

Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on November 29, 2024, 06:14:14 PMI have several thoughts on the functioning of the CRL. Unfortunately I have been to lazy all year to properly write these down. Apologies. I suppose if this passes it would be a moot point. I do think the CRL serves some useful purpose and I do think it can be improved.

Gluc, at risk of making another supposedly controversial compliment, I want to tell you this above is one reason why you are one of my favorite Talossans and I think were a great SoS. You are always so reasonable, humble, and effective at your communication.

If Gluc thinks the CRL can be kept and improved and has ideas on how to do so then I defer to his judgment as a signal of how much I respect him. I withdraw this bill from consideration.

Following up on this. @Glüc da Dhi S.H. should there be time and continuing interest I'm curious on your ideas to improve the CRL.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on December 15, 2024, 12:23:56 AMFollowing up on this. @Glüc da Dhi S.H. should there be time and continuing interest I'm curious on your ideas to improve the CRL.

I'm considering bringing this bill back as I'm concerned about the repeated delays in moving bills to the CRL which is an unnecessary delay in consideration. And there has been no alternative movement on CRL reform.

Þerxh, I'll make the change you suggested as I think it incorporates Ian's revision as well. Thank you for your help on improving the bill.

This was not abandoned. It was revised in the CRL and then resubmitted.

It was submitted under a different name and a different thread, yes?

Quote from: Sir Lüc on January 17, 2025, 06:40:38 AMIt was submitted under a different name and a different thread, yes?

Nevermind Luc, I don't know why I was worried about this. The label may be inaccurate but it is not worth arguing about.