Bringing back to the Hopper for review as it has been changed to accommodate comments by Ian and Tgerxh and to allow additional review and comments.
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H.2.1.5 through H.2.1.6.2 are repealed in their entirety: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.
The current H.2.1.3 and H.2.1.4 are deleted and replaced with the following:
Quote2.1.3 A bill is said to have passed the Hopper and the sponsor of said bill may ask for it be clarked after satisfying both of the 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 a recommendation from the above-mentioned officers responsible for review. 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.
2.1.4 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.
2.1.5 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.
Hello
@Sir Lüc@Glüc da Dhi S.H. @Sir Ian Plätschisch Would one of you please move this back to the CRL for new review?
Graschias Luc
The structure of the three new provisions is still confusing. For one thing, 2.1.4 says that 2.1.3 provides an exception to "passing the Hopper" even though 2.1.3 is entirely about "passing the Hopper", so it doesn't provide an exception. Also, unless I'm missing something, 2.1.4.1 doesn't say anything that 2.1.3 doesn't say already.
Quote from: Sir Ian Plätschisch on January 11, 2025, 12:09:11 PMThe structure of the three new provisions is still confusing. For one thing, 2.1.4 says that 2.1.3 provides an exception to "passing the Hopper" even though 2.1.3 is entirely about "passing the Hopper", so it doesn't provide an exception. Also, unless I'm missing something, 2.1.4.1 doesn't say anything that 2.1.3 doesn't say already.
Thanks. I've edited and consolidated. Does this address the confusion?
Ohh, I see what happened. The existing version of 2.1.3 does have another exception in it, which is getting removed by the new 2.1.3. This explains the reference to the phantom exception. Are you intending to remove it
I would also remove the quotation marks around "passed the Hopper" in 2.1.3, since the same phrase appears without them in 2.1.2
Quote from: Sir Ian Plätschisch on January 11, 2025, 01:43:28 PMOhh, I see what happened. The existing version of 2.1.3 does have another exception in it, which is getting removed by the new 2.1.3. This explains the reference to the phantom exception. Are you intending to remove it
I would also remove the quotation marks around "passed the Hopper" in 2.1.3, since the same phrase appears without them in 2.1.2
Correct, the only exception intended is for the bill to be considered passed in the Hopper should there be no review by at least two of the three reviewers. Quotation marks have been removed.
After another review of the items being repealed I re-added the lines concerning resubmitting the same bill and needing to be submitted to the SoS within 24 hrs of the clark too.
Approved.
No objection.
I'm struggling to see the reason for this bill. It still requires approval from those who would have been on the CRL.
There's still one big chance, which is that in the current situation a bill would also pass the CRL if the members of the CRL have objections. The way I read this proposal is that if the body formerly called CRL has provided objections the bill cannot pass the hopper, basically giving veto power to a body of three people. I don't think that is a good idea.
Otherwise I mostly still have the same thoughts as last time, which I haven't really gotten around to expanding on.
No further recommendations with regards to the quality of the legislation.
Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on January 29, 2025, 04:31:36 PMThere's still one big chance, which is that in the current situation a bill would also pass the CRL if the members of the CRL have objections. The way I read this proposal is that if the body formerly called CRL has provided objections the bill cannot pass the hopper, basically giving veto power to a body of three people. I don't think that is a good idea.
Otherwise I mostly still have the same thoughts as last time, which I haven't really gotten around to expanding on.
No further recommendations with regards to the quality of the legislation.
My understanding of the current process is that the CRL already can block legislation as it needs to be approved by two of the three CRL members to be clarked. Is this not correct? I think this is how things were administered under Txec when he was SoS.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 29, 2025, 04:36:30 PMQuote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on January 29, 2025, 04:31:36 PMThere's still one big chance, which is that in the current situation a bill would also pass the CRL if the members of the CRL have objections. The way I read this proposal is that if the body formerly called CRL has provided objections the bill cannot pass the hopper, basically giving veto power to a body of three people. I don't think that is a good idea.
Otherwise I mostly still have the same thoughts as last time, which I haven't really gotten around to expanding on.
No further recommendations with regards to the quality of the legislation.
My understanding of the current process is that the CRL already can block legislation as it needs to be approved by two of the three CRL members to be clarked. Is this not correct? I think this is how things were administered under Txec when he was SoS.
Well that's not what the law says
2.1.5. [...] "the CRL", [...] may recommend acceptance or
rejection , or suggest amendments in their best judgment.
[...]
2.1.6. After the CRL has given its recommendation[...]the bill has passed the Hopper [...]
It doesn't even technically say two members must give recommendations. It just says the CRL and apparently we all assumed that means a majority, which sort of makes sense I guess, but it's just one interpretation.
Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on January 29, 2025, 04:46:31 PMIt doesn't even technically say two members must give recommendations. It just says the CRL and apparently we all assumed that means a majority, which sort of makes sense I guess, but it's just one interpretation.
Ok but it has certainly not been implemented that way. I have attempted to Clark bills and on several occasions "successful" review by the CRL was a requirement.
@Sir Lüc How are you interpreting CRL review requirements for the purposes of Clarking bills?
Also the laws states the CRL can recommend approval, not that it actually can or needs to approve anything.
My interpretation of how the CRL has worked in practice, as well as my intentions in setting up the CRL in the first place, align with
@Glüc da Dhi S.H. 's observations.
CRL approval has never been necessary, only CRL commentary, i.e. at least 2 out of 3 members give their opinion, which the bill proposer may take in or ignore. To give a veto power to the CRL would have been undemocratic.
This is why I'm going to vote against this bill - it's not only pointless but misunderstands the existing situation.
It is very clear from the law that the CRL can vote to approve, vote to reject, or delay the bill for 30 days. It can also make recommendations. The delaying function is very likely inorganic (Org.VII.7 precludes any statute from delaying a bill in this way). However, that's never mattered, so that provision has never been challenged. People have been told in the past that they couldn't Clark something without a CRL vote, and that may or may not be inorganic if it ended up mattering.
I would strongly support getting rid of the CRL, overall, and replacing it with a system of multiple readings.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 29, 2025, 06:56:26 PMI would strongly support getting rid of the CRL, overall, and replacing it with a system of multiple readings.
I would support this as well. And I think, from what I can tell, Miestra supports it as well. I am in the odd situation that I will be voting against my own bill as well because I thought the way that the CRL review has been implemented by the previous SoS matched the intent and language of the law. I was wrong and I assume the new SoS will be interpreting the CRL review process (as outlined here by Gluc and Miestra) as something that does not prevent Clarking.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 29, 2025, 08:35:48 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 29, 2025, 06:56:26 PMI would strongly support getting rid of the CRL, overall, and replacing it with a system of multiple readings.
I would support this as well. And I think, from what I can tell, Miestra supports it as well. I am in the odd situation that I will be voting against my own bill as well because I thought the way that the CRL review has been implemented by the previous SoS matched the intent and language of the law. I was wrong and I assume the new SoS will be interpreting the CRL review process (as outlined here by Gluc and Miestra) as something that does not prevent Clarking.
I would be interested to see how multiple readings could be implemented.
-Txec R
Quote from: King Txec on January 30, 2025, 11:05:28 AMI would be interested to see how multiple readings could be implemented.
Okay, imagine this:
- a bill is put up on the First Clark. The purposes of this "first reading" vote is just to vote on whether it's worth discussing.
- if it passes that vote, then during the Second Clark the bill goes back to the Hopper. This would include input on not only the substantive but the technical/proofreading aspects of the bill, which would ideally come from a civil service Clerk of the Ziu but failing that the current CRL would work.
- then it can be put up to actually be adopted on the Third Clark.
- Perhaps there could be provisions for one or more of these steps to be skipped in case of urgency.
This is the simplest way I can think of it, but we could make it more complicated, ask me how if you're interested.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 30, 2025, 02:51:45 PMQuote from: King Txec on January 30, 2025, 11:05:28 AMI would be interested to see how multiple readings could be implemented.
Okay, imagine this:
- a bill is put up on the First Clark. The purposes of this "first reading" vote is just to vote on whether it's worth discussing.
- if it passes that vote, then during the Second Clark the bill goes back to the Hopper. This would include input on not only the substantive but the technical/proofreading aspects of the bill, which would ideally come from a civil service Clerk of the Ziu but failing that the current CRL would work.
- then it can be put up to actually be adopted on the Third Clark.
- Perhaps there could be provisions for one or more of these steps to be skipped in case of urgency.
This is the simplest way I can think of it, but we could make it more complicated, ask me how if you're interested.
I hope this reform would eliminate both the Hopper and the CRL.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 30, 2025, 02:57:00 PMI hope this reform would eliminate both the Hopper and the CRL.
Well, okay, let's deal with the Hopper: the reason for the Hopper is that bills just don't go on the Clark without any input or proofreading from other MCs. So if you want to eliminate the Hopper in this proposal:
- a bill has to be published in the Senäts and Cosa chambers 10 days before first reading;
- the "Second Clark" (debate and amendment phases) go on in the Senäts and Cosa chambers
While this is all fine, I'd like to note that again we have multiple Government ministers and different MZs working on something that is a pretty distant priority. If it brings you joy, okay, but recognize that we should also be working on the issues that actually matter: immigration and activity.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 29, 2025, 04:55:41 PMQuote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on January 29, 2025, 04:46:31 PMIt doesn't even technically say two members must give recommendations. It just says the CRL and apparently we all assumed that means a majority, which sort of makes sense I guess, but it's just one interpretation.
@Sir Lüc How are you interpreting CRL review requirements for the purposes of Clarking bills?
No answer here but I hope implementation has changed to more closely follow the language of the law.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 30, 2025, 03:00:59 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 30, 2025, 02:57:00 PMI hope this reform would eliminate both the Hopper and the CRL.
Well, okay, let's deal with the Hopper: the reason for the Hopper is that bills just don't go on the Clark without any input or proofreading from other MCs. So if you want to eliminate the Hopper in this proposal:
- a bill has to be published in the Senäts and Cosa chambers 10 days before first reading;
- the "Second Clark" (debate and amendment phases) go on in the Senäts and Cosa chambers
I love this. These kinds of changes feel like growth in the right direction for the character of our legislature.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 30, 2025, 03:00:59 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 30, 2025, 02:57:00 PMI hope this reform would eliminate both the Hopper and the CRL.
Well, okay, let's deal with the Hopper: the reason for the Hopper is that bills just don't go on the Clark without any input or proofreading from other MCs. So if you want to eliminate the Hopper in this proposal:
- a bill has to be published in the Senäts and Cosa chambers 10 days before first reading;
- the "Second Clark" (debate and amendment phases) go on in the Senäts and Cosa chambers
Would this effectively separate Clarks into "Old Business" and "New Business" sections?
New Business: bills that are currently facing their first reading. (In other words, have already been posted in the Ziu forums for at least ten days before a Clark is published.) The core purpose of the bill and what it seeks to change should already be apparent by this point.
Old Business: bills that have advanced to a second reading (passed vote on first reading, gone through debate / amendments / fine-tuning). Bills in this section that pass are submitted for royal assent same as those that pass Clarks now.
Should bills that change substantially during the debate/amendment stage be treated similarly to how they are now, in that they are essentially "new bills" and must survive a "second first reading"?
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 29, 2025, 04:55:41 PMQuote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on January 29, 2025, 04:46:31 PMIt doesn't even technically say two members must give recommendations. It just says the CRL and apparently we all assumed that means a majority, which sort of makes sense I guess, but it's just one interpretation.
Ok but it has certainly not been implemented that way. I have attempted to Clark bills and on several occasions "successful" review by the CRL was a requirement.
@Sir Lüc How are you interpreting CRL review requirements for the purposes of Clarking bills?
Sorry for not getting back to this; I think now everyone can see what I meant when I said the CRL is effectively operating on vibes. My reading of the law is consistent with the Mençei's interpretation, but please, let's fix this at the earliest opportunity.
Anyhow, I would like to strongly caution people against establishing a system that is too inflexible or too complicated.
If it really took three consecutive Clarks to pass a bill, uncontroversial, unamendable (eg. conferring citizenship) or urgent (eg. Budget) bills would take a really long time to get passed. Besides, we would only get four chances to present new bills, ie. the first four Clarks; or even fewer if the Fixed Electoral Date Amendment is passed, as a month of recess would either lower opportunities to present a bill to just three, or if it is called late, potentially even kill bills halfway through their approval process by not giving bills a chance to get a second reading.
Regardless, this would mean that ten days before the Fourth Clark begins is the last chance you have to get a bill through the whole process before the next First Clark. Basically half a Cosă, plus two whole months for an election and government formation. I'm sorry but I really don't think a system of multiple readings is compatible with the Clark system, unless you also made the Ziu vote twice a month for two weeks each, for example.
As for the complicated point, I strongly believe that making our political processes more intricate is a bad idea. I don't think we need to gaslight ourselves into feeling like we need trappings of big boy legislatures to function properly, when there's barely a dozen people actively sustaining the activity of the legislature.
Let's get rid of the CRL, but let us not turn to something with even more complex rules that inevitably get misapplied, though with no malice. There's multiple recent examples of things that "sound fun" but are unnecessary and/or overcomplicated (Seneschal elections, the CRL itself, the Senate rules committee...) and I don't think you can both support going on another of these endeavours *and* want to simplify our body of laws, or to "cut red-and-green tape", or whatever your political party of choice prefers to call it.
Quote from: Sir Lüc on January 31, 2025, 09:17:24 AMAnyhow, I would like to strongly caution people against establishing a system that is too inflexible or too complicated.
If it really took three consecutive Clarks to pass a bill, uncontroversial, unamendable (eg. conferring citizenship) or urgent (eg. Budget) bills would take a really long time to get passed. Besides, we would only get four chances to present new bills, ie. the first four Clarks; or even fewer if the Fixed Electoral Date Amendment is passed, as a month of recess would either lower opportunities to present a bill to just three, or if it is called late, potentially even kill bills halfway through their approval process by not giving bills a chance to get a second reading.
Regardless, this would mean that ten days before the Fourth Clark begins is the last chance you have to get a bill through the whole process before the next First Clark. Basically half a Cosă, plus two whole months for an election and government formation. I'm sorry but I really don't think a system of multiple readings is compatible with the Clark system, unless you also made the Ziu vote twice a month for two weeks each, for example.
As for the complicated point, I strongly believe that making our political processes more intricate is a bad idea. I don't think we need to gaslight ourselves into feeling like we need trappings of big boy legislatures to function properly, when there's barely a dozen people actively sustaining the activity of the legislature.
Let's get rid of the CRL, but let us not turn to something with even more complex rules that inevitably get misapplied, though with no malice. There's multiple recent examples of things that "sound fun" but are unnecessary and/or overcomplicated (Seneschal elections, the CRL itself, the Senate rules committee...) and I don't think you can both support going on another of these endeavours *and* want to simplify our body of laws, or to "cut red-and-green tape", or whatever your political party of choice prefers to call it.
Well stated Luc on your concerns, especially concerning increasing intricacy but I do think we could use some elements of the "big-boy" parliaments. If we are concerned about the time it would take for legislation then we should just move to longer terms as I think more time for legislation to pass with increased scrutiny and deliberation is certainly not a bad thing.
Quote from: Sir Lüc on January 31, 2025, 09:17:24 AMhere's multiple recent examples of things that "sound fun" but are unnecessary and/or overcomplicated (Seneschal elections, the CRL itself,
Senescal elections are only unnecessary if you think the basic principle that the Cosă chooses the Seneschál, not the King, is wrong.
The CRL is useful, valuable, and not too complicated, and I'll stand on that as an election plank if you want.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 31, 2025, 01:57:33 PMSenescal elections are only unnecessary if you think the basic principle that the Cosă chooses the Seneschál, not the King, is wrong.
Well that's patently untrue since we don't have Seneschal elections, and yet the Cosă does choose the Seneschal via a petition, with the King doing little more than counting signatures.
The petition is a "short-cut" to the Seneschal elections, which would never have happened if we hadn't forced the election procedure in over the top of the King just picking whoever he thought best.
I'm actually kind of offended by the attitude that the constitutional changes I've spent several Cosas implementing are a burdensome waste of time.
That's not what I meant and you know it. (Just like quabbling about past constitutional change was not the point of my initial writeup, so you quoting the little bit at the end instead of focusing on the broader point - that cumbersome systems are bad and off-putting - is interesting.)
A simpler system is usually going to be better.
A reading system would also democratize the process a little more -- the CRL committee now usually acts like the committees in the American Congress' legislative houses, where they're perceived as being "in charge" of what gets a vote and their opinions on the merits of the bill count for more. We should resist the tendency to accumulate power at the top of our government.