Wittenberg

As of the passing it is now a required for we of the committee greenlight bills to be Clarked.
Myself (as speaker), the Mencai and the attorney general will make it known here our opinions as to the clarking of such bills.

I would request this post is pinned to ease.

Ok so I'm back... Iyet I think it's lo late to rule on the latest bills. That is unfortunate. I will however say that due to concerns raised about it, the legal bill of crimes against talossanisity as currently written to my mind has skipped a key step in its writing process and has activitly not incorporated any feedback as to its nature. I believe a legal code is required to cover such crimes, however I agree there needs to be understanding of said laws set out. Using non native laws to enforce our own, with justices unfamiliar with said laws is a recipe for disaster in our courts.

Quote from: Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on April 02, 2021, 07:13:46 AM
Ok so I'm back... Iyet I think it's lo late to rule on the latest bills. That is unfortunate. I will however say that due to concerns raised about it, the legal bill of crimes against talossanisity as currently written to my mind has skipped a key step in its writing process and has activitly not incorporated any feedback as to its nature. I believe a legal code is required to cover such crimes, however I agree there needs to be understanding of said laws set out. Using non native laws to enforce our own, with justices unfamiliar with said laws is a recipe for disaster in our courts.

Just as an FYI the 6th Clark is currently underway so you can vote in the current bills.

Just checking if my incoming colleagues on this committee, @the Mençéi and @the Túischac'h, are ready to start work for the First clark?

I am indeed ready.

I am ready enough.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 20, 2021, 07:16:28 PM
Just checking if my incoming colleagues on this committee, @the Mençéi and @the Túischac'h, are ready to start work for the First clark?

Just a heads up to the Mençéi, the Túischac'h, the King and the (incoming - not yet official ) Seneschal:

I'm having problems with the database. It is possible, thought not set just yet, that I may not be able to use the database for the upcoming Clark. If so, we will conduct the Clark the old-fashioned way here on Wittenberg. I will let all of you know when a decision has been made.

Thanks,

Txec

Wokay. Well, we can't do anything about the reclarked 55RZ21 because it needs to be the same language as last time. So you guys got anything to say about the Criminal Law Reform bill (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=916.msg7758#msg7758)?

The bill is missing a section in which the references to the Wisconsinite class system outside of Lexh A.1-8 are replaced with the new threeway distinction. The affected sections are Lexh A.9.10, A.22, A.22.1, A.22.2, A.22.3 and C.1.4.4.
I assume the class I felonies will be rebranded to regular felonies, class A misdemeanours to serious misdemeanours and class C misdemeanours to regular misdemeanours.

Yipes! Thanks for picking that up. Will do so in 24 hours hopefully. Done! I had 10 minutes while waiting for the train lol.

With that fix, I can't find anything particularly problematic in the Criminal Reform Bill.  Nice catch.  So I think we should greenlight it to the Clark.

So what do you guys reckon on my bill for a form of "two readings" of legislation (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=752.msg7789#msg7789)?

The bill itself looks okay on a first glance, but there are typos in the Talossan names that would need fixing:

el Comità da Redacziun Legislatïu > la Comità da Redacziun Lexhislatïu
Mençéi > Mençei

I'm not sure the bill is going to have the effect desired.  If it takes half the senators AND half the Cosa to move things into Committee, you're still coming up against the reading and engagement issue mentioned in the "whereas."

Okay my dudes, what about The Criminal Reform Bill Part 2 (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=989.msg8064#msg8064)?

Quote from: Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu on July 25, 2021, 04:27:19 PM
I'm not sure the bill is going to have the effect desired.  If it takes half the senators AND half the Cosa to move things into Committee, you're still coming up against the reading and engagement issue mentioned in the "whereas."

Changed that bit (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=752.msg8067#msg8067), what do you think now?

I see no issue with this one.

It still has the typoes in it that I pointed out before, but it looks fine otherwise.

Any thoughts on these suggestions:

https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=752.msg8078#msg8078 ?

Also, would the Committee agree that if the bill were to be amended in that way it would not be "so substantially different from its original form as a legislative proposal that it constitutes a significantly different proposal."

@Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu @Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial

Edit: Ok, since apparently there is a month of recess coming up, the urgency is not as great as I thought it was.

I think, in this case, that the exceptions that are being added do not fundamentally alter the bill.  But don't push too much further, otherwise I think you're wandering into "separate legislation" territory.

I'm on the fence on this, but if the Mençei and the A-Xh agree I'd be willing to accept it as well.

Thank you both for your answers.

Interesting, I would have thought the wiggle room for amendments was broader than that (that is, I didn't necessarily think this would be an edge case). In the rules of the Dutch parliament an amendment can be declared inadmissible when its either unrelated to the original subject or the directionality of the change is opposite to the original purpose. (E.g. a law designed to make immigration easier can't be amended to make immigration more difficult than it was before.) Obviously the language of the "significantly different" clause is well eeh significantly different from that rule, but I suppose I thought it should be interpreted in a similar way.

Ironically I now wonder if the same phrase in the bill should be altered in some way. My fear is that if the committee discovers some problem that can only be solved by an amendment that the SoS would consider as resulting in a significantly different proposal, sponsors will be hesistant to take the committee's advice, because that would then mean restarting the whole process over again, meaning a bill is less likely to be fixed. Then again, its probably wise to take the Mençei's advice and not push any further. (Either way it's up to Miestră to decide if she wants to incorporate my suggestions into the bill).

Of course it's possible that most amendments would be allowed and I just underestimated how big a change the proposed exceptions in this particular case are in the view of the committee.

Probably not much to chew on here, but I should submit this (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=784.0) pro-forma anyway!

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 21, 2021, 04:24:05 PM
Probably not much to chew on here, but I should submit this (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=784.0) pro-forma anyway!

Which version specifically, your own or Antaglha's?

Well, mine, because that's what I linked to

It looks solid to me.

Same here, no objections.

From Glüc's vote on the last Clark:

QuoteI will note this particular clause in the bill: "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.". I do hope that the CRL will use this clause and actually form Ziu commitees on particular bill categories/topics.

I certainly endorse this, and I would like to hear suggestions

Perhaps a first step on this would be to see if we can't get a roster of people willing to serve on such subcommittees.  I can't help but think that it might wind up being a personnel issue in terms of getting people.

I think prior to that comes the question of what kind of committees we would want. I can think of one specialist committee off the top of my head: an OrgLaw Committee.

Finance and Budget is probably another.

I would like to submit the Compromise on the Compromise for the Committee's consideration

Just clarifying that this (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=848.0) is the text we're looking at?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on November 07, 2021, 02:19:12 PM
Just clarifying that this (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=848.0) is the text we're looking at?

Yes

I don't really see anything structurally unsound in this measure, with the possible caveat of the "elimination through Orglaw amendment" issue.  That could be handled simply through the elimination of that line in the Orglaw as it stands.

Which might be a good idea anyhow, given that it might make things complicated if a new monarch is chosen (through WHATEVER system or reason) but the old king is "still on the books."

[EDIT, because it is tech week and I am slightly braindead]- Which this system would do upon further reading.  Guh, apologies.

My political issues with this bill remain as canvassed in the Hopper thread (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=848.msg8101#msg8101). I especially reiterate that it would "legislatively decapitate" the incumbent, thus pretty much ensuring a veto.

However, my job on this committee is just to proofread, and in that capacity there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it.

What do you guys think of my Three Small Amendments (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1061.msg8682#msg8682)?

BUMP, time's running out if we want to get some/all of these on the 5th Clark

Amendment 1- Strikes me as just fine.  I think it would function as intended if put into law.

Amendment 2- Strikes me as a good idea, and I've no logistical issues with it.

Amendment 3- It's past time this position was enshrined Organically.  I see no issues.

Presenting for CRL committee review

DRAFT AMENDMENT ON RESERVED SEATS FOR NEW CITIZENS

Whereas, the retention of new immigrants is an ongoing challenge for the Kingdom, and

Whereas, the option for new citizens to become immediately engaged in the Kingdom's government might lead to higher retention and activity levels.

Therefore be it resolved, that Organic Law Article IV, Sections 1-4 are amended to read as follows:

OrgLaw IV.1: The Cosa is the national legislative assembly, and is composed of a number of seats apportioned among political parties based on their performance in the General Election, as well as any additional seats authorised by this Organic Law.

OrgLaw IV.2. Based on the final results of the General Election, the Secretary of State shall calculate the apportionment of seats among the parties, hereinafter referred to as "party seats".

OrgLaw IV.2.1 The party seats shall total 200, or another number which may be set by law, with the provisos that any such change will not take effect until the next election following the passage of a calendar year; and that this number may never be less than twice the number of Senators minus one.

OrgLaw IV.2.2. Each party shall receive a percentage of party seats as equal as possible to its percentage of the popular vote, but each party shall receive a whole number of seats, and in turn, each party shall assign these seats to individuals, in accordance with law. The Secretary of State shall employ whatever mathematical formulae and calculations in the apportionment of seats as are set by law, or, in the absence of such law, as will best reflect the intentions of this Organic Law. The Uppermost Cort shall be the final judge in case of mathematical disputes.

OrgLaw IV.2.3. Only registered political parties may obtain party seats. Parties which win votes but are not registered may not assume their seats in the Cosa until they register. The process to register a party shall be defined by law. The Secretary of State may request from all parties a registration fee, to be set by law, to cover the cost of the election. This fee shall be uniform for all parties.

OrgLaw IV.3. In the case of vacant party seats occurring between elections, the Secretary of State shall inform the King and the leader of whatever party held the vacant seat. The King shall appoint a replacement to each vacancy. If the seat belonged to a party with a functioning party leader, the King must appoint as a replacement whichever person shall be so designated by that party's leader. If there is no functioning party leader, or if the party leader refuses to designate a replacement, the King shall appoint the replacement according to his own best judgement.

OrgLaw IV.4.1: In addition to the seats apportioned between parties after a General Election, the Secretary of State shall assign one Cosa seat to any citizen who becomes eligible to vote after the most recent Election Deadline but before the dissolution of the Cosa, upon the request of such citizen, up to a maximum number as this Organic Law might provide. Any additional seat so assigned shall cease to exist should its holder vacate or be removed from the seat and shall not be subject to the procedures for filling vacancies in the Cosa, and shall also cease to exist upon the dissolution of the Cosa.

OrgLaw IV.4.2 The maximum number of seats that may be assigned to new citizens between general elections shall be 7.5% of the seats apportioned between parties, rounded up to a whole number of seats.

Since I was very strongly involved in helping draft this, I'd like the Túischac'h or the Mençéi to have a close look at it

So let me see if I fully understand what the point of this legislation is.  Essentially, new citizens who could not participate in the most recent election due to not being citizens yet are entitled (up to a total of 7.5% [15 seats at current numbers]) to request a single Cosa seat for themselves.  I'm assuming that this is a method of trying to get people involved quickly, yes?

Given that this is an Organic amendment, I think it passes muster in terms of clarity of writing and wouldn't cause inscrutable tangles with other laws.

My major question would be, essentially, what if a single seat is enough to tip control of the Cosa to the opposition?  Might this bill be an outsized encouragement to Broosking?

Historically, we've seen parties trying to recruit citizens from the immigration pipeline as an evil. But honestly, what now I see as a bigger evil is parties completely ignoring new citizens. If a new citizen is going to get a Cosa seat one way or the other, I don't see any problem with parties competing for their sympathy.

As for swinging the balance in a close Cosa: if we see an evil in these extra seats having a real political impact, then we shouldn't have them at all.

Please review the "It's the Immigration, Stupid" Act

Here's a quick answer: you haven't changed anywhere else the Interior Ministry appears in El Lexh, including the entire of Title E ("Immigration").

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 16, 2022, 11:43:30 PM
Here's a quick answer: you haven't changed anywhere else the Interior Ministry appears in El Lexh, including the entire of Title E ("Immigration").

Right, I'll fix that

With the fix, it looks alright to me.

@Eíric, @Marcel, any comments on the final version (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1095.msg8899#msg8899)?

Nothing from me.  Still appears to be cromulent.