The effective changes in this proposal are:
1) to require a bill to get the affirmative support of half of both chambers of the Ziu, as expressed in the Hopper, to proceed to Committee.
2) the Committee phase to be compulsory but last a maximum of 30 days.
3) make it easier to set up different committees with specialist areas of interests (eg. an Organic Law committee, a Finance committee, etc.)
At the very worst, this would draw out and lengthen the legislative process, unless legislators became more active. Some might consider this a
good thing, as opposed to two or three activist MZs to write every Clark by themselves and just get pushed through on the Clark by apathetic hand-raisers. I expect even the conservatives will think that a good thing as long as progressives have the legislative majority! To sweeten the deal, I would also be happy to give up OrgLaw VII.6, which enables the Seneschál to "skip" the Hopper.
To replace El Lexhatx H.6-7 and H.11-13. Questions? Comments?
Quote6. No bill may be published in a Clark unless it has passed the Hopper, as provided in this section.
6.1. All citizens of Talossa are entitled to participate fully in discussions and debates in the Hopper, within the bounds of law and of the decisions of the administering and presiding authorities of the Hopper. Any citizen may submit a draft of legislation to the Hopper, though these shall not be considered to be "legislative proposals" until sponsored by one or more individuals authorised to submit legislative proposals under Organic Law VII.5.
6.2. After a legislative proposal has spent at least 10 days in the Hopper, its proposer may request that it "move to committee". A bill shall be considered to have "moved to committee" after at least half of the Senators and half of the Cosă seats express their support in the Hopper for it doing so.
6.3. 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.
6.3.1 The CRL shall conduct all its deliberations openly in the Hopper.
6.3.2 The CRL shall consist of the incumbent Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral.
6.3.3. 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.
6.4. After the CRL has given its recommendation, or if it gives no recommendation within 30 days of the bill having passed to committee, the sponsor of the bill may ask for it to be Clarked, with or without amendments.
6.4.1 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.
6.4.2. 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.
6.5. The Secretary of State is empowered to refuse to put a certain bill on a Clark if said bill;
6.5.1. appears to him to be obviously on its face inorganic, or to have such grave errors as would make it ineffective and/or require further legislation or a Prime Dictate to make it effective.
6.5.2. does not specify exactly the Law(s) or Article(s) which it seeks to amend, change, or repeal, if the bill seeks to amend, change, or repeal any Article of the Organic Law or any Law
6.5.3. is not clearly typed or word-processed; and/or
6.5.4. is so substantially different from its form as a legislative proposal when "passed to committee" that it constitutes a significantly different proposal.
6.5.5. Any such decision shall be subject to judicial review.
6.6. All bills submitted for the Clark shall be in one of the national languages.
6.7. The Secretary of State shall remove legislative proposals from "The Hopper" at the request of the author.
6.7.1 If a legislative proposal has remained in the "The Hopper" for more than 59 days, it shall be considered to have been removed, though any person entitled to do so may subsequently re-publish it.
6.8. Notwithstanding the rules about a bill's eligibility to be Clarked, if no bill was submitted to the Clark at the moment of publication, the Secretary of State shall be allowed to add to the Clark a simple bill asking for Quorum where Cosa Members and Senators can vote to confirm their presence for the Clark.
6.9. The Secretary of State is under no obligation to create a permanent record of legislative proposals in "The Hopper."
I do overall think something like thing might be a good idea, however, what im thinking might work better, is that once the bill is ready to move from the hopper, that it then moves to the Ziu, in the respective chambers, for members of the Ziu for a set period, to further debate and scrutinise the bill, then vote to see if it moves to committee stage, and then if the bill comes back on committee with amendments, the Ziu further debates those amendments, and votes to either adopt or remove them (might be easier to have these two votes as a vote of the whole Ziu) with then the Clark then being the vote on a "third" reading and passage of the bill, and perhaps with extra steps to provide ways to break a deadlock if needed. Im not sure how workable this is, but i think it might work better, for both scrutiny purposes, and a way to ensure that Ziu members have a chance to debate these things in their chambers before it votes, and therefore would hopefully help produce more informed members of the Ziu.
Like the general idea of this bill (though I do think some of the problems with legislating are cultural and shouldn't be fixed by binding rules). Will comment on some of the details later, except:
should there be certain exceptions? For example bills that don't affect law but exclusively contain appointments, non-binding recommendations to the government/King (Sense of the Ziu), foreign policy declarations, appropriations, setting up committees, may not always need to spend 30 days in committee.
That's a good point, Gluc.
There are some things that should have a fast track.
Very excited to hear of any specific amendments people want to suggest.
BUMP. I'm minded to Clark this unless I get any feedback on specific amendments. I've spoken to the Túischac'h and he likes it.
I should note that I'd forgotten that a fast track to avoid this process exists, and that's Organic Law VII.6: "The Seneschál shall have the right at his discretion to withdraw any legislative proposal from the Hopper and instruct the Secretary of State to treat it as a properly submitted bill."
WHEREAS the quality of legislation passed by the Ziu of our Kingdom has always been of questionable quality, given not only the volunteer, part-time nature of our MCs and Senators, but also of the lack of "professional" legal advisers to proofread amateurishly-written bills;
AND WHEREAS the Hopper itself was an early attempt to improve the process; but has always been hampered by the disinterest or forgetfulness of MCs and Senators in reading legislation until it is Clarked, by which stage it is too late for amendments;
AND WHEREAS the last Cosa brought in la Comità da Redacziun Lexhislatïu (CRL) to streamline this process, but this body simply did not function in the last Cosa;
AND WHEREAS even if the CRL functions as foreseen in this Cosa, it does not solve the large problem mentioned above, that MCs and Senators do not pay attention to the details of bills until after they are Clarked;
AND WHEREAS the idea of a system of "multiple readings" of legislation before they become law has been raised in the past;
AND WHEREAS the incoming Attorney-General and Túischac'h have agreed on this proposal, which will require a form of "first reading", whereby bills will need a affirmative majority of both houses (along the same lines as a Túischac'h election) to go to the CRL, and subsequently cannot go to Clark for 30 days unless the CRL gives its affirmative say-so;
AND WHEREAS at the very, very worst this bill will only mean a 30-day delay in Clarking bills;
AND WHEREAS there is still an "escape hatch" for cases of legislative urgency, in the provisions of Organic Law VII.6: "The Seneschál shall have the right at his discretion to withdraw any legislative proposal from the Hopper and instruct the Secretary of State to treat it as a properly submitted bill"; and also in the provision for Prime Dictates;
AND WHEREAS a future reform, whereby the Cosă and Senäts will vote separately on legislation to allow even more opportunity for scrutiny and debate, may be presented later in this Cosă term, whether this bill passes or not;
BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosă and Senäts of Talossa in Ziu assembled that
1. El Lexhatx H.6 shall be replaced in its entirety as follows:
Quote6. No bill may be published in a Clark unless it has passed the Hopper, as provided in this section.
6.1. All citizens of Talossa are entitled to participate fully in discussions and debates in the Hopper, within the bounds of law and of the decisions of the administering and presiding authorities of the Hopper. Any citizen may submit a draft of legislation to the Hopper, though these shall not be considered to be "legislative proposals" until sponsored by one or more individuals authorised to submit legislative proposals under Organic Law VII.5.
6.2. After a legislative proposal has spent at least 10 days in the Hopper, its proposer may request that it "move to committee". A bill shall be considered to have "moved to committee" after at least half of the Senators and half of the Cosă seats express their support in the Hopper for it doing so.
6.3. 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.
6.3.1 The CRL shall conduct all its deliberations openly in the Hopper.
6.3.2 The CRL shall consist of the incumbent Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral.
6.3.3. 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.
6.4. After the CRL has given its recommendation, or if it gives no recommendation within 30 days of the bill having passed to committee, the sponsor of the bill may ask for it to be Clarked, with or without amendments.
6.4.1 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.
6.4.2. 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.
6.5. The Secretary of State is empowered to refuse to put a certain bill on a Clark if said bill;
6.5.1. appears to him to be obviously on its face inorganic, or to have such grave errors as would make it ineffective and/or require further legislation or a Prime Dictate to make it effective.
6.5.2. does not specify exactly the Law(s) or Article(s) which it seeks to amend, change, or repeal, if the bill seeks to amend, change, or repeal any Article of the Organic Law or any Law
6.5.3. is not clearly typed or word-processed; and/or
6.5.4. is so substantially different from its form as a legislative proposal when "passed to committee" that it constitutes a significantly different proposal.
6.5.5. Any such decision shall be subject to judicial review.
6.6. All bills submitted for the Clark shall be in one of the national languages.
6.7. The Secretary of State shall remove legislative proposals from "The Hopper" at the request of the author.
6.7.1 If a legislative proposal has remained in the "The Hopper" for more than 59 days, it shall be considered to have been removed, though any person entitled to do so may subsequently re-publish it.
6.8. Notwithstanding the rules about a bill's eligibility to be Clarked, if no bill was submitted to the Clark at the moment of publication, the Secretary of State shall be allowed to add to the Clark a simple bill asking for Quorum where Cosa Members and Senators can vote to confirm their presence for the Clark.
6.9. The Secretary of State is under no obligation to create a permanent record of legislative proposals in "The Hopper."
2. El Lexhatx H.7, H.11, H.12 and H.13 are hereby deleted in their entirety, and Title H of El Lexhatx will subsequently be renumbered.
The main thing that jumps out at me here is that the main function of this bill would be to centralize power.
-Any Opposition bill or bill from a freethinking or "rogue" member of a Government party would now take twice as long to pass, and leadership would get to see a preliminary vote first (which makes it a lot easier to kill before passage). Plus the committee would get a full month to pick apart the bill however they want, which also makes it easier to kill the bill. Plus the actual Government would be given more power in the legislative process, which is unusual in terms of the separation of powers (executive officials aren't typically asked for their official blessing by the legislature).
-Any Government-approved bill can still skip the system and go right to a vote.
This seems problematic. I'd suggest either eliminating the Seneschal's free pass (which seems like a bad idea) or establishing this system on a more informal basis (which has the benefit of requiring no new laws and allowing the creation of a system that works prior to making it a legal requirement).
The Seneschal's free pass is actually a very useful tool for the many times when a bill needs to be passed quickly.
I'm still not really on board with the overall idea of this bill and it's companion; I think the only consequence will be two months of no comments rather than one
The goal of this bill is not a Government power grab, although I'm sure AD interprets it that way. It seems to me that AD has a habit of seeing virtually anything that happens in the Talossan State as a question of "how much power the institutions of Government have, and how they can be checked" (viz. the recent agonies over the Criminal Code). I have a very different lens: I see State actions through the question of "how effectively can good things be done, and bad things be revoked".
The goal of this bill is increased scrutiny over legislation which should lead to increased quality of legislation, something that I thought we were all agreed on was a goal. AD's best previous answer to this has been to shame people for making errors in legislation that weren't picked up; an approach which he just got on the receiving end of re: translations into Talossan and didn't seem to enjoy much. So, an institutional rather than personal answer seems best to me.
If AD objects to the Seneschal's Free Pass, that's in the Organic Law and I invite him to throw repeal into the pot in the All-Party OrgLaw Committee thread (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=970.0). If AD objects to having a Cabinet Minister on the CRL, well, that's a different question. I see it as "the Attorney-General has State responsibility for the quality of law". AD sees it as the Government getting control over things. See above. So would a different composition of the CRL sweeten the deal?
The fact that we need this bill at all is shown by the fact that - once again - this bill was ignored until its proponent said "right, I want to Clark this". A step before Clarking - "right, I want to take this to Committee" - seems indicated.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 26, 2021, 05:19:16 PM
The goal of this bill is not a Government power grab, although I'm sure AD interprets it that way. It seems to me that AD has a habit of seeing virtually anything that happens in the Talossan State as a question of "how much power the institutions of Government have, and how they can be checked" (viz. the recent agonies over the Criminal Code). I have a very different lens: I see State actions through the question of "how effectively can good things be done, and bad things be revoked".
I'd agree with your general sentiment, but I usually think of it in terms of (a) what is the real practical effect likely to be and (b) how could this be abused?
I'm not sure your motives matter very much here, either, to that point. (I don't think this was a "power grab;" you've been proposing these sorts of things for a long time, cf. your Scribe bill, CRL, etc.) But that doesn't change the practical effects: this bill would put up significant new barriers to legislation not approved by the Government. If you don't like that outcome, then change the bill.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 26, 2021, 05:19:16 PMIf AD objects to the Seneschal's Free Pass, that's in the Organic Law
Getting rid of the pass in this new process was your idea. You suggested it in the first post.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 26, 2021, 05:19:16 PMIf AD objects to having a Cabinet Minister on the CRL, well, that's a different question. I see it as "the Attorney-General has State responsibility for the quality of law". AD sees it as the Government getting control over things.
Usually it's the legislature that has responsibility for the quality of the law. But again, motivation doesn't really enter into it. You're proposing changing the law, and even if your motivations are as pure as the driven snow, that doesn't prevent the changes from having consequences.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 26, 2021, 05:19:16 PMThe fact that we need this bill at all is shown by the fact that - once again - this bill was ignored until its proponent said "right, I want to Clark this". A step before Clarking - "right, I want to take this to Committee" - seems indicated.
...but didn't you just demonstrate how the current process works fine? You announced you wanted to Clark this and drew attention back to it, and you got more feedback on it? I mean, beyond the people who already had objections?
I no longer support removing the Seneschál's Free Pass after Senator Plätschisch pointed out that some kind of "urgency measure" for emergencies is useful; although of course an argument could be made that we have PDs for that. But once more that's an issue for the OrgLaw Reform Committee.
I simply don't agree with you on what the real practical effect is likely to be, given that the vast majority of legislation in Talossa comes from the Government in any case. What we want is a situation where opposition and cross-bench MZs get maximum time and motivation to go through every bill and point out problems. If you want to strike an anti-government pose, fine; let's say that Government-aligned MCs and Senators have less motivation to "get it right the first time" because 'we can amend it later', so delayed law = good law.
The question is how to maximise scrutiny of laws before they go on the Clark. You've deliberately ignored the question of what happens if the A-Xh is no longer on the CRL, so I'll repose that; also the question of, what if a lower threshold (eg 1/3) were required to take a bill to Committee?
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 26, 2021, 08:05:07 PM
I no longer support removing the Seneschál's Free Pass after Senator Plätschisch pointed out that some kind of "urgency measure" for emergencies is useful; although of course an argument could be made that we have PDs for that. But once more that's an issue for the OrgLaw Reform Committee.
Yes, PDs seem like the better way to address emergencies. I actually hadn't thought of that, and now you make me think that eliminating the pass is the best solution! I hadn't thought it was, but that single change would make the whole bill acceptable.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 26, 2021, 08:05:07 PMI simply don't agree with you on what the real practical effect is likely to be, given that the vast majority of legislation in Talossa comes from the Government in any case. What we want is a situation where opposition and cross-bench MZs get maximum time and motivation to go through every bill and point out problems. If you want to strike an anti-government pose, fine; let's say that Government-aligned MCs and Senators have less motivation to "get it right the first time" because 'we can amend it later', so delayed law = good law.
Sure, I'm on board with the general idea.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 26, 2021, 08:05:07 PMYou've deliberately ignored the question of what happens if the A-Xh is no longer on the CRL, so I'll repose that; also the question of, what if a lower threshold (eg 1/3) were required to take a bill to Committee?
I didn't think that was actually directed at me, since there's no need to "sweeten the pot" for me. I'm not a member of the Ziu, so I can't vote no matter what I think about it :)
But taking you at face value: to me, the main issue is clearly that it seriously sharpens the two-track system of Government vs non-Government bills. Anything that reduces or eliminates this problem will improve the bill. Both of those changes would make it better. Giving the Opposition Leader the same power to skip the process would be another. But again, eliminating the pass entirely would completely eliminate the problem in my eyes and make the whole thing completely fine.
Hmmm. Well, if that's the only problem... I have no problem with introducing a bill to repeal OrgLaw VII.6, but that would probably have to wait until the end of the Cosa to go through. Maybe as part of an omnibus with other OrgLaw fixes.
However, it should be replaced - in this bill - by a means for the Ziu to "declare urgency" and skip straight to Clarking if necessary. What would give the most democratic safeguards - a 2/3 majority, or the consent of the Leader of the Opposition? (OppLeader is one of those offices I'd honestly like to "beef up". At the moment I think their own real job is to read a rebuttal to the Speech from the Throne at the State Opening of the Ziu.)
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 26, 2021, 09:45:01 PM
Hmmm. Well, if that's the only problem... I have no problem with introducing a bill to repeal OrgLaw VII.6, but that would probably have to wait until the end of the Cosa to go through. Maybe as part of an omnibus with other OrgLaw fixes.
However, it should be replaced - in this bill - by a means for the Ziu to "declare urgency" and skip straight to Clarking if necessary. What would give the most democratic safeguards - a 2/3 majority, or the consent of the Leader of the Opposition? (OppLeader is one of those offices I'd honestly like to "beef up". At the moment I think their own real job is to read a rebuttal to the Speech from the Throne at the State Opening of the Ziu.)
I personally don't have any other objections, but yeah, deleting that sentence from the OrgLaw in combo with this bill seems to be the best solution. It exacerbates the two-track system far too much the way it is, but (I think) that's purely a function of the Seneschal's pass. Without that, it seems like a level playing field.
To your latter concern, I personally wouldn't see the need to add in a mechanism for the Ziu as a whole to act with celerity to skip the process. It seems to me like the existing VoC and Distain mechanisms would serve just fine for that. If the Seneschal can't do something urgent because they're absent or ill, the Distain can do it. If the Seneschal simply refuses and it's really so urgent, then threaten their removal.
On further thought, I don't think ultimately it should be possible for a bill to be defeated without enough members to defeat the bill in the clark actively opposing it.
Still like the compulsory committee idea, although there should be exceptions.
If it gets clarked in its current form I will vote against it, but either way I will come up with some suggested amendments in August.
I really look forward to those suggested amendments. Just "bumping" this to remind people - am keen to Clark in August.
Bump. Waiting on those amendments.
Oh, never mind. How's about this, which covers Glüc's objection and the question of "urgency" with one fell swoop?
Quote6.2. After a legislative proposal has spent at least 10 days in the Hopper, its proposer may request that it "move to committee". A bill shall be considered to have "moved to committee" after at least half of the Senators and half of the Cosă seats express their support in the Hopper for it doing so. A bill may be Clarked without being "moved to committee" if at least half of the Senators and 2/3 of Cosă seats express their support in the Hopper for it doing so.
My original objection remains to the bill: I think it unacceptably centralizes power in the hands of the Government. I would suggest you amend it to be an "act and amendment" and include a repeal of the Seneschal's pass. Your idea was a good one and we should just commit to it. Anything actually urgent can be a PD.
First point: the Coalition Agreement states that OrgLaw amendments need to be discussed and approved by an all-party committee (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=970.0). This was put in because the LCC was worried that the Free Democrats would blindside them with a Republic Now Amendment or some such.
Second point: I am in two minds over that provision myself. A question that has just come to hand: the Minister of Finance hasn't Hoppered the Budget yet, which I think means technically under current rules the Budget couldn't appear on the Second Clark, as the law mandates it should. At the moment, that part of the OrgLaw means that the Seneschál can "rush" it onto the Second Clark. Absent that, the only solution is for a month of recess, which might not be granted because (apparently) the King's too busy to even formally open the Cosa. So I am minded to put the provision up for separate vote on which I would personally abstain.
Thirdly: an OrgLaw amendment wouldn't be enacted until the next election anyway, so what's a few Clarks?
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 22, 2021, 04:30:00 PM
First point: the Coalition Agreement states that OrgLaw amendments need to be discussed and approved by an all-party committee (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=970.0). This was put in because the LCC was worried that the Free Democrats would blindside them with a Republic Now Amendment or some such.
Second point: I am in two minds over that provision myself. A question that has just come to hand: the Minister of Finance hasn't Hoppered the Budget yet, which I think means technically under current rules the Budget couldn't appear on the Second Clark, as the law mandates it should. At the moment, that part of the OrgLaw means that the Seneschál can "rush" it onto the Second Clark. Absent that, the only solution is for a month of recess, which might not be granted because (apparently) the King's too busy to even formally open the Cosa. So I am minded to put the provision up for separate vote on which I would personally abstain.
Thirdly: an OrgLaw amendment wouldn't be enacted until the next election anyway, so what's a few Clarks?
I don't really see any hold-up with the all party committee if you were to propose this. I hope you will. Have you already written the text to the amendment? If not, I'll be happy to help.
I agree that the budget thing is a problem. Fortunately, it can be solved right now. But I'll also point out that there's no real consequence if a government's Seneschal, Distain, and MinFin all miss the deadline and no one hoppers a budget bill. I'm not sure if it's ever happened before, but I'm very sure that no one's going to prosecute you guys over it. It might be a good idea to make a habit of hoppering a shell bill immediately at the start of every new Government.
On the third point, I agree. There's no rush to pass this and so we can work it out without stress.
WHEREAS the quality of legislation passed by the Ziu of our Kingdom has always been of questionable quality, given not only the volunteer, part-time nature of our MCs and Senators, but also of the lack of "professional" legal advisers to proofread amateurishly-written bills;
AND WHEREAS the Hopper itself was an early attempt to improve the process; but has always been hampered by the disinterest or forgetfulness of MCs and Senators in reading legislation until it is Clarked, by which stage it is too late for amendments;
AND WHEREAS the last Cosa brought in la Comità da Redacziun Lexhislatïu (CRL) to streamline this process, but this body simply did not function in the last Cosa;
AND WHEREAS even if the CRL functions as foreseen in this Cosa, it does not solve the large problem mentioned above, that MCs and Senators do not pay attention to the details of bills until after they are Clarked;
AND WHEREAS the idea of a system of "multiple readings" of legislation before they become law has been raised in the past;
AND WHEREAS the incoming Attorney-General and Túischac'h have agreed on this proposal, which will require a form of "first reading", whereby bills cannot go to Clark for 30 days unless the CRL gives its affirmative say-so;
AND WHEREAS at the very, very worst this bill will only mean a 30-day delay in Clarking bills;
AND WHEREAS there is still an "escape hatch" for cases of legislative urgency, in the provisions of Organic Law VII.6: "The Seneschál shall have the right at his discretion to withdraw any legislative proposal from the Hopper and instruct the Secretary of State to treat it as a properly submitted bill"; and also in the provision for Prime Dictates;
AND WHEREAS the right of the Seneschál to do this is controversial and is the subject of a separate Organic Law amendment;
AND WHEREAS this bill also provides for this "urgency" process to be triggered by a Cosa supermajority;
BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosă and Senäts of Talossa in Ziu assembled that
1. El Lexhatx H.6 shall be replaced in its entirety as follows:
Quote6. No bill may be published in a Clark unless it has passed the Hopper, as provided in this section.
6.1. All citizens of Talossa are entitled to participate fully in discussions and debates in the Hopper, within the bounds of law and of the decisions of the administering and presiding authorities of the Hopper. Any citizen may submit a draft of legislation to the Hopper, though these shall not be considered to be "legislative proposals" until sponsored by one or more individuals authorised to submit legislative proposals under Organic Law VII.5.
6.2. After a legislative proposal has spent at least 10 days in the Hopper, its proposer may request that it "move to committee". A bill may be Clarked without being "moved to committee" if at least half of the Senators and 2/3 of Cosă seats express their support in the Hopper for it doing so.
6.3. 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.
6.3.1 The CRL shall conduct all its deliberations openly in the Hopper.
6.3.2 The CRL shall consist of the incumbent Mençei, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral.
6.3.3. 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.
6.4. After the CRL has given its recommendation, or if it gives no recommendation within 30 days of the bill having passed to committee, the sponsor of the bill may ask for it to be Clarked, with or without amendments.
6.4.1 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.
6.4.2. 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.
6.5. The Secretary of State is empowered to refuse to put a certain bill on a Clark if said bill;
6.5.1. appears to him to be obviously on its face inorganic, or to have such grave errors as would make it ineffective and/or require further legislation or a Prime Dictate to make it effective.
6.5.2. does not specify exactly the Law(s) or Article(s) which it seeks to amend, change, or repeal, if the bill seeks to amend, change, or repeal any Article of the Organic Law or any Law
6.5.3. is not clearly typed or word-processed; and/or
6.5.4. is so substantially different from its form as a legislative proposal when "passed to committee" that it constitutes a significantly different proposal.
6.5.5. Any such decision shall be subject to judicial review.
6.6. All bills submitted for the Clark shall be in one of the national languages.
6.7. The Secretary of State shall remove legislative proposals from "The Hopper" at the request of the author.
6.7.1 If a legislative proposal has remained in the "The Hopper" for more than 59 days, it shall be considered to have been removed, though any person entitled to do so may subsequently re-publish it.
6.8. Notwithstanding the rules about a bill's eligibility to be Clarked, if no bill was submitted to the Clark at the moment of publication, the Secretary of State shall be allowed to add to the Clark a simple bill asking for Quorum where Cosa Members and Senators can vote to confirm their presence for the Clark.
6.9. The Secretary of State is under no obligation to create a permanent record of legislative proposals in "The Hopper."
2. El Lexhatx H.7, H.11, H.12 and H.13 are hereby deleted in their entirety, and Title H of El Lexhatx will subsequently be renumbered.
Wrote a version that allows for all kinds of exceptions. (Changes in bold)
I am considering writing an amendment that more explictly suggests committees should be delegated to MCs/Senators depending on the topic, rather than every bill being handled by the same trio. The proposal allows that as an option, but maybe it should be the default somehow. I guess that can also be added later though (if the bill passes and it turns out that option is not being used in practice).
Havent dealt with spending and emergencies. I suppose those are covered by the Seneschal superpowers for now, but if limits were placed on that (which I think should happen) then that is something to keep in mind.
I was also considering some very complicated workaround with regards to the support needed to move to committee, but I suppose scrapping that requirement altogether was the more sensible move.
BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosă and Senäts of Talossa in Ziu assembled that
1. El Lexhatx H.6 shall be replaced in its entirety as follows:
Quote6. No bill may be published in a Clark unless it has passed the Hopper, as provided in this section.
6.1. All citizens of Talossa are entitled to participate fully in discussions and debates in the Hopper, within the bounds of law and of the decisions of the administering and presiding authorities of the Hopper. Any citizen may submit a draft of legislation to the Hopper, though these shall not be considered to be "legislative proposals" until sponsored by one or more individuals authorised to submit legislative proposals under Organic Law VII.5.
6.2 A bill has passed the hopper if it has spent at least 10 days in the Hopper, and is exclusively limited to the following:
6.2.1 Non-binding proclamations that have no effect other than express the wish of the Cosa, Senate, or Ziu as a whole, in which case the bill must contain the words "Sense of the Cosa", "Sense of the Senate" or "Sense of the Ziu" in its title.
6.2.2. Proclamations that establish the position of the Ziu on a foreign policy issue.
6.2.3. Establishment of a committee that has no powers other than advisory powers and whose recommendations must still be approved by the Ziu in order to be binding and making appointments to such a committee.
6.2.4. Appointments to functions that are already defined in law and for which the Ziu is explicitly allowed to make appointments according to law.
6.2.5. Any decision which the law explicitly allows the Ziu to make without the bill containing such a decision having to go through committee.
6.2.6 Removing a regent or consenting to the re-appointment of a regent in accordance with Org.II.5
6.2.7 Revoking a Prime Dictate
6.2.8 Notices of reprimand in accordance with Org.VIII.5
6.2.9. The granting or restoration of citizenship
6.3. 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.
6.4. 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 Lex.H.6.2 or Lex.H.6.3
6.5. 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.
6.6. 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.
6.6.1 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.
6.6.2. 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.
6.7. The Secretary of State is empowered to refuse to put a certain bill on a Clark if said bill;
6.7.1. appears to him to be obviously on its face inorganic, or to have such grave errors as would make it ineffective and/or require further legislation or a Prime Dictate to make it effective.
6.7.2. does not specify exactly the Law(s) or Article(s) which it seeks to amend, change, or repeal, if the bill seeks to amend, change, or repeal any Article of the Organic Law or any Law
6.7.3. is not clearly typed or word-processed; and/or
6.7.4. is so substantially different from its form as a legislative proposal when "passed to committee" that it constitutes a significantly different proposal.
6.7.5. has not passed the hopper or is deemed by the sponsor to have passed the hopper in accordance with Lex.H.6.2. but is in the judgement of the Secretary of State not limited exclusively limited to the items listed in Lex.H.6.2.
6.7.6. Any such decision shall be subject to judicial review.
6.8. All bills submitted for the Clark shall be in one of the national languages.
6.9. The Secretary of State shall remove legislative proposals from "The Hopper" at the request of the author.
6.9.1 If a legislative proposal has remained in the "The Hopper" for more than 59 days, it shall be considered to have been removed, though any person entitled to do so may subsequently re-publish it.
6.10. Notwithstanding the rules about a bill's eligibility to be Clarked, if no bill was submitted to the Clark at the moment of publication, the Secretary of State shall be allowed to add to the Clark a simple bill asking for Quorum where Cosa Members and Senators can vote to confirm their presence for the Clark.
6.11. The Secretary of State is under no obligation to create a permanent record of legislative proposals in "The Hopper."
2.Lex.G.11.4. is amended to read:
Quote11.4. Retired status can be revoked only in the event of a conviction by a Talossan Court for misconduct while serving in a judicial capacity. In the event of such conviction, revocation of retirement privileges shall be contained as part of the sentencing order. Retired status can also be revoked by the Ziu through majority vote, without needing to go through committee, and approval by the Monarch. Such legislative action can be taken only after the retiree has been convicted by a Talossan Court for misconduct while serving in a judicial capacity and only after all appeals have been exhausted.
3. Lex.H.25.1 is amended to read:
Quote25.1 Members who cannot attend will not be denied the right to vote on that month's Clark. They may send their votes to the Secretary of State by any means feasible, so that they can be announced at the Living Cosâ. A member may, in writing, delegate his authority to vote (temporarily transfer his seats) to another person who can attend the Living Cosâ, but no individual may hold more than thirty seats, counting both proxy and permanently assigned seats, for purposes of the Living Cosâ. The Ziu may provide by law, without needing to go through committee, for quorum requirements, and for attendance via telephone, videoconference, or other remote means.
4. Lex.C.1.2.2.2. is amended to read:
Quote1.2.2.2. Other questions on the Talossan Census shall be identical to the questions on the last census. These questions may be changed by the Chancery, either of its own volition or on request from the Seneschal, but any changes shall be approved by the Ziu, without needing to go through committee. These questions will be marked as optional, and at no time shall a citizen be forced or required to respond to an optional question.
5. El Lexhatx H.7, H.11, H.12 and H.13 are hereby deleted in their entirety, and Title H of El Lexhatx will subsequently be renumbered.
If I'm reading it right, you're adding exceptions to my proposal rather than changing its fundamentals, is that correct? If that's right, then I would recommend you refer it to the CRL, and if Marcel and Eric agree that it's adding exceptions and not taking anything away, I am happy to present this to the next Clark.
So the committee has discussed this: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=629.msg8145#msg8145. I supposed it's up to you to decide how to proceed from here. Are you planning to clark this next term and if so will you include the changes I proposed?
As I previously said: the Committee said it's not a significant change, so I don't see any reason not to Clark it.
Let me expand on that a bit: being in Government for quite a while, I have developed a massive allergy to overcomplex legislation so I try to keep my own projects minimal. But if I can get more people on board by adding some ribbons and bells, then why not
WHEREAS the quality of legislation passed by the Ziu of our Kingdom has always been of questionable quality, given not only the volunteer, part-time nature of our MCs and Senators, but also of the lack of "professional" legal advisers to proofread amateurishly-written bills;
AND WHEREAS the Hopper itself was an early attempt to improve the process; but has always been hampered by the disinterest or forgetfulness of MCs and Senators in reading legislation until it is Clarked, by which stage it is too late for amendments;
AND WHEREAS the last Cosa brought in la Comità da Redacziun Lexhislatïu (CRL) to streamline this process, but this body simply did not function in the last Cosa;
AND WHEREAS even if the CRL functions as foreseen in this Cosa, it does not solve the large problem mentioned above, that MCs and Senators do not pay attention to the details of bills until after they are Clarked;
AND WHEREAS the idea of a system of "multiple readings" of legislation before they become law has been raised in the past;
AND WHEREAS the incoming Attorney-General and Túischac'h have agreed on this proposal, which will require a form of "first reading", whereby bills will need a affirmative majority of both houses (along the same lines as a Túischac'h election) to go to the CRL, and subsequently cannot go to Clark for 30 days unless the CRL gives its affirmative say-so;
AND WHEREAS at the very, very worst this bill will only mean a 30-day delay in Clarking bills;
AND WHEREAS there is still an "escape hatch" for cases of legislative urgency, in the provisions of Organic Law VII.6: "The Seneschál shall have the right at his discretion to withdraw any legislative proposal from the Hopper and instruct the Secretary of State to treat it as a properly submitted bill"; and also in the provision for Prime Dictates;
AND WHEREAS a future reform, whereby the Cosă and Senäts will vote separately on legislation to allow even more opportunity for scrutiny and debate, may be presented later in this Cosă term, whether this bill passes or not;
BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosă and Senäts of Talossa in Ziu assembled that
1. El Lexhatx H.6 shall be replaced in its entirety as follows:
Quote6. No bill may be published in a Clark unless it has passed the Hopper, as provided in this section.
6.1. All citizens of Talossa are entitled to participate fully in discussions and debates in the Hopper, within the bounds of law and of the decisions of the administering and presiding authorities of the Hopper. Any citizen may submit a draft of legislation to the Hopper, though these shall not be considered to be "legislative proposals" until sponsored by one or more individuals authorised to submit legislative proposals under Organic Law VII.5.
6.2 A bill has passed the hopper if it has spent at least 10 days in the Hopper, and is exclusively limited to the following:
6.2.1 Non-binding proclamations that have no effect other than express the wish of the Cosa, Senate, or Ziu as a whole, in which case the bill must contain the words "Sense of the Cosa", "Sense of the Senate" or "Sense of the Ziu" in its title.
6.2.2. Proclamations that establish the position of the Ziu on a foreign policy issue.
6.2.3. Establishment of a committee that has no powers other than advisory powers and whose recommendations must still be approved by the Ziu in order to be binding and making appointments to such a committee.
6.2.4. Appointments to functions that are already defined in law and for which the Ziu is explicitly allowed to make appointments according to law.
6.2.5. Any decision which the law explicitly allows the Ziu to make without the bill containing such a decision having to go through committee.
6.2.6 Removing a regent or consenting to the re-appointment of a regent in accordance with Org.II.5
6.2.7 Revoking a Prime Dictate
6.2.8 Notices of reprimand in accordance with Org.VIII.5
6.2.9. The granting or restoration of citizenship
6.3. 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.
6.4. 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 Lex.H.6.2 or Lex.H.6.3.
6.5. 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.
6.6. 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.
6.6.1 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.
6.6.2. 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.
6.7. The Secretary of State is empowered to refuse to put a certain bill on a Clark if said bill;
6.7.1. appears to him to be obviously on its face inorganic, or to have such grave errors as would make it ineffective and/or require further legislation or a Prime Dictate to make it effective.
6.7.2. does not specify exactly the Law(s) or Article(s) which it seeks to amend, change, or repeal, if the bill seeks to amend, change, or repeal any Article of the Organic Law or any Law
6.7.3. is not clearly typed or word-processed; and/or
6.7.4. is so substantially different from its form as a legislative proposal when "passed to committee" that it constitutes a significantly different proposal.
6.7.5. has not passed the hopper or is deemed by the sponsor to have passed the hopper in accordance with Lex.H.6.2. but is in the judgement of the Secretary of State not limited exclusively limited to the items listed in Lex.H.6.2.
6.7.6. Any such decision shall be subject to judicial review.
6.8. All bills submitted for the Clark shall be in one of the national languages.
6.9. The Secretary of State shall remove legislative proposals from "The Hopper" at the request of the author.
6.9.1 If a legislative proposal has remained in the "The Hopper" for more than 59 days, it shall be considered to have been removed, though any person entitled to do so may subsequently re-publish it.
6.10. Notwithstanding the rules about a bill's eligibility to be Clarked, if no bill was submitted to the Clark at the moment of publication, the Secretary of State shall be allowed to add to the Clark a simple bill asking for Quorum where Cosa Members and Senators can vote to confirm their presence for the Clark.
6.11. The Secretary of State is under no obligation to create a permanent record of legislative proposals in "The Hopper."
2.Lex.G.11.4. is amended to read:
Quote11.4. Retired status can be revoked only in the event of a conviction by a Talossan Court for misconduct while serving in a judicial capacity. In the event of such conviction, revocation of retirement privileges shall be contained as part of the sentencing order. Retired status can also be revoked by the Ziu through majority vote, without needing to go through committee, and approval by the Monarch. Such legislative action can be taken only after the retiree has been convicted by a Talossan Court for misconduct while serving in a judicial capacity and only after all appeals have been exhausted.
3. Lex.H.25.1 is amended to read:
Quote25.1 Members who cannot attend will not be denied the right to vote on that month's Clark. They may send their votes to the Secretary of State by any means feasible, so that they can be announced at the Living Cosâ. A member may, in writing, delegate his authority to vote (temporarily transfer his seats) to another person who can attend the Living Cosâ, but no individual may hold more than thirty seats, counting both proxy and permanently assigned seats, for purposes of the Living Cosâ. The Ziu may provide by law, without needing to go through committee, for quorum requirements, and for attendance via telephone, videoconference, or other remote means.
4. Lex.C.1.2.2.2. is amended to read:
Quote1.2.2.2. Other questions on the Talossan Census shall be identical to the questions on the last census. These questions may be changed by the Chancery, either of its own volition or on request from the Seneschal, but any changes shall be approved by the Ziu, without needing to go through committee. These questions will be marked as optional, and at no time shall a citizen be forced or required to respond to an optional question.
5. El Lexhatx H.7, H.11, H.12 and H.13 are hereby deleted in their entirety, and Title H of El Lexhatx will subsequently be renumbered.