Quote from: Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN on Yesterday at 01:46:22 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on October 28, 2024, 07:39:53 PMMadam Constable,

Please advise on your response to the other three bills.

I think we need a separate thread where the Governor invites the Constable to consider passed resolutions for approval, with the full text of same. It will keep things easier to follow and I can see the final full text of the resolutions for consideration.

I'm quite happy to start one.

@Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN you've made your objections clear concerning that one bill. Now @Zilect Uómbat Firă please take that advice into consideration as you determine what your next steps are regarding the legislation.

Concerning the three other bills I assumed you had considered them received when you took official action on one of the four. If you want to create a thread that is fine with me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just over a week since conclusion of the referendum and I am sure there are arrangements necessary behind the scenes. Do we know when King John plans to abdicate and officialize Txec's ascension?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is really well done, this latest proposal and the style with which you've handled the discussion. Out of all the Avant coalition members the Reform Party has best demonstrated an ability to build consensus. I personally support Cosa Option 1 and hope to continue pushing for yearly fixed elections as I think more time for government action is not a bad thing nor is it bad for more time for the development of apolitical ventures.

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

Quote from: Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN on October 28, 2024, 07:21:14 PMIt appears to me that Article IV, Section 6 of the Constitution of Florencia has not been adhered to, as I see no evidence that the Governor has invited the Constable to consider any resolution for approval. This procedural step is essential under the Constitution to ensure the lawful enactment of resolutions.

Regardless, under my authority in Article IV, Section 6, I am formally disapproving the Statutory Law Codification Act. My objections are grounded in the resolution's apparent inorganic provisions that impose obligations upon the Crown to maintain and administer provincial laws. Should the office of Constable become vacant, this requirement would place a direct administrative responsibility upon the Sovereign, which is neither appropriate nor consistent with constitutional/organic intent. The Constitution nor OrgLaw does not envision a province requiring the Crown to undertake provincial administrative duties, as this fundamentally misinterprets the nature of the Crown's role.

Further, the resolution breaches Article III, Section 1, as it misinterprets the role of the Constable. The Constable is a representative of the Sovereign of Talossa, and the administration of provincial laws is not an obligation of the Crown but rather a duty of the provincial legislature, the Governor, or bodies created by them.

Per Article IV, Section 6:

QuotePresentation to the Constable
Whenever the House of Shepherds has passed a resolution, the Governor shall close the question, sign the instrument forthwith, and invite that Constable consider it for approval.
... If the Constable disapprove a resolution presented by the Governor, then the former shall return it to the consideration of the Shepherds with his objections in writing: and if the same resolution should earn again at least twice as many affirmative votes as negative ... the Governor shall close the question and promulgate the resolution forthwith.

For these reasons, I am returning the Statutory Law Codification Act to the House of Shepherds for further consideration, citing these constitutional/organic objections.

@Zilect Uómbat Firă the Constable has returned the bill to the House stating their objection(s). Please consider their objections if you plan to re-propose.

If the bill is re-submitted in its exact form and is passed again (but with twice as many votes as against) then it will be approved without assent by the Constable according to the Florencian Constitution here:

QuoteSection 6. Presentation to the Constable.
Whenever the House of Shepherds have passed a resolution, the Governor shall close the question, sign the instrument forthwith, and invite that Constable consider it for approval.

If the Constable should approve a resolution so presented, or fail to act upon it altogether during the fourteen days immediately following presentation, the Governor shall promulgate it then and it shall take effect.

If the Constable disapprove a resolution presented by the Governor, then the former shall return it to the consideration of the Shepherds with his objections in writing: and if the same resolution should earn again at least twice as many affirmative votes as negative, not later than the seventeenth day following its return, the Governor shall close the question and promulgate the resolution forthwith, and it shall take effect then; or else he shall close the question and declare it failed, albeit not rejected.

Madam Constable,

Please advise on your response to the other three bills.

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on October 28, 2024, 05:03:49 PM

Quote from: Zilect Uómbat Firă on October 28, 2024, 04:08:08 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on October 27, 2024, 03:32:25 PM@Zilect Uómbat Firă Well, while we wait for King John to abdicate and make Txec's ascension final I have an update. We do actually have a constable: @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN

In light of this, I wanted to confirm you would still prefer for me to petition Txec once he is officially king?

I'll defer to your discretion

I looked back and Dame Litz was confirmed as Cunstaval at the same time I was made Cunstaval of Vuode. I don't think I would look kindly on naming a new Cunstaval without the existing one either no longer active or voluntarily resigned.

- Txec

There are four bills recently passed by the Florencian House of Shepherds which await royal assent by the Constable.

The Constable has indicated in other threads that she is no longer on vacation. I will therefore give @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN a bit more time to decide on the outstanding legislation passed by the Florencian parliament.

As a courtesy, I am notifying both John and Txec that this lack of action would be the basis of a determination of "no longer active" as in inattentive to their duties.

Two weeks. Acting as Governor I will then lodge the petition if there is continued silence. And the legislation, in accordance with the Florencian Constitution, will be considered as approved.

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

Ah thanks, this is an excellent start.

Whereas,

Whereas,

Whereas,

---

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

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

Quote2.1.5. For each Cosă term is created a Comità da Redacziun Legislatïu (in english Legislative Advisory Committee), hereinafter "the CRL", which shall review or revise all legislative items from the Hopper once they have moved to committee; and may recommend acceptance or rejection , or suggest amendments in their best judgment.
2.1.5.1. The main, but not exclusive, purpose of the CRL, with the assistance of the Scribery, shall be to evaluate bills from the technical point of view of the quality of the legislation, the correctness of the language, the internal consistency of the document and consistency with existing legislation.
2.1.5.2. The CRL shall conduct all its deliberations openly in the Hopper.
2.1.5.3. The CRL shall consist of the incumbent Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral.
2.1.5.3.1. The Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral may at any time appoint and dismiss one Senator or one Membreu dal Cosă, to serve as a member of the CRL in their place.[716]
2.1.5.4. The CRL may create further committees to which their functions may be delegated, as concerns any bill or category of bills. Such a committee must have at least 3 members, including at least 1 Membreu dal Cosă and 1 Senator.
2.1.6. After the CRL has given its recommendation, or if it gives no recommendation within 30 days of the bill having passed to committee, the bill has passed the Hopper and the sponsor of the bill may ask for it to be Clarked, with or without amendments.
2.1.6.1. The same bill can not be submitted to the Clark more than once in the same Cosa, unless the original bill was vetoed, the original bill had been retired or voted down by its main sponsor during the voting period, or the bill has been substantially amended, as judged by the Secretary of State.
2.1.6.2. Bills must be submitted to the Secretary of State more than 24 hours before the publication of the Clark. Bills received less than 24 hours before publication of the Clark shall be published in the next Clark or postponed for one Clark, at the Secretary of State's discretion.

H.2.1.3 which currently reads as:

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

is revised to read as follows:

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

H.2.1.4 which currently reads as:

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

is revised to read as follows:

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

@Zilect Uómbat Firă Well, while we wait for King John to abdicate and make Txec's ascension final I have an update. We do actually have a constable: @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN

In light of this, I wanted to confirm you would still prefer for me to petition Txec once he is officially king?

Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on October 27, 2024, 03:07:14 PMMy recommendation would be to merge this proposal with "The Second Talossan Government Transparency (Repair) Act" and alter it to make sure a stopgap is always in place.

Done.