This bill is eligible for the CRL, so I have moved it here.

I have also tidied up bills on the CRL board, the Hopper and the Archives.

TLDR:

1) The original bill is unscribable because it specifically directs the Scribe to amend a section that doesn't exist (I think the "insofar as possible" clause in C.1.3.1 covers the Scribery's ass here);

2) The original bill cannot be fixed on the fly because neither the Scribery nor anyone else can amend existing legislation without passing other legislation anymore;

3) The C.1.3.1 caveat I brought up is moot and should probably be removed or fully restored (aka allowing the Scribery to interpret references to renumbered statute).

I was doing some unrelated research and stumbled upon stuff that is relevant to this matter. Lex.C.1.3.1. says:

QuoteThe Scribe of Abbavilla shall maintain all laws in L'Anuntzia dels Legeux, insofar as possible, with the same content that was approved by the Ziu, except that amending acts that refer to section numbers in pre-existing statutes that were changed by the Scribery shall be construed as referring to the equivalent section numbers in the amended statutes as originally enacted.

This bit confused me a lot and I couldn't quite figure out what it meant or where it applied. Maybe it could mean the Scribery could fix a bill that refers to outdated section numbers? - but then it says "changed by the Scribery", which doesn't seem to mean "scribed" on first glance.

Turns out that language originates from 45RZ25, which took away the Scribery's ability to do clerical maintenance of statutory law with this motivation:

Quote[...] certain laws on the books purport to give individual unelected officials the authority to change duly-enacted statutes, [...] limited to such edits as do not affect the "scope" or "intent" of the statutes, but such determinations are subjective and may be abused,[...]

Therefore that bit of C.1.3.1 presumably only applies to cases in which the Scribery has altered section numbers in existing legislation of its own volition - except that's not a power the Scribery has anymore, since it was taken away by that same 45RZ25; the only thing the Scribery can do at the moment is altering bills that are currently on the Clark, by the provisions of C.1.3.3-5.

(But then, why did that clause in C.1.3.1 exist at all? My theory is that since this is a November 2013 law, it was before the Database was brought back online and the Wiki-hosted Lexhatx became a centralised code; maybe being certain you had the most up to date version of a piece of statutory law, net any Scribery changes, was a legitimate issue. So it was only really effective in the incredibly tiny timespan before DB and Lexh came around a few months later.)

I would also like to cosponsor this bill (and suggest arrangements be made with @Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB  so it be symbolically Clarked first as RZ1)

---

Hear ye, let it be known that @Ian Plätschisch is hereby appointed Deputy Finance Minister, for the purpose of serving as the Government's representative among the signatories to the Treasury's accounts.

Tagging the Burgermeister Sir @xpb as notification, so that he may make the necessary arrangements, with thanks.


--Sir Lüc da Schir, UrB, Ministreu dals Finançuns

As with the other bill, I'd like to discharge the CRL from considering this bill as well.

I'd also like to discharge the CRL from considering this bill.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 15, 2024, 05:08:37 PMAnother good function of the CRL is that (given the precedent we've established) the Opposition parties have a 2-1 majority on it, enabling scrutiny which doesn't exist in a "bicameral system" where both Houses vote at once

I can't agree with that for two reasons: first, the CRL deals with form not merit, which should not be as politically controversial as to require a particular guaranteed political composition; and second, all we are currently guaranteeing is that both Government and Opposition are represented with at least one member, since there's no tradition stipulating the Mençei should be from the Opposition (and rightly so IMO, since the Senate is supposed to be less partisan).

May I also note, as I am about to leave the Civil Service for the second time (and this time not to leave Talossa!), how much of a pleasure being a part of it has been, no matter who was serving as the Seneschal, as the Minister overseeing my position or any other elected officials I was working with - @Miestră Schivă, UrN , @Breneir Tzaracomprada , @Bråneu Excelsio , @þerxh Sant-Enogat , @Danihel Txechescu , @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu and probably others I am forgetting at the moment.

Nothing is perfect, but lots has been done and overcome together. I sincerely hope the spirit of nonpartisan service to Talossa will persist in the months and years ahead.

Azul, my new office of Finance Minister being incompatible with any Permanent Secretary positions, I hereby resign as Backend Secretary, effective as soon as a successor is appointed by the new Technology Minister.

Given that such a successor is already known, as the previous Technology Minister @Danihel Txechescu has agreed to continue his stewardship of the Talossan web presence as the new PermSec, I'd like to take a moment to give heartfelt thanks to Danihel for his decision and for his exemplary service in Cabinet.

I am taking advantage of these last hours to complete my last handover of credentials from the old Cabinet to the new, after which I shall wait for the new PermSec to be appointed to transfer to him control over everything covered by the job description.

--Lüc, demissionary Backend PermSec

These kind of big offices without political connections or implications are tailor made for apolitical Talossans who might like to get involved more but struggle to *find something to do*. I would strongly prefer the new President of the Royal Society was one such scientifically-minded Talossan. If no such candidate existed, I would consider applying.

May I plead that any applicant be serious in restoring the Royal Society to its former glory, such as by reviewing membership rolls, revoking the ridiculous postnominals motion and exploring the possibility of offering courses - any kind of courses! - again?

I would be offering this comment as a member of the Royal Society, except all my membership enquiries over the years went unanswered - which is ironic considering academic research is currently my real life job.

Yeah, I meant to address this sooner or later as a sort of parting note from the CRL, where I won't be serving anymore. I still hope to be able to elaborate further, but I stand by what I said:

1) I don't disagree with some here asserting that the CRL has usually served its purpose well;

2) BUT, a standing committee is an unnecessarily cumbersome tool for the job;

2b) THAT IS, if we have it act as a true standing committee, which bills are referred to and discharged from - but if it isn't, why is it called that?;

3) We therefore need something more flexible in composition and operation BUT which can still offer meaningful and positive contributions.

As a result, I still support my earlier proposal on putting the Scribery back in charge of proofreading. Additionally:

Quote from: Sir Lüc on April 30, 2024, 10:30:28 AMHonestly, it pains me to be a stickler for procedure in this particular instance, given the lively and productive Hopper debate that originated

Again, I cannot stress this enough. I don't mean to be a pain in the ass; I literally would just like to advocate for slimmer, more flexible processes, so that *I don't have to be a stickler for procedure* anymore.

Congratulations!

The only thing that bothers me is that while "presente/presint" is a very touching concept, it has been appropriated by fascists in both Italy, which I was obviously already aware of, but also Spain, in the same exact form. (I do recognise that while the "presint" idea originated from a Spanish phrase, it was from an American website/organisation that had nothing to do with fascism.)

Perhaps a different title can be found? Maybe, as an example, some word akin to "dandelion" as a sort of "parallel metaphor"?