[CRL] There’s No Half-Time in the Ziu Amendment

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Whereas, it is possible, under the current attendance rules, for an MC or Senator to miss half of each term's Clarks and remain a member in good standing, and

Whereas, it is easy to become an MC or Senator but it should not be easy to remain an MC or Senator if one does not show up, and

Whereas, membership in our national legislature should be a privilege that commands enough respect that those who do not show up face stricter consequences.

Therefore, be it enacted, that Organic Law Article IV, Section 5 which currently reads as:

Each person holding one or more seats is a representative known as a "Member of the Cosa" (MC). MCs may not be removed from office except by a two-thirds vote by the Cosa and approval by the King. An MC vacates his seats if he fails to vote on two consecutive Clarks, or if he resigns from office or dies. The seats of any MC who is removed or vacates shall be reassigned according to Section 4, above.

Is amended to read as:

Each person holding one or more seats is a representative known as a "Member of the Cosa" (MC). MCs may not be removed from office except by a two-thirds vote by the Cosa and approval by the King. An MC vacates his seats if he fails to vote on two consecutive Clarks, three Clarks non-consecutively, or if he resigns from office or dies. The seats of any MC who is removed or vacates shall be reassigned according to Section 4, above.

And be it further enacted that Organic Law Article III, Section 5 which currently reads as:

A Senator vacates their seat if, not being disqualified from voting by law, they do not vote on two consecutive Clarks; or if they resign from office, lose their citizenship or die.

Is amended to read as:

A Senator vacates their seat if (not being disqualified from voting by law) they fail to vote on two consecutive Clarks within a single Cosa term, or if (not being disqualified from voting by law) they fail to vote on nine Clarks non-consecutively within their full term of office, or if they resign from office, or if they lose their citizenship, or if they die.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Breneir Tzaracomprada (Seneschal)
Tric'hard Lenxheir (Sen-Vuode)
@Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu @Sir Lüc @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu
Ready for your review

[esbornatfiglheu]

I believe this bill will function as intended.  Not seeing any typos, so Clark it.  Approve

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Looking closely at the second operative clause, I think the language is confusing.  Your change would have it:

"A Senator vacates their seat if, not being disqualified from voting by law, they do not vote on two consecutive Clarks within a single Cosa term, nine Clarks non-consecutively within their three-Cosa term of office or if they resign from office, lose their citizenship or die."

May I suggest instead:

"A Senator vacates their seat if they fail to vote on two consecutive Clarks within a single Cosa term, or if they fail to vote on nine Clarks non-consecutively within their full term of office, or if they resign from office, or if they lose their citizenship, or if they die."

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Looking closely at the second operative clause, I think the language is confusing.  Your change would have it:

"A Senator vacates their seat if, not being disqualified from voting by law, they do not vote on two consecutive Clarks within a single Cosa term, nine Clarks non-consecutively within their three-Cosa term of office or if they resign from office, lose their citizenship or die."

May I suggest instead:

"A Senator vacates their seat if they fail to vote on two consecutive Clarks within a single Cosa term, or if they fail to vote on nine Clarks non-consecutively within their full term of office, or if they resign from office, or if they lose their citizenship, or if they die."

Thank you Baron. Change made. For official purposes, does this now have your approval?

[Sir Lüc]

Huh, I was sure I had commented on this. I wanted to point out that your original language,

nine Clarks non-consecutively within their three-Cosa term of office

didn't take into account that not all terms last three Cosăs. This has now been changed so my observation is moot.

However, the new language introduces another issue, in my mind - the removal from the same clause of

not being disqualified from voting by law

This was an important proviso, because it resolved the gray area stemming from the Amada Merþedes case. It wasn't confusing or ambiguous, it had a reason to be there. I suggest it be reinstated.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Looking closely at the second operative clause, I think the language is confusing.  Your change would have it:

"A Senator vacates their seat if, not being disqualified from voting by law, they do not vote on two consecutive Clarks within a single Cosa term, nine Clarks non-consecutively within their three-Cosa term of office or if they resign from office, lose their citizenship or die."

May I suggest instead:

"A Senator vacates their seat if they fail to vote on two consecutive Clarks within a single Cosa term, or if they fail to vote on nine Clarks non-consecutively within their full term of office, or if they resign from office, or if they lose their citizenship, or if they die."

Thank you Baron. Change made. For official purposes, does this now have your approval?

Sir Luc raises a good point, sorry.  Don't mean to be a pain.

Huh, I was sure I had commented on this. I wanted to point out that your original language,

nine Clarks non-consecutively within their three-Cosa term of office

didn't take into account that not all terms last three Cosăs. This has now been changed so my observation is moot.

However, the new language introduces another issue, in my mind - the removal from the same clause of

not being disqualified from voting by law

This was an important proviso, because it resolved the gray area stemming from the Amada Merþedes case. It wasn't confusing or ambiguous, it had a reason to be there. I suggest it be reinstated.

The phrasing in English was definitely confusing as it was, I think -- having a series of conditional statements that only irregularly included "if" is a recipe for varying interpretations, especially when you also have an additional condition appended on to one of those conditions (or possibly two -- unclear!).  I have modified my suggested rephrasing with the re-addition of that additional condition as a parenthetical.  Would this be okay, @Breneir Tzaracomprada, @Sir Lüc, and @Miestră Schivă, UrN ?

"A Senator vacates their seat if (not being disqualified from voting by law) they fail to vote on two consecutive Clarks within a single Cosa term, or if (not being disqualified from voting by law) they fail to vote on nine Clarks non-consecutively within their full term of office, or if they resign from office, or if they lose their citizenship, or if they die."

[Sir Lüc]

Oh, that's fair enough, I hadn't spotted that ambiguity. Your latest suggestion looks fine to me.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Change made. @Sir Lüc and @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu would you please indicate your official approval for the SOS?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I approve 👍

[Sir Lüc]

Approved.