What is "a bill"? (serious question)

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

El Lexhatx H.2.1 repeats, over and over again, that the necessary requirement for any bill to be Clarked (or to be submitted to the CRL) is that it has "spent 10 days in the Hopper".

The problem is - as we found in the Succession Amendment thread - at least one member of the CRL thinks that if a bill's language changes fundamentally (like, from a new draft), it's no longer the same bill and has to start again.

El Lexh H.2.1.7.4 gives the SoS authority not to Clark a bill which is totally different from what went to the CRL. If we want the CRL to have the authority to do the same to a bill whose language has changed either totally or significantly over its 10 days, we should do so explicitly.

But I disagree. My preferred amendment would be to change the language

A bill has passed the Hopper if it has spent at least 10 days in the Hopper

wherever it appears to be something like:

A legislative proposal has passed the Hopper if the substantive text of the bill has been debated in the Hopper for at least 10 days and its proposer is satisfied with its form.

Which way do we want to shift it? The current ambiguity is not ideal.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

The purpose of the Hopper is to debate bills and make changes. As SoS, the only time I would refuse a bill is if the bill in the Hopper in its final, debated form is substantially different from what came out of the CRL. The CRL shouldn't be able to say "hey this bill changed a lot, start over." That isn't really its function.

[Sir Lüc]

Yes, I agree there's a lot of ambiguity not just in the definition of a bill, but also in the role of the CRL (and relatedly in what "passing", "moving to committee", and so on actually mean).

I do think I have tended to interpret things from a "big boy Parliament" standpoint, thus thinking about a bill as a more-or-less well-formed piece of legislation and not as an overarching idea, and the CRL as a fixed link in the Hopper-to-Clark process, irrevocably placed immediately before floor passage as a proofreading step; and to be fair, several passages in existing legislation do support this stricter interpretation, which is why I never assumed I was pulling stuff out of my ciul!

Perhaps there's a disconnect between form and practice, since AFAIK, in "big boy Parliaments", it's not committees that normally do the CRL's proofreading job, but rather non-MP entities such as clerks and the Table Office - and to be fair, this would be the case in Talossa too, since the Scribery is technically tasked with basically the same job as the CRL by Lex.C.1.3.2-5.

All this said, it may be counterintuitive but I do agree with Miestră: much as in other areas (exibit 1 and exibit 2), I am in favour of more flexibility as long as it's clearly spelled out in law. (I would honestly be even more radical and get rid of the CRL entirely, but I'll reserve my actual recommendations for another time.)

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Well, we can go back to first principles: the point of the CRL has been to do a "final proofread" to stop obvious typos and blunders from being passed into law because no-one reads our legislation. If there's a better way to do that than the CRL I crave to hear it.

[Sir Lüc]

My current idea is putting Lex.C.1.3.2-5 into practice and having the Scribery manage a pool of "proofreaders" (call them whatever you want) that can suggest amendments about form at any point between Hoppering and Clarking.

• Proofreaders would work as a team, rather than independently like CRL members - and only one proofreader is required for each bill, possibly divvying up work more efficiently;
• Proofreaders don't hold their office by virtue of another office (IMO a flaw of the CRL);
• Proofreaders need not be members of the Ziu or Government, but I heavily suggest that major parties do recommend to the Scribe a proofreader each, to build lawmaking expertise;
• Proofreaders are expected to largely advise according to "good practice guidelines" on style and form for bills;
• Input may come from any proofreader as soon as a bill is Hoppered without the need to ask; but if no input is provided by a set date before the next Call for Bills opens, the bill proponent could be required to ask for input before Clarking (but an answer must come before the Call for Bills opens, or the proponent is allowed to assume silence means assent);
• No provision for proofreaders to block or reject a bill - they may only okay it or suggest amendments;
• As a further help to lawmakers that may not be familiar with procedure, it may be stipulated that suggested amendments are automatically applied by the Secretary of State upon Clarking, as long as they're judged to be in order (ie. they only concern the form of the bill);
• Proofreaders's analysis on form takes place freely within the Hopper debate on merit, rather than halting debate by moving the bill to committee;
• Proofreaders are allowed to advise about anything that comes before the Clark, instead of the Lex.H.2.1.2. exceptions to the CRL's authority;
• No need for proofreaders to concern themselves about "what a bill is" and whether a bill has or has not spent 10 days in the Hopper in order to be eligible for the CRL.

[Sir Lüc]

Anyway, while I doubt anyone is interested in seeing my point regarding my interpretation that originated this all, I really want to reiterate the assumptions I was operating under.

The CRL shouldn't be able to say "hey this bill changed a lot, start over." That isn't really its function.

The law stipulates that the CRL is implicitly called to make a judgement about whether a bill, having spent 10 days in the Hopper, is eligible to be moved to committee or not. To me, it seemed trivial that even though it shared the same Hopper thread, "The Vacant Throne (We Really Mean Business Now) Amendment" was not the same bill (in title, effects and content) as "The Succession Amendment" first posted by Miestră on the 17th, then amended by AD on the 20th. So as Sir Txec says, it shouldn't, but it does.

Honestly, it pains me to be a stickler for procedure in this particular instance, given the lively and productive Hopper debate that originated; but if this is allowed, then there's no reason why someone couldn't Hopper an uncontroversial bill (say, adjusting the party registration fee), replace it wholesale on day 10 with a different, "malignant" bill on the same topic (say, stipulating that the fee may only be paid in person), get a CRL review and get it Clarked with no opportunity for a debate on merit. I was simply trying to avoid setting bad precedent.

[Sir Lüc]

Again, the crux of the matter is that we're operating on vibes in two substantial ways: the definition of a bill (and in particular how we handle bills compared to big boy legislatures) and the operation of the CRL (or more accurately the fact that a standing committee is the wrong tool for the job, if it is not expected to operate as such).

This would necessarily be a long, nerdy ramble that I don't have time to write right now. For now, I hope that my Scribery proposal above can at least address the CRL part and why there could be more agile and flexible ways of proofreading legislation.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

If the CRL is retained, in the ideal this would be handled in the same way most legislature do: custom and majority rule.  The CRL wouldn't be in the law at all, but instead would be part of a package of rules adopted at the start of a term.  I don't know if this is practical at this time, though, since we would have a hard time with legislative motions or votes outside of the Clark system.

So for now, I think it should be left to discretion and norms.  People should absolutely be permitted to submit a shell bill to the CRL for review and approval, and then replace it with entirely different legislative text without submitting it for approval again.  But the CRL is allowed to be annoyed and point this out as a problem with the legislation, and that would be a flaw that might justify voting against the bill.

This allows leadership and time-sensitive things to be pushed through, while at the same time upholding a norm that legislation should be reviewed for form and function before going to a vote.  Most legislatures operate in this way.

(I would honestly be even more radical and get rid of the CRL entirely,)

Indeed, this would also be my recommendation.  If you care so little about a bill that you refuse to check it over carefully or seek out others to do so, then it's probably not a necessary piece of legislation.  We're not big enough to need a CRL at this time.  There's like a small handful who ever write complex bills: you, Gluc, me, Miestra, Txecand Breneir.  Do we need a committee of three to monitor the work of a group of five or six people?

My current idea is putting Lex.C.1.3.2-5 into practice and having the Scribery manage a pool of "proofreaders" (call them whatever you want) that can suggest amendments about form at any point between Hoppering and Clarking.

An enhanced Scribery might make sense in the future, but not right now, IMO. It's a fun idea for a busier future.

...get a CRL review and get it Clarked with no opportunity for a debate on merit. I was simply trying to avoid setting bad precedent.

It was the right call to point this out as a violation of norms, even if it might have been inconvenient.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

We also have the Secretary of State as another safeguard. I always review bills that are intended to be Clarked to make sure they spent the appropriate amount of time in The Hopper, that they received CRL approval, that the Clarked bill is not substantially different from the bill in The Hopper, etc. I also make sure that the proposer/lead sponsor is actually allowed to Clark a bill and check for whether the bill modifies El Lex. or OrgLaw. What I don't do is grammar check and spell check. I copy and paste the bill as is, flaws included.

I think the CRL is a good check and balance and it has worked well since it was implemented.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Yeah, I would agree that civil servants would make better proofreaders than elected officials. And it's been Free Democrat policy for ages to massively expand the civil service - because people keep saying they want ways to contribute to Talossa which are non-political. But for some reason, people don't volunteer, or give up quickly, and it falls back on the electeds.

But the other good function of the CRL has been to stop people Hoppering bills, the debate (if any) dies down, and when everyone's forgotten about it, it gets Clarked without warning and it doesn't get proper scrutiny. And it's doing fine in that regard.

Given the discussion, I am perhaps minded to put up a clarifying amendment that the CRL can recommend that a bill be reconsidered before Clarking if it has changed so much that in their opinion, it hasn't got a proper Hopper debate.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Bumping this, it's low on the priority list but shouldn't be forgotten

[Sir Lüc]

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:

Honestly, 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.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Another 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

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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:

Honestly, 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.

I agree with Luc that this seems like a job better suited for the Scribery which has also done an excellent job with Uc, Bentxami and now Mic'haglh.

[Sir Lüc]

Another 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).