The Whole Hopper Act

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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H.2.1.5 through H.2.1.6.2 are repealed in their entirety:

2.1.5. 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:

2.1.3. 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:

2.1.3. 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:

2.1.4. 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:

2.1.4. 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.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I support the elimination of the CRL and the doubling of required Hopper time.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I support the elimination of the CRL and the doubling of required Hopper time.

Ah thanks, this is an excellent start.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

By 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.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

By 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)

Your 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?

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

I'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.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I'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.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

The 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.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

The 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.