[CRL] The Whole Hopper Act

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

I think this bill would be more elegant if the new 2.1.3 and the new 2.1.4 were one single provision, since they are very similar.

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

I have several thoughts on the functioning of the CRL. Unfortunately I have been to lazy all year to properly write these down. Apologies. I suppose if this passes it would be a moot point. I do think the CRL serves some useful purpose and I do think it can be improved.

I do note that in the current situation bills do not actually need approval from CRL members to pass the hopper. The current text just says the bill has passed the hopper if the CRL has given its recommendations, which I interpret as meaning the bill still passes even if all CRL members recommend rejection. In this proposal it would need actual approval in order to pass in 20 days instead of 30. I'm not saying thats a good or a bad thing. Just wanted to point it out.

I also agree with Ians point about merging 2.13 and 2.14, but that's a minor point.

I don't have any technical objections or further recommendations.

[þerxh Sant-Enogat]

To avoid the term "approval" leading to think that a technical acceptance could be interpreted as a positive vote of the bill, I propose the following wording :

2.1.4 A bill is said to have "passed the Hopper" if either one of the two following conditions :

- it has spent at least 20 days in the Hopper, and at least two of the following officers (Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral) have expressed that they have no objections after reviewing 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; or

- it has spent at least 30 days in the Hopper without any objection from more than one of the following officers (Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral)

For the purpose of the review described above, 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.

2.1.5. The sponsor of a bill may ask for it to be Clarked only if this bill has passed the Hopper, except as provided by Lexh.H.2.1.2. or Lexh.H.2.1.3.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I have several thoughts on the functioning of the CRL. Unfortunately I have been to lazy all year to properly write these down. Apologies. I suppose if this passes it would be a moot point. I do think the CRL serves some useful purpose and I do think it can be improved.

Gluc, at risk of making another supposedly controversial compliment, I want to tell you this above is one reason why you are one of my favorite Talossans and I think were a great SoS. You are always so reasonable, humble, and effective at your communication.

If Gluc thinks the CRL can be kept and improved and has ideas on how to do so then I defer to his judgment as a signal of how much I respect him. I withdraw this bill from consideration.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Following up on this. @Glüc da Dhi S.H. should there be time and continuing interest I'm curious on your ideas to improve the CRL.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Following up on this. @Glüc da Dhi S.H. should there be time and continuing interest I'm curious on your ideas to improve the CRL.

I'm considering bringing this bill back as I'm concerned about the repeated delays in moving bills to the CRL which is an unnecessary delay in consideration. And there has been no alternative movement on CRL reform.

Þerxh, I'll make the change you suggested as I think it incorporates Ian's revision as well. Thank you for your help on improving the bill.