[WITHDRAWN] The Edited Whole Hopper Act

[Glüc]

Also the laws states the CRL can recommend approval, not that it actually can or needs to approve anything.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

My interpretation of how the CRL has worked in practice, as well as my intentions in setting up the CRL in the first place, align with @Glüc da Dhi S.H. 's observations. CRL approval has never been necessary, only CRL commentary, i.e. at least 2 out of 3 members give their opinion, which the bill proposer may take in or ignore. To give a veto power to the CRL would have been undemocratic.

This is why I'm going to vote against this bill - it's not only pointless but misunderstands the existing situation.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

It is very clear from the law that the CRL can vote to approve, vote to reject, or delay the bill for 30 days.  It can also make recommendations.  The delaying function is very likely inorganic (Org.VII.7 precludes any statute from delaying a bill in this way).  However, that's never mattered, so that provision has never been challenged.  People have been told in the past that they couldn't Clark something without a CRL vote, and that may or may not be inorganic if it ended up mattering.

I would strongly support getting rid of the CRL, overall, and replacing it with a system of multiple readings.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I would strongly support getting rid of the CRL, overall, and replacing it with a system of multiple readings.

I would support this as well. And I think, from what I can tell, Miestra supports it as well. I am in the odd situation that I will be voting against my own bill as well because I thought the way that the CRL review has been implemented by the previous SoS matched the intent and language of the law. I was wrong and I assume the new SoS will be interpreting the CRL review process (as outlined here by Gluc and Miestra) as something that does not prevent Clarking.

[King Txec]

I would strongly support getting rid of the CRL, overall, and replacing it with a system of multiple readings.

I would support this as well. And I think, from what I can tell, Miestra supports it as well. I am in the odd situation that I will be voting against my own bill as well because I thought the way that the CRL review has been implemented by the previous SoS matched the intent and language of the law. I was wrong and I assume the new SoS will be interpreting the CRL review process (as outlined here by Gluc and Miestra) as something that does not prevent Clarking.

I would be interested to see how multiple readings could be implemented.

-Txec R

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I would be interested to see how multiple readings could be implemented.

Okay, imagine this:

- a bill is put up on the First Clark. The purposes of this "first reading" vote is just to vote on whether it's worth discussing.
- if it passes that vote, then during the Second Clark the bill goes back to the Hopper. This would include input on not only the substantive but the technical/proofreading aspects of the bill, which would ideally come from a civil service Clerk of the Ziu but failing that the current CRL would work.
- then it can be put up to actually be adopted on the Third Clark.
- Perhaps there could be provisions for one or more of these steps to be skipped in case of urgency.

This is the simplest way I can think of it, but we could make it more complicated, ask me how if you're interested.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I would be interested to see how multiple readings could be implemented.

Okay, imagine this:

- a bill is put up on the First Clark. The purposes of this "first reading" vote is just to vote on whether it's worth discussing.
- if it passes that vote, then during the Second Clark the bill goes back to the Hopper. This would include input on not only the substantive but the technical/proofreading aspects of the bill, which would ideally come from a civil service Clerk of the Ziu but failing that the current CRL would work.
- then it can be put up to actually be adopted on the Third Clark.
- Perhaps there could be provisions for one or more of these steps to be skipped in case of urgency.

This is the simplest way I can think of it, but we could make it more complicated, ask me how if you're interested.

I hope this reform would eliminate both the Hopper and the CRL.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I hope this reform would eliminate both the Hopper and the CRL.

Well, okay, let's deal with the Hopper: the reason for the Hopper is that bills just don't go on the Clark without any input or proofreading from other MCs. So if you want to eliminate the Hopper in this proposal:

- a bill has to be published in the Senäts and Cosa chambers 10 days before first reading;
- the "Second Clark" (debate and amendment phases) go on in the Senäts and Cosa chambers

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

While this is all fine, I'd like to note that again we have multiple Government ministers and different MZs working on something that is a pretty distant priority.  If it brings you joy, okay, but recognize that we should also be working on the issues that actually matter: immigration and activity.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

It doesn't even technically say two members must give recommendations. It just says the CRL and apparently we all assumed that means a majority, which sort of makes sense I guess, but it's just one interpretation.

@Sir Lüc How are you interpreting CRL review requirements for the purposes of Clarking bills?

No answer here but I hope implementation has changed to more closely follow the language of the law.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I hope this reform would eliminate both the Hopper and the CRL.

Well, okay, let's deal with the Hopper: the reason for the Hopper is that bills just don't go on the Clark without any input or proofreading from other MCs. So if you want to eliminate the Hopper in this proposal:

- a bill has to be published in the Senäts and Cosa chambers 10 days before first reading;
- the "Second Clark" (debate and amendment phases) go on in the Senäts and Cosa chambers

I love this. These kinds of changes feel like growth in the right direction for the character of our legislature.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

I hope this reform would eliminate both the Hopper and the CRL.

Well, okay, let's deal with the Hopper: the reason for the Hopper is that bills just don't go on the Clark without any input or proofreading from other MCs. So if you want to eliminate the Hopper in this proposal:

- a bill has to be published in the Senäts and Cosa chambers 10 days before first reading;
- the "Second Clark" (debate and amendment phases) go on in the Senäts and Cosa chambers

Would this effectively separate Clarks into "Old Business" and "New Business" sections?

New Business: bills that are currently facing their first reading. (In other words, have already been posted in the Ziu forums for at least ten days before a Clark is published.) The core purpose of the bill and what it seeks to change should already be apparent by this point.
Old Business: bills that have advanced to a second reading (passed vote on first reading, gone through debate / amendments / fine-tuning). Bills in this section that pass are submitted for royal assent same as those that pass Clarks now.

Should bills that change substantially during the debate/amendment stage be treated similarly to how they are now, in that they are essentially "new bills" and must survive a "second first reading"?

[Sir Lüc]

It doesn't even technically say two members must give recommendations. It just says the CRL and apparently we all assumed that means a majority, which sort of makes sense I guess, but it's just one interpretation.

Ok but it has certainly not been implemented that way. I have attempted to Clark bills and on several occasions "successful" review by the CRL was a requirement.

@Sir Lüc How are you interpreting CRL review requirements for the purposes of Clarking bills?

Sorry for not getting back to this; I think now everyone can see what I meant when I said the CRL is effectively operating on vibes. My reading of the law is consistent with the Mençei's interpretation, but please, let's fix this at the earliest opportunity.

[Sir Lüc]

Anyhow, I would like to strongly caution people against establishing a system that is too inflexible or too complicated.

If it really took three consecutive Clarks to pass a bill, uncontroversial, unamendable (eg. conferring citizenship) or urgent (eg. Budget) bills would take a really long time to get passed. Besides, we would only get four chances to present new bills, ie. the first four Clarks; or even fewer if the Fixed Electoral Date Amendment is passed, as a month of recess would either lower opportunities to present a bill to just three, or if it is called late, potentially even kill bills halfway through their approval process by not giving bills a chance to get a second reading.

Regardless, this would mean that ten days before the Fourth Clark begins is the last chance you have to get a bill through the whole process before the next First Clark. Basically half a Cosă, plus two whole months for an election and government formation. I'm sorry but I really don't think a system of multiple readings is compatible with the Clark system, unless you also made the Ziu vote twice a month for two weeks each, for example.

As for the complicated point, I strongly believe that making our political processes more intricate is a bad idea. I don't think we need to gaslight ourselves into feeling like we need trappings of big boy legislatures to function properly, when there's barely a dozen people actively sustaining the activity of the legislature.

Let's get rid of the CRL, but let us not turn to something with even more complex rules that inevitably get misapplied, though with no malice. There's multiple recent examples of things that "sound fun" but are unnecessary and/or overcomplicated (Seneschal elections, the CRL itself, the Senate rules committee...) and I don't think you can both support going on another of these endeavours *and* want to simplify our body of laws, or to "cut red-and-green tape", or whatever your political party of choice prefers to call it.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Anyhow, I would like to strongly caution people against establishing a system that is too inflexible or too complicated.

If it really took three consecutive Clarks to pass a bill, uncontroversial, unamendable (eg. conferring citizenship) or urgent (eg. Budget) bills would take a really long time to get passed. Besides, we would only get four chances to present new bills, ie. the first four Clarks; or even fewer if the Fixed Electoral Date Amendment is passed, as a month of recess would either lower opportunities to present a bill to just three, or if it is called late, potentially even kill bills halfway through their approval process by not giving bills a chance to get a second reading.

Regardless, this would mean that ten days before the Fourth Clark begins is the last chance you have to get a bill through the whole process before the next First Clark. Basically half a Cosă, plus two whole months for an election and government formation. I'm sorry but I really don't think a system of multiple readings is compatible with the Clark system, unless you also made the Ziu vote twice a month for two weeks each, for example.

As for the complicated point, I strongly believe that making our political processes more intricate is a bad idea. I don't think we need to gaslight ourselves into feeling like we need trappings of big boy legislatures to function properly, when there's barely a dozen people actively sustaining the activity of the legislature.

Let's get rid of the CRL, but let us not turn to something with even more complex rules that inevitably get misapplied, though with no malice. There's multiple recent examples of things that "sound fun" but are unnecessary and/or overcomplicated (Seneschal elections, the CRL itself, the Senate rules committee...) and I don't think you can both support going on another of these endeavours *and* want to simplify our body of laws, or to "cut red-and-green tape", or whatever your political party of choice prefers to call it.

Well stated Luc on your concerns, especially concerning increasing intricacy but I do think we could use some elements of the "big-boy" parliaments. If we are concerned about the time it would take for legislation then we should just move to longer terms as I think more time for legislation to pass with increased scrutiny and deliberation is certainly not a bad thing.