[CHANCERY] Call for Bills for the July 2025 Clark

[Sir Lüc]

The call for bills for the July 2025 Clark (the third of the 61st Cosă) is now open. You may post a link to a bill's Hopper thread underneath in the usual fashion, provided it has passed the Hopper according to Lex.H.2 and you are entitled to Clark bills.

I will accept for Clarking any such bills (except for any that fall foul of H.2.7) that are presented between now and June 30th 11:59 PM TST, as I will begin assembling the Clark on the CEST morning of July 1st.



Sir Lüc da Schir
Secretary of State

[Sir Lüc]

Lastly, one small reminder that there are five bills and resolutions in the Hopper which do not need CRL review and can go straight on the Clark, just so I can restate this somewhere central where people can see it:

• The two Senses of the Ziu, but not before they have laid in the Hopper for ten days;
• The treaty ratification resolution, pursuant to H.2.1.2.2;
• The Perþonest reappointment resolution, pursuant to H.2.1.2.4;
• The Census question review bill, pursuant to C.1.2.2.2 and H.2.1.2.5.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Hello, I'd like to clark the following items:

The Charitable PermSec, Again Act https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=3803.0
The Sentient Rights Act https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=3817.0
Reappointing Istefan Perþonest to the UC Act https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=4158.0
Sense of the Ziu: Moving Forward Without Rough Music https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=4171.0

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I believe neither of the first two of those bills have received a vote from the CRL. The timelines might make that irrelevant, but also it's unclear to me if a bill can be abandoned and then revived in that way.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I believe neither of the first two of those bills have received a vote from the CRL. The timelines might make that irrelevant, but also it's unclear to me if a bill can be abandoned and then revived in that way.

CRL members have thirty days to render a recommendation otherwise the bill is deemed to have passed the CRL. The Sentient bill has one more day remaining before being Clarkable. The Charitable PermSec bill was never abandoned. I was awaiting either the expiry of the review period or a response from the A-X.

Quick edit: Luc, let me know if I am mistaken.

[Sir Lüc]

Yes, both of those bills are Clarkable. I archived The Charitable PermSec, Again Act by mistake (I probably checked the initial submission date). Both it and the Sentient Rights Act have passed the Hopper by the provisions of H.2.1.6, having laid in committee for thirty days.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Yeah, I thought they probably had been in there long enough. The abandoned thing was weird, but it's really just a bookkeeping thing and doesn't actually have any effect on anything.

Thank you!

[Sir Lüc]

The abandoned tag is to comply with Lexhatx H.2.1.9.1; as you said, it's just bookkeeping and the tag carries no prejudice towards republishing an archived proposal, as H.2.1.9.1 itself states. (I've explained this already somewhere else but I can't find that reference right now.)

Compared to H.2.1.9.1, I've actually tried to be as fair to legislators as possible by also stipulating that, as an internal rule, a (non-joke) bill needs to have been passed up for Clarking at least twice to be sent to the archive and be tagged as abandoned.

By the letter of the law, the Charitable PermSec bill should technically be considered abandoned, but I consider my additional policy to be fairer; the bill was moved to committee on April 22, meaning it became Clarkable on time for the June Clark and this is therefore the second and final chance at Clarking.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

The abandoned tag is to comply with Lexhatx H.2.1.9.1; as you said, it's just bookkeeping and the tag carries no prejudice towards republishing an archived proposal, as H.2.1.9.1 itself states. (I've explained this already somewhere else but I can't find that reference right now.)

Compared to H.2.1.9.1, I've actually tried to be as fair to legislators as possible by also stipulating that, as an internal rule, a (non-joke) bill needs to have been passed up for Clarking at least twice to be sent to the archive and be tagged as abandoned.

By the letter of the law, the Charitable PermSec bill should technically be considered abandoned, but I consider my additional policy to be fairer; the bill was moved to committee on April 22, meaning it became Clarkable on time for the June Clark and this is therefore the second and final chance at Clarking.

Thanks for clarifying Mr. Secretary. I knew that bill wasn't abandoned and am glad that it has therefore been Clarked.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Please to be Clarking:

the Terpleziuns Reform Bill
the Immigration Reform (Antispam) Bill

[Sir Lüc]

Please to be Clarking:

the Terpleziuns Reform Bill
the Immigration Reform (Antispam) Bill

It doesn't seem like either bill has currently passed the CRL; you're probably aware of this but just making sure.

Edit: the first bill has now passed the CRL and has been added to the queue (https://database.talossa.com/ziu/bills/unclarked)

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Please to be Clarking:

the Terpleziuns Reform Bill
the Immigration Reform (Antispam) Bill

It doesn't seem like either bill has currently passed the CRL; you're probably aware of this but just making sure.

Edit: the first bill has now passed the CRL and has been added to the queue (https://database.talossa.com/ziu/bills/unclarked)

Both bills have been commented on by 2 members of the CRL, what's the problem?

[Sir Lüc]

Please to be Clarking:

the Terpleziuns Reform Bill
the Immigration Reform (Antispam) Bill

It doesn't seem like either bill has currently passed the CRL; you're probably aware of this but just making sure.

Edit: the first bill has now passed the CRL and has been added to the queue (https://database.talossa.com/ziu/bills/unclarked)

Both bills have been commented on by 2 members of the CRL, what's the problem?

Well, pursuant to Lexh.H.2.1.6 commenting is not enough, the committee has to issue a recommendation (in practice always a positive one) by majority vote in order for a bill to pass the Hopper.

Edit: I'm sorry, I see what you mean - they made suggestions and you applied them. I'm not sure what precedent looks like here and I would still really prefer the CRL to explicitly say "fix this and we're good". Either way, I don't think this is enough reason to have the bill stuck for a month as it is unlikely to be amended or debated further, so I will allow it in the Clark.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I very much do not want to set that precedent, if possible -- I have several times suggested changes and then had people need further changes (or needed to clarify).  A rule of "you said something and I tried to do what you said, so therefore you approve" seems like a bad rule to have.  I have tried generally to be explicit about my vote in the CRL.

The A-X hasn't commented at all.  Maybe he could chime in tonight?

This bill doesn't seem time-sensitive, and it was only sent to the CRL a few days ago.  Let's not set a rough new rule in its favor.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I'm not sure what precedent looks like here

The precedent to this point has *always* been "2 members of the CRL read and offer their comments" is enough for passing the CRL. You can ask your predecessor in this role about that.