CRL Committee

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I'm not sure the bill is going to have the effect desired.  If it takes half the senators AND half the Cosa to move things into Committee, you're still coming up against the reading and engagement issue mentioned in the "whereas."

Changed that bit, what do you think now?

[esbornatfiglheu]

I see no issue with this one.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

It still has the typoes in it that I pointed out before, but it looks fine otherwise.

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

Any thoughts on these suggestions:

https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=752.msg8078#msg8078 ?

Also, would the Committee agree that if the bill were to be amended in that way it would not be "so substantially different from its original form as a legislative proposal that it constitutes a significantly different proposal."

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

@Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu @Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial

Edit: Ok, since apparently there is a month of recess coming up, the urgency is not as great as I thought it was.

[esbornatfiglheu]

I think, in this case, that the exceptions that are being added do not fundamentally alter the bill.  But don't push too much further, otherwise I think you're wandering into "separate legislation" territory.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

I'm on the fence on this, but if the Mençei and the A-Xh agree I'd be willing to accept it as well.

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

Thank you both for your answers.

Interesting, I would have thought the wiggle room for amendments was broader than that (that is, I didn't necessarily think this would be an edge case). In the rules of the Dutch parliament an amendment can be declared inadmissible when its either unrelated to the original subject or the directionality of the change is opposite to the original purpose. (E.g. a law designed to make immigration easier can't be amended to make immigration more difficult than it was before.) Obviously the language of the "significantly different" clause is well eeh significantly different from that rule, but I suppose I thought it should be interpreted in a similar way.

Ironically I now wonder if the same phrase in the bill should be altered in some way. My fear is that if the committee discovers some problem that can only be solved by an amendment that the SoS would consider as resulting in a significantly different proposal, sponsors will be hesistant to take the committee's advice, because that would then mean restarting the whole process over again, meaning a bill is less likely to be fixed. Then again, its probably wise to take the Mençei's advice and not push any further. (Either way it's up to Miestră to decide if she wants to incorporate my suggestions into the bill).

Of course it's possible that most amendments would be allowed and I just underestimated how big a change the proposed exceptions in this particular case are in the view of the committee.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Probably not much to chew on here, but I should submit this pro-forma anyway!

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

Probably not much to chew on here, but I should submit this pro-forma anyway!

Which version specifically, your own or Antaglha's?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Well, mine, because that's what I linked to

[esbornatfiglheu]

It looks solid to me.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

Same here, no objections.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

From Glüc's vote on the last Clark:

I will note this particular clause in the bill: "6.5.3. 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 MC and at least 1 Senator.". I do hope that the CRL will use this clause and actually form Ziu commitees on particular bill categories/topics.

I certainly endorse this, and I would like to hear suggestions

[esbornatfiglheu]

Perhaps a first step on this would be to see if we can't get a roster of people willing to serve on such subcommittees.  I can't help but think that it might wind up being a personnel issue in terms of getting people.