CRL Committee

[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]

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-GC]

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-GC]

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-GC]

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.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I think prior to that comes the question of what kind of committees we would want. I can think of one specialist committee off the top of my head: an OrgLaw Committee.

[esbornatfiglheu]

Finance and Budget is probably another.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

I would like to submit the Compromise on the Compromise for the Committee's consideration

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Just clarifying that this is the text we're looking at?

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

Just clarifying that this is the text we're looking at?

Yes

[esbornatfiglheu]

I don't really see anything structurally unsound in this measure, with the possible caveat of the "elimination through Orglaw amendment" issue.  That could be handled simply through the elimination of that line in the Orglaw as it stands.

Which might be a good idea anyhow, given that it might make things complicated if a new monarch is chosen (through WHATEVER system or reason) but the old king is "still on the books."

[EDIT, because it is tech week and I am slightly braindead]- Which this system would do upon further reading.  Guh, apologies.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

My political issues with this bill remain as canvassed in the Hopper thread. I especially reiterate that it would "legislatively decapitate" the incumbent, thus pretty much ensuring a veto.

However, my job on this committee is just to proofread, and in that capacity there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

What do you guys think of my Three Small Amendments?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

BUMP, time's running out if we want to get some/all of these on the 5th Clark

[esbornatfiglheu]

Amendment 1- Strikes me as just fine.  I think it would function as intended if put into law.

Amendment 2- Strikes me as a good idea, and I've no logistical issues with it.

Amendment 3- It's past time this position was enshrined Organically.  I see no issues.