LEGISLATING FIX TWO: Separate Cosă and Senäts debates

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I think this would enable us to have to consider each bill separately in each Chamber, increasing the amount of scrutiny:

X1. The Clark shall comprise two sections; one, including bills to be considered by the Senäts; the other, including bills to be considered by the Cosă as well as the Vote of Confidence. No bill shall be voted on in both sections in the same month, except to override a Royal veto.

X2. A bill shall be considered first in the chamber where its primary sponsor sits. If the bill is approved by one Chamber, and the bill does not have a secondary sponsor from the other chamber, the Chair of that chamber shall Clark it for that chamber upon its sponsor's request.

Also amend the existing H.11 thus:

The same bill can not be submitted to the same chamber on the Clark more than once in the same Cosa, unless:
- the original bill was vetoed
- the original bill had been retired or voted down by its main sponsor during the voting period
- the bill has been substantially amended, as judged by the Secretary of State.
- the original bill has been passed by the other chamber in identical form on an intervening Clark; in which case it may not be submitted a third time except as provided in the three cases above.

This can be combined with the other Legislating Fix, OR either of them can be adopted separately. They'd both be good reforms, it's just what people prefer.

There's another, bigger question of "depowering the Senäts" so the Cosă can push its will through in certain circumstances, but that opens the door to Wholesale OrgLaw Reform, and I won't worry about that until after the election.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

BUMP. I'm minded to Clark this unless I get any feedback on specific amendments. I've spoken to the Túischac'h and he likes it.

[Françal I. Lux]

BUMP. I'm minded to Clark this unless I get any feedback on specific amendments. I've spoken to the Túischac'h and he likes it.

Please do for Proposal 1 and 2. It would benefit us all if we have a good debate about which of these two proposals would make the legislative process more efficient.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Is this something the Secretary of State can do?

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial]

One thing that always baffled me about Talossan-style parliamentarism was that the chronically and notoriously overworked Secretary of State was expected to do all the menial work of the Ziu for them, such as maintaining the Clark, tallying votes etc. Ideally, this should be the Túischac'h's and Mençei's job, and I believe splitting the Clark would help with that transfer of responsibilities.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

One thing that always baffled me about Talossan-style parliamentarism was that the chronically and notoriously overworked Secretary of State was expected to do all the menial work of the Ziu for them, such as maintaining the Clark, tallying votes etc. Ideally, this should be the Túischac'h's and Mençei's job, and I believe splitting the Clark would help with that transfer of responsibilities.

To me, it makes more sense for an overworked SoS to appoint a deputy (who could be the Mencei or Tuischac'h, if they wanted) to administer the Clark.  After all, the heads of the Ziu aren't selected with the goal of choosing a reliable and efficient administrator -- and popular acclaim isn't usually how you select such a person (that's why we don't vote on the SoS).  The heads of the Ziu are politicians elected by other politicians.

To be clear, by the way, I'm indifferent about the overall bill, but I do think the person in charge of carrying it out should be asked about it.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

The question of "what the Secretary of State can do" right now is subservient to the question of "when will the Database get much-needed repairs, or be replaced altogether", a question which is being worked on out of the public eye.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial]

After all, the heads of the Ziu aren't selected with the goal of choosing a reliable and efficient administrator

The heads of the Ziu are selected with the goal of choosing people to run the Ziu. Now I don't know if this is different in the US, but in Germany, this includes setting up the order of business for parliamentary sessions, presiding over debates in the respective chambers and being in charge of parliamentary votes. In Talossa meanwhile, debates don't happen in the chamber but rather in the Hopper (if at all), parliamentary sessions dont exist outside of Living Cosăs which havent been a thing for over a decade, making orders of business pointless and the Secretary of State is in charge of vote tallying. So then, what do the Túischac'h and Mençei actually do all day? And why should it be the Secretary of State's responsibility to pamper them? The fact that there were long periods of time during which there was no Túischac'h without anyone noticing or trying to do something about it is pretty damning.

As the Túischac'h I want to be in charge of the inner workings of the Cosă and its (hypothetical) debates. What else am I supposed to do in that office?

[Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu]

I am with Marcel on this.  Ostensibly, the houses are sovereign in their business, but that doesn't jive with the SoS/Clark system that we currently have.  There should be at least some differentiation between the Cosa and the Senats, but what is it aside from Senators not being able to primary sponsor spending bills?

The ability to separate them, and even perhaps divorce them from the Clark system altogether, is a valuable reform.  Remember, Madison wrote in the Federalist papers that Representatives and Senators would particularly be keen on doing a good and distinctive job as a way of protecting their privileges and prerogatives.  Something to keep in mind.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

After all, the heads of the Ziu aren't selected with the goal of choosing a reliable and efficient administrator

The heads of the Ziu are selected with the goal of choosing people to run the Ziu. Now I don't know if this is different in the US, but in Germany, this includes setting up the order of business for parliamentary sessions, presiding over debates in the respective chambers and being in charge of parliamentary votes. In Talossa meanwhile, debates don't happen in the chamber but rather in the Hopper (if at all), parliamentary sessions dont exist outside of Living Cosăs which havent been a thing for over a decade, making orders of business pointless and the Secretary of State is in charge of vote tallying. So then, what do the Túischac'h and Mençei actually do all day? And why should it be the Secretary of State's responsibility to pamper them? The fact that there were long periods of time during which there was no Túischac'h without anyone noticing or trying to do something about it is pretty damning.

As the Túischac'h I want to be in charge of the inner workings of the Cosă and its (hypothetical) debates. What else am I supposed to do in that office?

There hasn't really been a purpose to either office, frankly. Some folks in particular have felt that those offices should do things and have responsibilities, but that's pretty new. Up until recently there's mostly been ceremonial (well, since there weren't any relevant ceremonies, maybe not even that).

I think it's great to change this. But while you are correct to note that the heads of legislatures in Germany and America are in charge of things like scheduling votes and the like, they don't actually do the bureaucratic stuff themselves. There are staff in their offices and in the employee of the legislatures that run votes and distribute bills and so on. Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House of Representatives because she's a gifted politician and leader, not because she's good at administering the House records database.

You guys should run stuff however it seems best to the legislature, but I just thought it was worth pointing out that usually the people who do administrative things are appointed to such posts, not elected, and that's for good reason. If you want your job to be important and have real relevance, I think that's great. I would have just thought that something more related to the actual legislation rather than administration would make more sense. Like, for example, setting a new norm that you will carefully comment on every single bill. That could be a new expectation for your job, and a new standard moving forwards (like how Menceis are now more expected to run formal confirmation hearings).

So, take it or leave it, that's just my two bence.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I am with Marcel on this.  Ostensibly, the houses are sovereign in their business, but that doesn't jive with the SoS/Clark system that we currently have.  There should be at least some differentiation between the Cosa and the Senats, but what is it aside from Senators not being able to primary sponsor spending bills?

Confirmation hearings, individual election rather than parliamentary selection, significantly more power, and so on, I suppose. But your house could also make any changes about how they want to conduct their own business at any time. That has happened in the past, as when the threads for each Clark were introduced for the Senats. That isn't something you see in the Cosa. You guys can make up some formal Senats rules, too, if so inclined. There are very few formal limits on how you guys can conduct business.

[Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM]

Is this something the Secretary of State can do?

Sorry Baron, can I do what? Clark this?

[Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM]

Is this something the Secretary of State can do?

Sorry Baron, can I do what? Clark this?

It helps to read all the posts. Haha.

The point of having an SoS is that, in practice as well as theory, the SoS tends to stick around much longer than a single Cosa term. I can’t imagine the chaos that would ensue if every new term, someone else was in charge of running the minutiae of a Clark.

I would hope that if someone really wanted to change how the Secretary of State handled the business of his office, the current Secretary of State would be asked for input.

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

BUMP. I'm minded to Clark this unless I get any feedback on specific amendments. I've spoken to the Túischac'h and he likes it.

What bill are we talking about here exactly?

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

I'm not too fond of the separate votes idea if there isn't any option for amendments in between. Already the Ziu seems unlikely to reject a bill after flaws have been discovered, because 'it's been clarked now anyway and doing it again takes too long'. If it takes two months to pass a bill, the pressure is only going to become greater. It also means that the effective deadline for getting something done in a cosa term is earlier, which might just lead to a bigger rush to finish a bill. That wouldn't be a problem if there is still room for amendments after, but without that it just seems pointless.