The Legislative Typos and Nitpicking Bill

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Add new section to El Lexhátx, H.18:

"18. The Clerk of the Ziu shall be an apolitical position appointed by the reigning Monarch upon recommendation of the Prime Minister and shall serve in the following capacities:

To proof-read every bill submitted to the Clark for correct grammar and legal wording; to alert the sponsors of the bill to every possible ambiguity and miswording which might defeat the purpose of the bill; and to work with the sponsors of the bill towards an agreed final wording to be submitted to the Clark."

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Interesting! A few notes:

-I'm interested enough in the importance of writing good legislation that I wrote a pamphlet about it, and even I would find the proposed position to be really unpleasant! We're having a hard enough time filling all the offices that already exist with productive people - witness the three (!!) Clarks waiting to be recorded by the Scribe - and do we really want another one to sit empty?

-If someone is going to write a law that their fellow citizens will be expected to obey, shouldn't that person take the time to proof-read their own bills and make sure the language says what they want it to say? Or even if they have trouble, there are many other legislators who usually offer suggestions and corrections... why would we want to shunt that process to an appointed bureaucrat?

-If you did want to give someone this thankless task, I might suggest the existing office of Túischac'h? It'll make that office more like a punishment than an honor, but it would be better than a new empty office.

[Iustì Carlüs Canun]

Nov 5, 2014 19:21:20 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

-If someone is going to write a law that their fellow citizens will be expected to obey, shouldn't that person take the time to proof-read their own bills and make sure the language says what they want it to say? Or even if they have trouble, there are many other legislators who usually offer suggestions and corrections... why would we want to shunt that process to an appointed bureaucrat?

Agreed.

-If you did want to give someone this thankless task, I might suggest the existing office of Túischac'h? It'll make that office more like a punishment than an honor, but it would be better than a new empty office.

Hey now, don't you be dragging me in here.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

a) Expecting the lawmaker to make sure their bill is grammatically and legally watertight is an accessibility issue. It pretty much requires that every lawmaker be proficient in Legalistic English (or indeed a half-ciùled Talossan version thereof) and have enough legal nous to understand why X grammatical structure has Y effect. This in effect restricts an effective legislator's role to native Anglophones who have a legal bent. Hmmm. I wonder which party in this Ziu has the highest proportion of those?

b) The current informal system - where those qualified under a) above give advice and guidance in the Hopper - not only gives those members extra-special power as legislative "gatekeepers", but reduces the chances that such changes will be adopted. I for example will happily take formatting advice from a neutral servant of the Ziu, or even the Chair of either House; not so much from the Leader of the Opposition or indeed a publisher of a magazine which calumniates me every fortnight.

c) If the Túischac'h does it for the Cosâ, then theoretically the Mençéi would do it for the Senäts. Since s:reu Canún doesn't seem all-fired keen, I wonder what Senator da Dhi has to say?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Nov 5, 2014 20:49:49 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

a) Expecting the lawmaker to make sure their bill is grammatically and legally watertight is an accessibility issue. It pretty much requires that every lawmaker be proficient in Legalistic English (or indeed a half-ciùled Talossan version thereof) and have enough legal nous to understand why X grammatical structure has Y effect. This in effect restricts an effective legislator's role to native Anglophones who have a legal bent. Hmmm. I wonder which party in this Ziu has the highest proportion of those?

A quick glance at the current Clark would not seem to bear out your fears. Indeed, looking back at all recent bills and proposals, I note that non-native speakers like our Seneschal, previous Seneschal, and Secretary of State all do very well. It's probably a lot more difficult for them to turn out bills, but it might be an unavoidable feature of producing English-language law that English-speaking lawyers find it easier.

I have been and will remain happy to work with anyone to improve legislation, even when I don't end up supporting it. A properly-spelled bad law is better than an error-ridden bad law!

Nov 5, 2014 20:49:49 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

b) The current informal system - where those qualified under a) above give advice and guidance in the Hopper - not only gives those members extra-special power as legislative "gatekeepers", but reduces the chances that such changes will be adopted. I for example will happily take formatting advice from a neutral servant of the Ziu, or even the Chair of either House; not so much from the Leader of the Opposition or indeed a publisher of a magazine which calumniates me every fortnight.

Compromise can actually turn out really good results. My current bill in the Clark is the result of careful discussion and compromise with people from other parties, and it represents solutions from several different people. And even if you're unwilling to ever compromise and work with others, there are definite advantages to be gained from taking formatting advice, at least.

I mean, in one of your recent bills you start adding new sub-sections beginning with "2.8A" into el Lexhatx. This doesn't make any sense, since there's a really simple numeric scheme followed in the entire bill and actually explicitly explained in Title Z. When I pointed this out to you, it didn't improve your bill to ignore me, right? And I don't gain any partisan advantage from helping you fix your bill, as far as I can tell.

If we want to minimize the advantage that lawyers have over non-lawyers when it comes to the law, instituting new numbering schemes whenever it suits us is the last thing we want to do, I think. Doing your own new thing saves you a few minutes and it saves your pride, but in a few years people will have to go to look up a law in "Title D3, Corollary Abacus, Sub-Section 34Z.5b." One of the major reasons I put together el Lexhatx was to get rid of just this sort of thing, and help equalize things a little.

So anyway, maybe you could just ask someone you personally like to look over your bills, if you don't want to take my advice? CCX writes great bills, for example.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Anyway, please put this on the Hopper, Mr SoS.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Nov 5, 2014 19:21:20 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

-I'm interested enough in the importance of writing good legislation that I wrote a pamphlet about it, and even I would find the proposed position to be really unpleasant! We're having a hard enough time filling all the offices that already exist with productive people - witness the three (!!) Clarks waiting to be recorded by the Scribe - and do we really want another one to sit empty?

This sums up how I feel about this bill. If we create this position, I think we will find it very difficult to find reliable people who are eager to do large amounts of drudge work for free. And who wants to get charged with official misconduct or something if they miss a critical typo or inconsistency in someone's bill that ends up getting enacted into law?

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Look, the alternative to this is the current "informal" situation of "informal" methods of legal editing which means that one or two people have the authority to say what's right (eg in systems of numbering) because they wrote the rules. It's unfair, it's undemocratic, it puts unaccountable power in the hands of a few.

It could be that one way we could find qualified applications is by giving them the power to drastically simplify standards.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

It's easy to see "what's right" in terms of numbering, because it is literally and explicitly spelled out in the law itself. Title Z tells you how things are numbered and what to call things. It's like... four paragraphs or something. Very short. Simple language.

I can think of literally like a dozen other people who can help you with this, if petulance makes you unable to accept my help. Or spend two minutes reading the law itself.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Nov 23, 2014 22:30:47 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Look, the alternative to this is the current "informal" situation of "informal" methods of legal editing which means that one or two people have the authority to say what's right (eg in systems of numbering) because they wrote the rules. It's unfair, it's undemocratic, it puts unaccountable power in the hands of a few.

I'm not questioning whether this official would be nice to have. I'm just questioning whether the position is realistically likely to work out the way you hope. We haven't had the best of luck with positions like Scribe of Abbavilla or National Archivist, and don't see why this one would be any easier to fill.

Also, what if this position is created and a RUMPer is picked to fill it?

Nov 23, 2014 22:30:47 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

It could be that one way we could find qualified applications is by giving them the power to drastically simplify standards.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

As I've said elsewhere - it is becoming shocking clear that too many government jobs in Talossa are too difficult for an average Talossan to do, because their predecessor has made the job absurdly difficult by setting up a complicated system. This isn't a partisan issue here, Cresti - the current incumbent of the SoS's office (not a RUMPer) has done the same thing.

If Sir Alexandreu himself were elected Clerk of the Ziu with the democratically approved power to decide on formatting, I'd be happy with that. I am not happy with unaccountable self-declared authority.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Nov 24, 2014 15:56:12 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

If Sir Alexandreu himself were elected Clerk of the Ziu with the democratically approved power to decide on formatting, I'd be happy with that. I am not happy with unaccountable self-declared authority.

What "authority" are you talking about? Sir Alexandreu is pointing out that the formatting of your bill is inconsistent with the rest of el Lexhatx. But you don't have to agree, and he can't stop you from proposing, or the Ziu from passing, a bill that is formatted however you want. And if he did not point that out, the absence of such pointing-out would not make the formatting any more consistent with existing law or reduce the likelihood of people being confused by the inconsistency.

His words don't create the inconsistency or possibility of confusion. That's something that is or is not inherent in the bill proposed, regardless of what he says about it. And he doesn't "decide" on formatting; the Ziu does. There's no power or authority behind his words, unless you just mean logical persuasiveness, and you're not going to prohibit legislators from making persuasive points.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

My only concern about this position is who wold want to do it. I like the idea of it however.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Alternatives to having a new position elected by the Ziu might be to give the position to the Scribe's office or the SoS's. If we took the first option, the bill would change thus:

Change Lexhátx C.1.2.2 to read as follows:

1.2.2. The Scribe of Abbavilla shall maintain el Lexhatx in accordance with the directions in Title Z. The Scribe shall thus advise all proposers of bills to the Clark on proper formatting of their bills to conform with Title Z.

I'm happy to propose this instead.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I really still think this is a bad idea, honestly. Your new version scales things back a lot, so I guess the job would only be mildly tedious and unpleasant, but it's actually so scaled-back that it seems weird to pass this law at all. Title Z is not some huge thing. Here is the entire title, in its entirety:

1. It is the intent and expectation of the Ziu that future resolutions of the Ziu intended to create statutory law will be drafted as amendments to this Lexhatx, such that the operative clauses of the resolutions are incorporated into the body of el Lexhatx. The full text of such resolutions, including "whereas" clauses and sponsor information, shall be preserved in l'Anuntzia dels Legeux as legislative history.

2. El Lexhatx shall be organized by lettered title. This title, Z. Validity of el Lexhatx, would thus be called "Title Z." Each title shall be further organized by a nested numbering system. Each individual numbered provision may be referred to by referencing its title and number. This provision would thus be called "Z.2." To minimize ambiguity, each individual numbered provision of the first level (e.g. Z.2) shall be called a "section," and individually numbered provisions set within a section shall be called "subsections" (e.g. Z.2.1). For each additional nested later, another "sub-" prefix may be included. Thus, Z.3.4.6.1 would be referred to as subsubsubsection Z.3.4.6.1.

3. If and when a new provision is incorporated into el Lexhatx, its originating statute shall be noted with the provision.

4. In time, it is hoped that el Lexhatx will be supplanted with a new code, written in el Glheþ Talossan. Sir C.M. Siervicül and Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun are to be commended already for their aid in this regard.

59. Fifty-nine is a neat number.

So... basically two paragraphs, as would apply to legislating. I know that this is a bit of work, but should we be catering to people who just refuse to spend thirty seconds learning how the law is set up? This is not some sort of complicated and elitist system, but rather the exact opposite.

Dame Miestra, you once complained that

Jun 23, 2012 16:04:59 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

the existing laws are not written in a transparent way which can be examined with a glance.

But there's a legal code now. I'm not sure there's much excuse to be had, at this point, for refusing to spend a minute or two reading it.

If you really feel you need assistance, my suggestion would be that one of your own party members or someone like CCX or the Seneschal could help you. Failing that, I'd suggest that at least this bill could be improved by giving this responsibility to the Chancery. It'd be odd to start giving the Scribery legislative responsibilities, when that's never been their purview.