47th Cosă, Second (#2) Clark

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

I finally have some time to sit down and write my considerations about the bills up for voting (I've had a really busy, busy month with work, studies, and planning a trip to Finland and Sweden). As always, I need and want your input on these bills!

Here is the link to the current clark, so you know of which bill I write, when I do so:

47RZ3 - I am not sure what to do with the passage that says "prepare to set aside a budget for 60$".
Question 1: What currency is this? Canadian Dollar? US Dollar? Australian Dollar?
Question 2: What exactly does it mean to "prepare to set aside a budget". What is the government supposed to do? Should it set aside 60 bogus-$? But it says to "prepare." So, I am confused. And was the plan not to "nationalise" Wittenberg, and not to "privatise" it? I don't know what this means, and therefore, I believe it needs much, much, *much* more discussion and clarification.
So, that's a NON from me.
Comments?

47RZ4 - Uhm... what's *exactly* happening to the Túischac'h now? Nothing much differs, except for the style of nomination, and I think a passage of "advising MCs of appropriate decorum" - whatever that is supposed to *actually* mean.
Comments?

47RZ5 - Anti-Espionage! Sounds like a utopia, and I'm all for utopias. I like the thought of us not spying around with pseudonyms, and becoming the Talossan NSA. I am in favour, and await your comments.

47RZ6 - I think this is quite a well-done, and successful proposal to sort out some of the problems of the voting and validation system currently in place. I particularly like the ability of the Commission members to notify the King that one member has become unresponsive. BUT, there is that thing: Amendment and Bill in one. If the bill is passed, the amendment still stays. If the Org. Law. amendment is not ratified, does that mean that the law is also "invalid"? It might be a bit problematic, and I'd prefer amendment and bill to exist separately.
I still lean towards an ÜC nonetheless.

47RZ7 - There is not much to say. The amounts seem sensible, and every government needs a budget. So, I say "yea!"

47RZ8 - Okay, this repeals the first PD of this Cosă, and makes it into a statute, as promised. What do you think of the ministries of Immigration, Home, and Defence being merged into one ministry?
PLEASE NOTE: without an Organic law amendment deleting the refences of the three ministries to be merged, this law is unintelligible at best, and inorganic at worst.
NOTE FURTHERMORE that I do not approve of Senator Schivâ's unclear amendment proposals, that do not outline the old version of the text, and therefore are not clear on what exactly is to be changed by this bill.
HOWEVER; I am not *against* the principles of this bill. It is merely its realisation, which "rubs me the wrong way".

47RZ9 - Again, note that Senator Schivâ is *not* including the current version of the text to be amended/replaced, which is questionable practice. I find that there needs to be a discussion about this, *before* voting hastily.

47RZ10 - Okay, what just happened? The SoS is appointed by law (i.e. statute), on the nomination of the King, with the advice (i.e. nomination) and consent (i.e. approval after nomination of the nomination) by the Seneschal, INSTEAD OF him just being appointed by the Seneschal. Note also that no provision for his removal is given.
I do not believe that this is well-thought-out.

47RZ11 - Sounds interesting. I might like it, but I need your input, please.

47RZ12 - Soccer (yaaay!). I am not much one for soccer, so whatever you say goes.

47RZ13... oh wait, that doesn't exist.

THANK GOD, IT'S OVER!

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

For #6, if the amendment is rejected, the whole bill is rejected. That's one reason to do it that way: if a statutory change only makes sense with an amendment, then you be sure to bundle them together.

I am not on board with 9, 10, and 11. 9 is so badly written that it will make the law sloppy and crazy... I mean, why suddenly start adding letters to the numbering system? I'm a lawyer, but I don't want to make the law harder on purpose just to drum up business! And 10, if already in effect, would have led to the break-down of government when Robert I abdicated. And 11... just doesn't really seem to do much good at all. All in all, I think Senator Schiva shouldn't have been in such a rush to submit all this sloppy work. It harms nothing to reject them and work on them a little more so that they make sense and don't just introduce sloppiness into the law.

My only comments. Lot of bills this time around.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

What do you think of #3, #4, and #12?
A note to other M-Mers: I might be addressing Sir Davinescu directly, but this does not mean that you are not as welcome to answer this question, and to share your opinion, as D:l Davinescu is.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

3 seems a little odd, but if the MinStuff agrees, I suppose there's no harm. Legally it's not great, but it's an ephemeral bill - the fact that $60 is ambiguous doesn't matter that much since in the short term it will probably be interpreted in a reasonable way, and it won't stick around for the long term.

4 is odd, but it won't hurt anything to give the head of the Cosa a new role that will probably never be used. A good compromise, considering what was originally proposed with the bill.

I don't care about 12.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Thank you, Sir Davinescu, for explaining your opinions to me as Senator. I look forward to hearing more of your valuable views in the future.

I also look forward to more Maritiimi-Maxhestians participating in the discussions of the Clarks! *sniggering*