|
Post by Eðo Grischun on May 25, 2017 14:31:18 GMT -6
WHEREAS if the Hopper system isn't working then we should address that problem; and
WHEREAS having every bill go through two Clarks doesn't actually address fixing a broken Hopper; and
WHEREAS tinkering with the Hopper system (the thing that's arguably broken) rather than the Clark system (the thing that's working fine) might help; so
THEREFORE be it resolved by the Ziu of the Kingdom of Talossa that:
El Lexhatx H.6 which currently reads:
is amended to read:
FUTHERMORE the Ziu resolve that that El lexhatx H.6.1, which currently reads
is amended to read:
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on May 25, 2017 14:40:08 GMT -6
Opening this into a new thread rather than bogging Miestra's up into two lines of argument.
The WHEREAS's tell you, concisely, why.
This is my starting point. Open to tweaks and debate. We don't really need to send votes round twice and the houses voting separately might end up a convoluted quagmire for the SoS. What I really want to do is somehow include a 'pre-clark' stage to the Hopper.
10 days legislative proposal > 10-14(ish) days pre-clark > 21 days Clark
It would be awesome if we could somehow get the spellcheck, grammar check and a preliminary Organicity test done while in pre-clark.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on May 25, 2017 14:52:59 GMT -6
I am afraid this will have no effect. Experience has shown that bills get little attention while in Clark. The most attention is afforded when they are actually voted upon, i.e. actually important to be read. And by then, changes and tweaks are not possible, except by a consecutive Resolution.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on May 25, 2017 15:43:16 GMT -6
I am afraid this will have no effect. Experience has shown that bills get little attention while in Clark. The most attention is afforded when they are actually voted upon, i.e. actually important to be read. And by then, changes and tweaks are not possible, except by a consecutive Resolution. I am guilty of this myself. I often debate a bill more during the Clark than before it. I also often leave research until Clark and I also admit that some lengthy bills on tedious things or on things I need time to learn and understand concepts on (like legal/judicial system), don't get my attention till Clark. Its a time thing (or a procrastination thing). A lot of us lead busy lives and sometimes need to put a pin on some threads and say 'look at that again later'. I like the idea behind Miestra's bill and a 'first reading' - 'second reading' is something I think we should do. I don't want to add this to the SoS's burden list and I don't think the Clark system needs overhauling that drastically. Miestra's bill lengthens a bills 'lifespan' by a Clark length. What this bill would do is add a similar-ish amount of time, but in its preliminary stages not it's later stages. I'm trying to think of how we could have something like a 'Westminster division call' on each bill, which would then be the mechanism forcing its sending to Clark. Also, no meddling in the OrgLaw required so far. What ideas would you have, from a Speaker of the House perspective, in having the speakers involved in a pre-clark (by any name) of some kind?
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on May 25, 2017 15:46:06 GMT -6
I am afraid this will have no effect. Experience has shown that bills get little attention while in Clark. The most attention is afforded when they are actually voted upon, i.e. actually important to be read. And by then, changes and tweaks are not possible, except by a consecutive Resolution. Hence, I still prefer extending the voting time over two Clarks, and over two separate pairs of eyes.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on May 25, 2017 15:48:41 GMT -6
What ideas would you have, from a Speaker of the House perspective, in having the speakers involved in a pre-clark (by any name) of some kind? Separate Cosâ and Senäts Hoppers?
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on May 25, 2017 15:54:46 GMT -6
What ideas would you have, from a Speaker of the House perspective, in having the speakers involved in a pre-clark (by any name) of some kind? Separate Cosâ and Senäts Hoppers? Has the same zero effect as taking hopper from 10 to 21 days without a mechanism making the hopper(s) more critical.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on May 25, 2017 18:13:16 GMT -6
Separate Cosâ and Senäts Hoppers? Has the same zero effect as taking hopper from 10 to 21 days without a mechanism making the hopper(s) more critical. The only and I mean only thing which would really solve the problem would be for an actual staff of non-political clerks who would edit the bills for sense, Constitutionality and contradictions, as happens in other countries. The Chancery has to do that, faute de mieux, which is what is in my Bill rather than my Amendment.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on May 25, 2017 18:48:25 GMT -6
The Scribery currently does part of that job, does it not?
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on May 25, 2017 18:54:06 GMT -6
The Scribery currently does part of that job, does it not? The Scribery only has a role after a bill is passed. Here, we are discussing putting a fence at the top of the cliff of badly written law, rather than an ambulance at the bottom.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on May 26, 2017 5:07:02 GMT -6
The Scribery can only act while the Bill is in the Hopper/Clark, and only upon orthographical changes, and it still needs the permission of the bill’s original sponsor. We have the tool, but it is really not useful. We must not make any changes to the substance of a proposal, even if we know it to be in conflict with other statutes.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jul 28, 2017 16:28:42 GMT -6
I'm not sure about the time extension. As others has said I'm not sure what the effect will be if people don't comment on the bill during most of the time when the bill is in the hopper anyway. On the other hand there are many examples of bills that have a certain urgency to them. I think we're already seeing an increase in the use of the Seneschal bypass in recent years. Then again, if legislation is urgent maybe people shouldn't have waited until last moment to propose it.
More cosponsors definitely seems like a good idea though. If more people share responsibility for a bill the chance someone picks up on a mistake increases as well. Maybe it should even be 2 MCs and a Senator.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jul 29, 2017 3:24:38 GMT -6
In theory, yes. But how many MZ's shout 'co sponsor' just because they really agree with the spirit behind a Bill even though they had no hand in authoring it (or even proofing the text)?
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jul 30, 2017 9:53:29 GMT -6
There are still plenty of bills being proposed with only one cosponsor. If you have to ask people to sponsor your bill theres at least a real chance they read it before its clarked. Anyway, if you're right and MZs are willing to cosponsor anything, then it should be easy enough to meet the requirement, so what's the risk?
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jul 31, 2017 2:20:45 GMT -6
Fair point.
Here's something. I'm not at all sure about this bill. I don't want to waste Clark space and MZs time on it needlessly.
I think we should go forward with the voting intention act, forward with a requirement for multiple co sponsoring, and drop the silly idea of separate voting sessions (at least in the form my bill proposes, and at least until I get indication that people would vote for it).
|
|