The Standing Rules (Cosa) Act

[Lüc da Schir]

WHEREAS both Houses of the Ziu do not currently have any body of bylaws, and indeed no rules outside of the pieces of Organic and Statutory Law estabilishing them and regulating elections to those bodies; and

WHEREAS this gap in regulations was evident earlier in the term, as the Senate argued over a contested election; and

WHEREAS, currently, the duties of the respective Presiding Officers are largely customary and their extent is effectively up to the incumbents; and

WHEREAS a set of rules for each House of the Ziu would attempt to clarify the parliamentary procedures of the Cosa and the Senate to the extent each House wishes; and

WHEREAS, additionally, the estabilishment of Committees on Rules and Administration will allow each House to work more efficiently on managing their own bylaws, while still allowing the full membership of the respective House a say and a final vote on proposals; so

THEREFORE WE, the Ziu of the Kingdom of Talossa, hereby amend El Lexhatx to add a new subsection numbered H.22, to read as follows:

22. The Cosa shall autonomously determine the rules of its proceedings. To this goal, the Tuischac'h shall mantain a body of Standing Rules of the Cosa.

22.1 At any one time during a new term, the Cosa shall consider a motion to estabilish a Cosa Committee on Rules and Administration. Upon successful passage, any previously estabilished Committee shall disband and a new one be formed; upon failure, a Committee shall not be formed.

22.1.1 Regardless, any previous iteration of the Committee shall disband at the dissolution of a Cosa.

22.1.2 Upon disbandment, a Committee shall not be allowed to complete debate on any proposal, to start a vote or to complete a vote that was in progress.

22.2 The Cosa Committee on Rules and Administration shall be formed by five Members of the Cosa, appointed by the Túischac'h. The committee must not contain more than two members of a single party. If only two parties are represented in the Cosa, then the maximum number of members from a single party is raised to three.

22.3 The Cosa Committee on Rules and Administration shall elect its Chairman among its own members.

22.4 Any member of the Cosa Committee on Rules and Administration, and the Tuischac'h, shall be empowered to submit to the Committee proposals regarding the estabilishment of a new Standing Rule, or the amendment or deletion of any of the preexisting Standing Rules of the Cosa. After due debate, the Committee shall vote on the proposal, and the proposal shall be considered to be adopted by majority vote.

22.5 The Cosa Committee on Rules and Administration's proceedings shall be public; and the Chairman shall not deny a Member of the Cosa's request to speak and be heard in front of the Committee. Additionally, any Member of the Cosa shall place a proposal for the Committee's consideration, and upon endorsement of the proposal by any member of the Committee, said proposal shall be debated and voted on as described in 22.4.

22.6 Any proposal that has been adopted by the Cosa Committee on Rules and Administration shall be referred to the whole Cosa for approval. The Cosa shall then vote to uphold the proposal by majority vote; upon successful passage, the proposal shall take effect. Should the Cosa instead reject the proposal, it shall return to the Committee's consideration for amendments, or be discarded at the original proposer's discretion.

22.7 No Standing Rule shall infringe on any Organic or Statutory provision, and Standing Rules shall be germane to the Cosa's operations.

22.8 The Cosa shall be empowered to waive any Standing Rule for the remainder of the current term by majority vote, without consulting the Cosa Committee on Rules and Administration.

22.9 At any time a vacancy in the Cosa Committee on Rules and Administration arises, the Tuischac'h shall be empowered to appoint another Member of the Cosa to the empty seat, provided that the partisan balance of the Committee does not change, and the provisions of 22.2 are respected.

22.9.1 Should a member resign or be expelled from the Committee, resign, strike out or be expelled from the Cosa, the member will still be empowered to cast his or her vote in any Committee votes that are currently open, but not any that are initiated after the notice of resignation or expulsion is published.

22.10 At any time, due to inactivity, other impediments to normal activity or subsequently to an individual motion of censure, the Cosa shall be empowered to remove any of the Cosa Committee on Rules and Administration's members, through a motion adopted by simple majority.


Ureu q'estadra sa
Lüc da Schir, Senator (BE)

[Lüc da Schir]

This is the other half of the Standing Rules bill, for future reference. I do not expect to Clark this in the remainder of the term, but the shape of the bill is pretty much final, if not the exact language. This still maybe needs to be completed by an amendment to explicitly allow for Cosa committees.

[Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu]

I have a problem with the concept of the Rules Committees not being Standing/Permanent Committee, as made clear by points 22.1, 22.1.1, & 22.1.2. I would only be in favor of this act if the Rules Committees in both Houses were of a permanent nature.

Thanks,
Davinescu

[Viteu Marcianüs]

What if at any one time, at the beginning of each Cosa it's determined what the rules should be. Failure to adopt new rules means prior rules stand. Also, perhaps in keeping with your idea that the Committee isn't always in session, what if we had a parliamentarian, someone elected at the beginning of each Cosa that is expected to know and understand the rules as to offer advice as needed?

[Lüc da Schir]

Mar 11, 2018 15:17:41 GMT -6 Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu said:

I have a problem with the concept of the Rules Committees not being Standing/Permanent Committee, as made clear by points 22.1, 22.1.1, & 22.1.2. I would only be in favor of this act if the Rules Committees in both Houses were of a permanent nature.

Thanks,
Davinescu

The Cosa can always vote to elect a Committee at the start of its term. The Committee is effectively a Standing Committee; the Cosa can just opt not to fill it if it doesn't need to.

[Lüc da Schir]

Mar 14, 2018 22:55:46 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

What if at any one time, at the beginning of each Cosa it's determined what the rules should be. Failure to adopt new rules means prior rules stand.

This is sort of the purpose of this act, though, isn't it? The Cosa can vote down a motion to form a Committee and let the previous rules stand unamended.

Also, perhaps in keeping with your idea that the Committee isn't always in session, what if we had a parliamentarian, someone elected at the beginning of each Cosa that is expected to know and understand the rules as to offer advice as needed?

This is actually a very good idea. Something that can go on the Standing Rules, whenever we have them.

[Lüc da Schir]

Just a notification that I expect to get to work on this during the next Cosa (not necessarily in the First Clark), so if you have feedback this is definitely the right moment to submit it.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

On the principle of KISS, why not just have el Lexhatx specify that each chamber of the Ziu may adopt its own rules, not inconsistent with the the OrgLaw or statute, by majority vote? Then leave all the details about committees and their composition to each chambers' rules. I don't really see why all those details regarding the internal housekeeping of the Ziu need to be in el Lexhatx.

[Lüc da Schir]

Jul 11, 2018 15:15:20 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

On the principle of KISS, why not just have el Lexhatx specify that each chamber of the Ziu may adopt its own rules, not inconsistent with the the OrgLaw or statute, by majority vote? Then leave all the details about committees and their composition to each chambers' rules. I don't really see why all those details regarding the internal housekeeping of the Ziu need to be in el Lexhatx.

I was about to post a wall of text on my whole reasoning, but I'll stick to answering the main question: I wanted to implement a nonpartisan safeguard by ensuring basic rules can't be amended by the vote of a single House. If basic rules are set in El Lex, then if a party suddenly gets a Cosa majority, it can't just alter the rules so that, for example, it can appoint all five committee members - the Senate would still have to vote on it, and the King could still veto such an undemocratic change to the rules.

(Also, me and V had a long discussion on the Organicity(?) of the proposal, notably (but not exclusively) because it doesn't say anywhere that the Cosa may estabilish committees. Once we concurred on an incontroversially Organic way to implement standing rules, I settled on it - my foremost objection to changing it now would be that the Senate guidelines are already the law, though I'd be happy to revise the course of action if we got a consensus going)

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jul 12, 2018 7:52:40 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

If basic rules are set in El Lex, then if a party suddenly gets a Cosa majority, it can't just alter the rules so that, for example, it can appoint all five committee members - the Senate would still have to vote on it, and the King could still veto such an undemocratic change to the rules.

How is it undemocratic for a majority of the Cosa to make internal rules applicable only to the internal operations of the Cosa without the Senäts or King having a say? It seems curious to say that a royal veto over a Cosa majority makes things more democratic.

[Lüc da Schir]

Jul 12, 2018 15:33:51 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Jul 12, 2018 7:52:40 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

If basic rules are set in El Lex, then if a party suddenly gets a Cosa majority, it can't just alter the rules so that, for example, it can appoint all five committee members - the Senate would still have to vote on it, and the King could still veto such an undemocratic change to the rules.

How is it undemocratic for a majority of the Cosa to make internal rules applicable only to the internal operations of the Cosa without the Senäts or King having a say? It seems curious to say that a royal veto over a Cosa majority makes things more democratic.

So you're not concerned that a single party could choose to rewrite the Cosa's rules. Well, if I'm the only one who thinks that could be a possibility, then I'm fine with stripping down the language of the bill.

[Viteu Marcianüs]

I think you both make valid points. I like having some statutory protection to prevent constant rule changes, but we shouldn't shackle future Cosăs and subject changes to oversight by the King or Senate.

My suggestion is to water this bill down to a simple version. I am merely brain storming and typing this on my phone, so pardon the lack of numbering or clairty. -

Draft compromise proposal: If the Cosă elects to do so, it may establish binding parliamentary Rules of Procedure, and such mechanisms necessary to enforce those rules, as it deems desireable. The procedure and limitations established in Lex.H.6 shall not apply to this provision.
The Rules of Procedure may only be established during the First Clark, in a vote administered by the Prime Minister, and may not be amended for the duration of that Cosă absent support of 75% of its sitting members, in a vote conducted in a similar manner to the initial vote during the First Clark of that Cosă, or if no such vote occurred, the most recent vote. The established Rules of Procedure shall bind all subsequent Cosăs, except, in the First Clark, a vote may be called, upon a motion by an MC and with the support of no less than 25% of the Cosă, to abolish the Rules of Procedure in their entirety. Such a motion shall only apply to the entirety of the Rules of Procedure and cannot be used to sever specific provisions contained therein. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any established provision may be amended or abolished in the First Clark of a new Cosă provided it has the support of 60% of sitting MCs.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Jul 13, 2018 8:42:50 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

So you're not concerned that a single party could choose to rewrite the Cosa's rules. Well, if I'm the only one who thinks that could be a possibility, then I'm fine with stripping down the language of the bill.

Look, there is a simple way out of this. Each house's rules are chosen by that house alone, by supermajority.

[Lüc da Schir]

Sounds like it could work. Okay, so what I think I will do is shelving this bill and only Clarking the relevant amendment, which will be edited to contain only minimal provisions. I will not seek to repeal the Senate provisions that are already law, for the moment.

[Viteu Marcianüs]

I just saw that Miestra commented on this and your 2/3s suggestion is based on that. I'll maintain my proposed text and explanation for now.