Public Consultation on Telecomuna

[Sevastáin Pinátsch]

Apr 12, 2019 20:20:51 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

I made an account but it has not been verified yet.

I sent back a request for email verification through the system. Maybe check your spam folder?

[Sevastáin Pinátsch]

Apr 13, 2019 5:09:34 GMT -6 Sevastáin Pinátsch said:

Apr 12, 2019 20:20:51 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

I made an account but it has not been verified yet.

I sent back a request for email verification through the system. Maybe check your spam folder?

/cc Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h E.S. Bornatfiglheu

[Audrada Rôibeardét]

I've had a look at Telecomuna and it doesn't seem any different from Witt. I know very little about tech so maybe I'm missing something.

[Eðo Grischun]

Apr 13, 2019 8:49:21 GMT -6 Audrada Rôibeardét said:

I've had a look at Telecomuna and it doesn't seem any different from Witt. I know very little about tech so maybe I'm missing something.

The boards for the Ziu, courts, provinces will be 'removed' from Witt. Witt will be for culture (in early days it won't be much more than a chat room). The new Tele will be for official business stuff.

[Audrada Rôibeardét]

Ah! Got it, thanks.

Doesn't sound like a great idea...

[Glüc da Dhi]

As I see, the current title J is not yet in effect, as the bill that introduced it specifies that it (and some other changes that will happen later), 47RZ22, only goes into effect after a plan has been approved by the Ziu. After the consultation period ends I will submit a final plan to the Ziu for approval. I believe this plan should be informed by the governments wishes on this matter within the boundaries of the current title J (despite some of my own potential objections), which as I currently understand it is to use this forum (unless the Ziu decides to pass a different law of course).

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Apr 16, 2019 6:30:44 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

As I see, the current title J is not yet in effect, as the bill that introduced it specifies that it (and some other changes that will happen later), 47RZ22, only goes into effect after a plan has been approved by the Ziu.

Viteu Marcianüs, as A-G, can we have a legal opinion on this? My opinion is that nothing that's not in El Lexhátx is binding law and therefore Title J is currently in effect because there's nothing to say otherwise.

[Eðo Grischun]

Apr 16, 2019 15:29:07 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Apr 16, 2019 6:30:44 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

As I see, the current title J is not yet in effect, as the bill that introduced it specifies that it (and some other changes that will happen later), 47RZ22, only goes into effect after a plan has been approved by the Ziu.

Viteu Marcianüs, as A-G, can we have a legal opinion on this? My opinion is that nothing that's not in El Lexhátx is binding law and therefore Title J is currently in effect because there's nothing to say otherwise.

I had to go check to see what Gluc was meaning. It looks like he is right.

Now, things get a bit screwy because certain dates have already passed, but 47RZ22 does indeed state, verbatim, "Telecomuna and the other legislative changes of this bill will not go into effect until after the Ziu has approved the plan."

Does this mean that Title J shouldn't even be in El Lexhatx yet?

My opinion is that nothing that's not in El Lexhátx is binding law

Nah. A statute is always binding as passed by the Ziu. El Lexhatx is just a codification and doesn't always include ephemeral clauses or clauses of an 'if' (such as "Bill X only comes into effect if Bill Y fails" kind of thing).

[Viteu Marcianüs]

42RZ22 does contain some interesting language, but I am inclined to agree with the Secretary of State in this matter. I haven't had occasion to do a statutory interpretation analysis (which is one of my favorite things to do) in ages, so you'll indulge me. I'm a bit rusty but generally we ask the following questions:

(1) Can we discern the meaning of the statute from its plain text?

(2) If we cannot, can we look to legislative intent to discern the meaning of a provision? 

In applying the above, we are mindful of certain canons: (i) is there is linguistic aspect in drawing inferences (i.e., is the use of a particular word a term of art, is there a reason for use of certain grammar, etc), to think of this another way, does the word have a specialized meaning or is it used in the ordinary meaning; (ii) provisions and words in a statute do not exist in a vacuum and we should strive to ensure that we do not negate one part in favor of another part (i.e., we construe the words and provisions to give effect as a whole); and (iii) where there is a clear overarching presumption favoring a specific substantive result, we require clear legislative intent to negate it (this one is actually a  bit more discretionary).  

(As an aside, I have not done a proper statutory interpretation analysis in ages so I am a bit rusty; I may have missed a canon or didn't articulate one clearly.  I do not have the time to jump look through old treatise at the moment.  Also, pay mind that I practice in a specific jurisdiction so the foregoing may not be the case in other common-law jurisdictions (e.g., in Canada, California, or New Zealand).)    

With that framework, this is how I understood the statute: 

The first decretal states the following: Therefore there shall be a new Title J in el Lexhatx

This is clear as day. 

The following decretals are similar--so far so good. 

The last decretal begins "Furthermore, these changes to the law shall not go into effect until August 1st, 2015/XXXVI." 

Let's put this on hold for a second. 

The next sentence reads, "The time between the passage of this law and that date should be used by the Chancery and other agencies to plan, prepare, and set up Telecomuna." 

Let's also put this on hold for a second.

The subsequent sentences enumerate conditions precedent (i.e., what must occur) before 47RZ22 goes into effect. To wit: 

1. the Chancery must, from the point of passage but before August 1, 2015, hold a period of public consultation of no less the one month; 
2. after the public consultation, the Chancery must submit a plan to the Ziu; and
3. the Ziu must approve or deny the plan, and if denied, repeat revise and resubmit.  

I think criteria 2 and 3 are pretty clear on their meaning, but criterion 1 gives pause. 

The first criterion contains this clause:"from the point of passage but before August 1st, 2015".  Recall that this speaks to when the public consultation must occur.  I read this as limiting the statutory window for when the public consultation can occur. If it did not happen then, it cannot happen ever. But then I consider the preceding sentence, "The time between the passage of this law and that date should be used by the Chancery and other agencies to plan, prepare, and set up Telecomuna." This suggests that the Ziu considered that it may take longer; this is what the Chancery should do between passage and August 1, 2015 and not what the Chancery must do. Nevertheless, shall and should are generally legal terms of art--shall compels and should is advisory. 

Applying the precept that provisions are read to give effect to the statute as a whole, it does seem to me that there is ambiguity as to whether the public consultation could occur in any other period outside of the window between passage and August 1, 2015. Applying the precept, the use of shall is a clear mandate and, absent unambiguous Legislative intent to the contrary, it must be enforced as written.  I do not have time to look through the debate that occurred on this statute and would leave that to others to offer. The problem, I think, with interpreting the provision to limit when the public consultation can occur is that it would imply that the Ziu intended for the Secretary of State to have absolute discretion with whether to even both implementing the statute. That is to say, "the Chancery should do this, we strongly advise for it, but if they don't, nothing can happen." I do not think that was the Legislative intent. I summarize the Ziu fully intended the Chancery to act according to its direction. 

Notwithstanding, assuming that the public consultation period can occur now, the final sentence in the act, I think, is operative. It reads, "Telecomuna and the other legislative changes of this bill will not go into effect until after the Ziu has approved the plan." I think this text is pretty unequivocal. The act itself cannot actually go into effect until the conditions precedent are satisfied. If and until the plan is approved by the Ziu, then Title J is not the law of the land. 

To summarize--I agree with Glüc that Title J is not in effect until the conditions precedent are satisfied; I think there is ambiguity elsewhere that gives a credible debate as to whether a condition precedent can, at this time, be satisfied.  My conclusion is as follows: Title J is properly in el Lexhatx but is not effect. I do note that I am I curious to read the Ziu's intent, provided it is appropriately backed up with public comments made prior to the passage of the bill (i.e., I'm disinterested with recollection of what the sponsors might have thought and am more curious what was actually considered at that time).  

But I also want to note a very important aspect to all of this--does it really matter? The Ziu has to approve the plan anyway; the plan can simply be written as a statute and approved as a bill, with appropriate language to replace Title J.  While I generally agree with the Secretary of State's point, I think it's ultimately immaterial. The Ziu could pass a statute in the next Clark that extends that August 1, 2015 deadline and that would be sufficient. Or it could pass a statute that nullifies all of the conditions precedent. Or it could just pass a statute that establishes what Telecomuna intends to do. 

[Eðo Grischun]

Apr 16, 2019 18:13:38 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

...

The Ziu then further passed 48RZ24, The Trying Again on Telecomuna Act.

This second act stated:

• Title J of el Lexhatx shall be put into abeyance until 1 April of 2016. The Royal Scribe shall leave the law in el Lexhatx, but clearly label the title to note that it will go into effect in April of 2016.
• the Secretary of State shall formally present a complete plan to the Ziu for the creation of Telecomuna, including platform, appearance, and the message boards that will exist. This will be done at least one month prior to April of 2016, so that the Ziu will have a chance to vote on approval of the plan.
• the Seneschal is directed to confer with the Secretary of State within one month of the passage of this bill, to establish clear expectations and timelines for the creation of Telecomuna. The Seneschal shall formally report to the Ziu when this has been done to his satisfaction.

[Viteu Marcianüs]

Oy. Anything after that?

[Eðo Grischun]

Apr 16, 2019 20:47:58 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

Oy. Anything after that?

Don't think so. Although, later on we rejected 50RZ23.

• The Telecomuna We Hardly Knew Ya Act
  
  WHEREAS after multiple extensions and delays Telecomuna is still not operational, and
  
  WHEREAS this means that the Chancery is currently in violation of Title J of el Lexhatx, and
  
  WHEREAS even in the absence of Telecomuna, Wittenberg has been experiencing a lengthy period of low activity levels, and
  
  WHEREAS diverting all legislative and government business to a different forum would significantly reduce the level of activity on Wittenberg, further enervating our community by dividing our strength between two barely-active fora, now
  
  THEREFORE the Ziu hereby enacts that Title J of el Lexhatx and the further changes to el Lexhatx directed by 47RZ22 (although not yet implemented by the Royal Scribe) are repealed.

The three Acts each make reference to Title J not being in effect yet. It seems that it's only recently that we've begun thinking that Title J is 'the law of the land', as in active and in effect.

[Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h]

Name it Wittenberg XVI and include every forum, chat-room, etc. One-stop shopping for official Talossan forums...