Clark #2

[seahobbit]

MCs and Senators,

Please ensure that you submit your bills before August 31st in order to ensure that they'll be added to the next Clark.

Thanks,

Marc Moisan, C.D.
Acting Secretary of State

[Lord Q]

I'm good for voting on this one, correct?

[seahobbit]

Quedéir said:

I'm good for voting on this one, correct?

And you can send Bills too... ;D

Marc Moisan, C.D.
Acting Secretary of State

[inksplash]

WHERAS: By and large, the citizenry of Talossa are not legal experts or professional politicians, and

WHEREAS: otherwise useful bills end up being struck down because of one or more badly-chosen words, and

WHEREAS: there is a far worse possibility that badly-phrased legislation is passed nonetheless, because the main thrust of the bill is valid, where it becomes a silent land-mine that Talossans trip over at a later date,

THEREFORE: The following amendment of the Organic Law shall be presented to the citizenry of Talossa for their consideration:

To amend the relevant portions of the Organic Law (insert citation here) in service of making necessary changes to the Talossan Legislative cycle, to wit:

All lesiglation (save certain exceptions noted below) set before the Ziu shall appear in no less than two Clarks.

The "First Presentation" shall be for informational and study purposes, and to give the Ziu opportunity to amend the bill before a binding vote is taken. No actual vote is taken on a First Presentation. Any and all amendments must be proposed

Bills that are not amended proceed to "Final Presentation" in the next Clark, where they are passed or failed according to existing guidelines for legislation.

Bills that are amended are entered in the next Clark for "Presentation As Amended", where no vote is taken, and then proceed to Final Presentation in the following Clark.

All amendments must be relevant to the stated purpose of the legislation, cannot radically alter the intent of the proposal, and are subject to the approval of the bill's original sponsors(s). Bills presented "as amended" must have at least one (1) more sponsor than the original proposal. This includes replacement of any sponsors who withdraw during the admendment process.

The Prime Minister has the discretion and authority to declare a bill to be of sufficient urgency that passage or failure must be decided immediately, and may direct the Secretary of State to change the bill's status to "Immediate Final Presentation". This may only be done within the first week of the bill's First or As Amended presentations. The Secretary of State must then issue a message to all members of the Ziu, by any appropriate means, advising them that this step was taken.

A Living Cosa may also, by three-quarter majority of those present, agree to grant Immediate status to any non-Final bill.

A Living Cosa may, if one or more of the bill's sponsors is present or able to be consulted, amend any Final or Immediate bill on the floor prior to voting, subject to the same limitations stated elsewhere. Any such action must be annotated in the Clark.

Votes cast prior to a Living Cosa for a bill that is subsequently amended on the floor are provisionally changed to "abstentions", and every effort must be made to consult with the casters of said votes to re-confirm them, unless the Clark is closed with the closing of the Living Cosa.

Bills that are of non-proceedural or cosmetic nature, such as citizenship approvals or National Entertainer considerations, are permitted (at the Secretary of State's discretion) to proceed directly to Final Presentation as well.

Uréu q'estadra så: Gary L. Cone, MC-Vuode (MN)

[kri]

Azul,

Gary, I'm thinking there are other ways to do this. We already have a provision for the "for comment only" bills on the Clark, and, of course, we have Wittenberg. There is no reason why (as in this case!) a bill can't be opened up for public debate well before it is presented on the Clark.

As for confusing or ambiguous language, the OrgLaw already gives the Uppermost Cort some latitude to simply go in and fix the problems, if they are presented to the Cort in some coherent and formal way. This hasn't been done for a while, but there is no reason it can't be.

As for amending legislation during a Living Cosa setting, personally I think this is a bad idea. It works to lessen the impact of MCs and Senators who aren't present. The best thing to do is what we did with Marc's bill: vote it down and then ask for revisions.

My .02.

Ben

[seahobbit]

I am not certain what the goal of the bill is, or what that should correct exactly, but I also disagree with Gary's proposal for different reasons than Ben. The potential for confusions, unnecessary delays for the passing of bills and most of all, potential for abuse, too much lattitude given to the SoS. (I will never support bills that states "at the Secretary of State's discretion" because of the potential for abuse).

In accordance with Art. IX:Sec. 4 of the OrgLaw:

If any bill seeks to amend, change, or repeal any Article of the Organic Law or any Law, the bill must specify exactly the Law(s) or Article(s) which it seeks to amend, change, or repeal. The Secretary of State may refuse to accept bills which do not comply with this provision.

I refuse to include this bill because it doesn't specify which article is being amended. rewrite your bill to include such mention and I'll have no choice but to accept it (even if I don't like it).

Marc Moisan, C.D.
Acting Secretary of State

[inksplash]

I --regrettably -- do not have a copy of the OrgLaw available to me to insert the citations myself. Which is why I was *unable* to provide the references myself. Could somebody email me their copy?

The purposes of the bill are as follows:

1. Mandating a "FYI" presentation before actual votes are taken, because as an option, it's almost never used -- and needs to be, as witnessed by 33RZ4 and many other bills in previous years.

2. Codifying a process under which bill can be amended, as opposed to the wide-open free-for-all that exists now.

3. Specifying the scope allowed for amendments (no bread and circuses or pork barrels!)

4. Granting a small increase in power to a Living Cosa, via floor amendments.

Most of the things we we debate and legislate will not suffer for the extra month taken, and I *do* provide exceptions for the insignificant (which would gum up the works if more time is taken) and the extremely urgent (which needs fast passage).

Think about it before you reject it out of hand.

Gary

[kri]

Azul!

I'd send you my copy of the OrgLaw but alas, it's printed out on paper. :-(

> 1. Mandating a "FYI" presentation before actual votes are taken, because as an option, it's almost never used -- and needs to be, as witnessed by 33RZ4 and many other bills in previous years.

IMHO, this would mean that stuff that is absolutely non-controversial would need the kind of double scrutiny that you propose. That would seriously gum up the system and (nota bene!) make the life of the Secretary of State more difficult. Talossa is an all volunteer establishment, let's never forget that!

> 2. Codifying a process under which bill can be amended, as opposed to the wide-open free-for-all that exists now.

The very word "amendment" with regard to Cosâ legislation sends shivers up and down my spine! Our legal system and our legal records are complicated and confusing enough without having to refer to amendments. Trust me on this one, I was on the OrgLaw committee, I co-wrote the 1988 Constituziun, and I wrote the 1985 Organic Law all by myself. When you introduce the prospect of amendment to legislation, you create a wide-open free-for-all, you do not limit it.

> 3. Specifying the scope allowed for amendments (no bread and circuses or pork barrels!)

This is easier said than done (though some state and national constitutions have such rules). I see an endless stream of Cort cases originating from such an attempt. ("Your amendment wasn't germane!" "Yes, it was!" "No, it wasn't!" etc.)

> 4. Granting a small increase in power to a Living Cosa, via floor amendments.

This would be a radical shift of power to the Old Growthers and those fortunate enough to travel. My personal sense of equality is offended! ;-)

> Most of the things we we debate and legislate will not suffer for the extra month taken,

It's not that it's an extra month. I have no problem with an extra month--just do that extra month on Witt, by phone, face to face, whatever. Just don't double the work of the Secretary of State.

> and I *do* provide exceptions for the insignificant (which would gum up the works if more time is taken) and the extremely urgent (which needs fast passage).

Extremely urgent stuff is why we have PDs.

Ben

[seahobbit]

Gary said:

I --regrettably -- do not have a copy of the OrgLaw available to me to insert the citations myself. Which is why I was *unable* to provide the references myself. Could somebody email me their copy?

Check out www.moisan.ca/talossa/97OrgLaw.pdf

Marc Moisan, C.D.
Acting Secretary of State

[Lord Q]

Marc said:

And you can send Bills too... ;D

Whee! ;D