Post by inksplash on Sept 1, 2004 11:13:47 GMT -6
I've franked Ben's reply to me in the Clark #2 thread here.
RBM: I'd send you my copy of the OrgLaw but alas, it's printed out on paper.
No longer necessary, as I've d-l'ed the PDF Marc Moisan posted. THANX, Marc!
RBM: 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!
Anything that changes our internal procedures or legal definitions needs a double-check, whther it's contoversial or not. I did leave a method to expedite purely routine things like National Entertainer...so the really urgent and really routine can pass quickly, but the stuff in the middle, the meat-and-potatoes gets an extra look. The additional work of the SoS would amount to splitting the list of legislation in two, First Presentation and Final/Immediate, which ought not to be that much.
> 2. Codifying a process under which bill can be amended, as opposed to the wide-open free-for-all that exists now.
RBM: 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.
'Amendment' is sort of a misnomer, because all modification is made BEFORE passage (not after!) and made with the author's input. Amending a bill after passage means drafting another bill, as it is now.
RBM: I see an endless stream of Cort cases originating from such an attempt.
No, because changes to the bill must involve the original authors, who have the right to determine what is 'germane'. Unless there are more revisionists than original sponsors, in which case it could get ugly. I saw this as a way to encourage co-sponsorship, i.e. getting other living brains involved.
RBM: [Granting a small increase in power to a Living Cosa] would be a radical shift of power to the Old Growthers and those fortunate enough to travel.
I don't know about a radical shift. It's only one Clark per session typically, and non-OG's are needed to make quorum to hold a Living Cosa. It's the one time when real-time collaboration is possible, why not take advantage of it? It's also a way to reward those who do make the trip.
RBM: My personal sense of equality is offended! ;-)
Not my intent, of course.
For other reasons, though, I'm increasingly dubious about floor amendments. I wanted insure that MZ's who voted on the unaltered bill would not be committed to the revised version, but putting in that safeguard meant, I realized, that precast votes could be maliciously negated by a cosmetic floor amendment. Which is even scarier.
It's probably best if the floor amendment idea be scrapped. I still like the intent of the rest of the bill...
Damn, why go my good ideas fall flat like this? =
RBM: 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.
I wasn't 'doubling' it, I was relaxing its pace (or so I thought). But handling language tweaks outside of the Clark is a good notion.
RBM: Extremely urgent stuff is why we have PDs.
Except that Orglaw Amendments can't be PD'd. And Orglaw Amendments need to be drafted with the most care, and reviewed the most carefully.
Well, rather than simply pasting the requisite OrgLaw citations into my proposal, I'm going to have another look at the whole thing.
I'd hate for the second bill I've ever proposed to get shot down as thoroughly as the first. Which is why the A/SoS was probably wise not take it right away...
Gary L. Cone
MC-Vuode (nominally MN)
RBM: I'd send you my copy of the OrgLaw but alas, it's printed out on paper.
No longer necessary, as I've d-l'ed the PDF Marc Moisan posted. THANX, Marc!
RBM: 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!
Anything that changes our internal procedures or legal definitions needs a double-check, whther it's contoversial or not. I did leave a method to expedite purely routine things like National Entertainer...so the really urgent and really routine can pass quickly, but the stuff in the middle, the meat-and-potatoes gets an extra look. The additional work of the SoS would amount to splitting the list of legislation in two, First Presentation and Final/Immediate, which ought not to be that much.
> 2. Codifying a process under which bill can be amended, as opposed to the wide-open free-for-all that exists now.
RBM: 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.
'Amendment' is sort of a misnomer, because all modification is made BEFORE passage (not after!) and made with the author's input. Amending a bill after passage means drafting another bill, as it is now.
RBM: I see an endless stream of Cort cases originating from such an attempt.
No, because changes to the bill must involve the original authors, who have the right to determine what is 'germane'. Unless there are more revisionists than original sponsors, in which case it could get ugly. I saw this as a way to encourage co-sponsorship, i.e. getting other living brains involved.
RBM: [Granting a small increase in power to a Living Cosa] would be a radical shift of power to the Old Growthers and those fortunate enough to travel.
I don't know about a radical shift. It's only one Clark per session typically, and non-OG's are needed to make quorum to hold a Living Cosa. It's the one time when real-time collaboration is possible, why not take advantage of it? It's also a way to reward those who do make the trip.
RBM: My personal sense of equality is offended! ;-)
Not my intent, of course.
For other reasons, though, I'm increasingly dubious about floor amendments. I wanted insure that MZ's who voted on the unaltered bill would not be committed to the revised version, but putting in that safeguard meant, I realized, that precast votes could be maliciously negated by a cosmetic floor amendment. Which is even scarier.
It's probably best if the floor amendment idea be scrapped. I still like the intent of the rest of the bill...
Damn, why go my good ideas fall flat like this? =
RBM: 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.
I wasn't 'doubling' it, I was relaxing its pace (or so I thought). But handling language tweaks outside of the Clark is a good notion.
RBM: Extremely urgent stuff is why we have PDs.
Except that Orglaw Amendments can't be PD'd. And Orglaw Amendments need to be drafted with the most care, and reviewed the most carefully.
Well, rather than simply pasting the requisite OrgLaw citations into my proposal, I'm going to have another look at the whole thing.
I'd hate for the second bill I've ever proposed to get shot down as thoroughly as the first. Which is why the A/SoS was probably wise not take it right away...
Gary L. Cone
MC-Vuode (nominally MN)
