The Hopper Proposal Revised

[Danihel Laurieir]

Here's the redrafted Hopper proposal.

It differs from the original proposal in two ways:

1. It fixes the "first Clark problem" by providing for an exception to the ten day in-the-hopper-first rule for the first Clark following an election (in which there's only 7 days between the conclusion of the election and the deadline for the first Clark). In this draft, there's a 5 day minimum stay in the hopper proposed. (See redrafted Article IX. Sec. 3 and Article IX Sec. 8)

This is tight, but it may not turn out to be unworkable. We may just have to develop a tradition of having parties, likely legislators and possible Prime Ministers do a little advance work to get things moving in the first month. Also I'm not sure it would be such a bad idea for that first Clark to be a little legislation-lite. After all, there's lots of appointments and soundings of the political landscape to be made.

2. It makes clear that there's a single author who's in control of a given proposal. (See Article IX Sec. 5)

This draft dodges some of the issues raised in the discussion of the original proposal. For instance, I made no changes regarding the disposition of legislation pending from dissolved legislatures. Nor did I propose changing the King (or Regent's) ability to propose legislation. I also avoided the forum-thread debate because it seems to be been nicely resolved already.

I intend to submit this draft to the SOS for next month's (January's) Clark. Let me know if there are any glaring errors or omissions.

Because I added a section, the sections following sec. 8 are renumbered.



A Proposed Amendment to the Organic Law:


Repeal Article IX and replace it with:

Article IX: The Secretary of State, the Hopper and the Clark
Art. IX:Sec. 1. The Seneschál shall appoint a Secretary of State to an indefinite term. He may be removed and replaced by law. The Secretary of State shall supervise and organize the legislative business of the Ziu. He shall do this by administering a public venue for the inspection of legislative proposals before they become bills, "The Hopper" and by compiling and publishing the monthly legislative journal, "The Clark." He may delegate another citizen to act as Deputy Secretary of State, who will execute the powers and duties of the Secretary's office, while the Secretary is unavailable or unable to do so. This person shall be appointed and dismissed by the Secretary on whim.

Art. IX:Sec. 2. Any Member of the Cosâ, or Senator, or the King, shall have the right to submit legislative proposals and bills to the Secretary of State for consideration by the Ziu according to the procedures specified in this article.

Art. IX: Sec. 3. Except as provided in Article IX: Sec. 7, a bill is not eligible to be voted on by the Ziu and cannot be published in the Clark unless it was first submitted to "The Hopper" as a legislative proposal. And except as provided in Article IX: Sec. 8, only legislative proposals that are in "The Hopper" and have been there for at least ten days can become eligible for publication in "The Clark" as bills. Legislative proposals that are no longer in "The Hopper" cannot become bills.

Art. IX: Sec. 4. The Secretary of State is under no obligation to create a permanent record of legislative proposals in "The Hopper." The Secretary of State shall remove legislative proposals from "The Hopper" at the request of the author. If a legislative proposal has remained in the "The Hopper" for more than 59 days, the Secretary of State may remove it.

Art. IX: Sec. 5. A legislative proposal is submitted t to the Secretary of State for publication in "The Hopper." A legislative proposal thus submitted should be followed by the words "Uréu q'estadra så" (or "Proposed by") and the name of the author and his party and home province. A legislative proposal may be submitted by multiple sponsors, but the legislator whose name is listed first after the words "Uréu q'estadra så" (or "Proposed by") is considered the author of the legislative proposal. The Secretary of State may refuse to accept legislative proposals that are not clearly typed or word-processed.

Art. IX: Sec. 6. After his legislative proposal has spent ten days in "The Hopper," the author may submit it—with or without modification or amendment—as a bill to the Secretary of State according to the procedures specified in Article IX: Secs. 8-12. The Secretary of State may, however, refuse to accept the bill if he finds that the bill is so substantially different from its original form as a legislative proposal that it constitutes a significantly different proposal. Upon such a finding, the bill is automatically returned to "The Hopper."

Art. IX: Sec. 7. At his discretion, the Prime Minister shall have the right to withdraw any legislative proposal from "The Hopper" and instruct the Secretary of State to treat it as a properly submitted bill. The Prime Minister's Prime Dictates are exempt from all provisions relating to legislative proposals and "The Hopper."

Art. IX: Sec. 8. For the first Clark to be published following an Election Deadline as defined in Article VII: Sec. 3, only legislative proposals that are in "The Hopper" and have been there for at least five days can become eligible for publication in "The Clark" as bills.

Art. IX:Sec. 9. Bills shall be submitted before the twenty-first day of the month, to the Secretary of State for consideration by the Ziu. Bills received after the twenty-first day of the month shall be published in the next Clark or postponed for one Clark, at the Secretary of State's discretion.

Art. IX:Sec. 10. A bill may be proposed by submitting it to the Secretary of State. A bill thus submitted should be followed by the words "Uréu q'estadra så" (or "Proposed by") and the name of the author(s) and his/their party and home province. The Secretary of State may refuse to accept bills that are not clearly typed or word-processed.

Art. IX:Sec. 11. 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 that do not comply with this provision.

Art. IX:Sec. 12. All bills received by the Secretary of State during one calendar month shall be compiled into a published legislative journal, to be called "The Clark." The Clark shall be compiled prior to the first day of the following month, and shall be published on that day.

Art. IX:Sec. 13. Notwithstanding Sections 2 and 5 of this Article, the Ziu may make laws regulating the number of bills a Member of the Cosâ or a Senator may submit for one Clark without the need to amend the Organic Law.

Repeal Article X: Sec. 7. (For comment only bills)

Repeal Article XI: Sec. 4 and replace it with:

Art. XI: Sec.4. The Seneschal has State duties. He may advise the King to dissolve the Cosa and to appoint and remove members of the Cabinet. His advice to the King on these matters may not be refused. The Seneschal may issues Speeches to the Nation in writing, declare war pending the approval of the Cosa, write treaties pending the approval of the Cosa, expedite the Ziu's consideration of legislation, and issue Prime Dictates.

[Sir Samuhel Tecladeir]

So, I'm wondering if the process would look something like this: someone comes up with an idea, places it in the Hopper. It is then accepted or denied incorporation into the Clark.

If accepted, we can debate the issues in the Ziu forum until voting.

Can we have "sub-threads"? For example:

THE HOPPER forum
--> December 2005 Clark sub-thread
----> Proposed This Act thread
----> Proposed That Act thread
----> Another Proposed Act thread
--> January 2006 Clark sub-thread

THE ZIU forum
--> December 2005 Clark sub-thread
----> 35R41Z thread
----> 35R42Z thread
----> 35R44Z thread
--> January 2006 Clark sub-thread
----> 35R55Z thread

That way we can have discussion about a single topic for a specific Clark. I'm just not sure if it's technically feasible.

[Hooligan]

My two (yes, only two!) comments on the proposal as revised.

• In the proposed Article IX, Section 5, it is mandated that the identification of the legislator praying submission of the bill be accompanied by his or her political party and home province. I prefer the current language of Organic Law, which leaves any information other than the legislator's name up to the petitioner. The reason I prefer this is that the home province of a Cosâ member has little to do with his or her holding the seats in that body. Take, for example, MC Bettinger, a Vuodean member of the RUMP. The RUMP earned absolutely zero Cosâ seats in the late election from votes of Vuodeans. Therefore all of the seats in which MC Bettinger sits were earned for his party by voters of other provinces. In a small sense, then, he does not represent Vuode at all, and to have him append that to his name when submitting a bill makes (to me) no sense. In the case of the Senate, to require the home province be given would mean that only three of the six Senators currently seated would be listing the name of the province that they represent in that body. My personal opinion is that MC's should specify their name, the abbreviation MC, and their party in the tag line, and Senators their name, the word Senator, and the province which they represent (and optionally, I suppose, their party).
  
  
• I am happy to see that the proposal does not specify any mandated removal of bills from the Hopper at the dissolution of a Cosâ. My personal preference would be that bills could be put into the Hopper during the final Clark of a Cosâ, with their authors confident that the bills would be considered in the first Clark of the next Cosâ, and not pulled out without having a chance at reaching the floor when the final Clark ends. As I mentioned in earlier debate on this, it seems that this would effectively make the final Clark of a Cosâ one in which the legislators could not submit new bills for future consideration. I like the retention of the provision empowering the Secretary of State to remove any bill that has been in the Hopper more than 59 days. This will allow the Hopper to be kept clean, and yet allow it to hold bills throughout an election recess. With the exception that new members of the legislature will have (if they are given their seat assignments soon enough) a shortened period (five days) for Hopping any bills they choose to submit, I do think that all the (very minor) issues we discussed about this very excellent proposal have been addressed.
  

I would happily vote Pêr on this proposal were it to reach the Senate as a bill, and I look forward to doing so, and referring the proposed OrgLaw changes to the people so that the 36th Cosâ may employ the Hopper as a requirement in the same way we are already employing it as a convenience.

The Baron H.

[Danihel Laurieir]

Baron H:

I'm a little confused about your first point. In my proposal, I thought I was directly lifting the current Org Law requirements about MC identification. See current Article IX: Sec. 3.

If any case--whether I'm confused or not--I'd be happy to make the revision you suggest as long as you still want to make it (since it might be different than the current Org Law.)

--Dan

[Hooligan]

Dan:

As a member of the Random Unilateral Movement Party, it is always a joyful moment when I confuse someone. And for the confused person to be a member of the Uppermost Cort, I am truly giddy with my accomplishment.

Article IX, Section 3 of the OrgLaw states it this way:

A bill may be proposed by submitting it to the Secretary of State. A bill thus submitted should be followed by the words "Ur\xe9u q'estadra s\xe5" (or "Proposed by") and the name of the author(s) and the capacity in which the proposer is submitting the bill. The Ziu may regulate the wording to use for the capacity.

The wording you proposed in the Hopper amendment differs in that it mandates the exact contents of the "capacity" (which current OrgLaw leaves to the Ziu for specification), by saying that the author's "party and home province" are to be included. From the bill as currently drafted in this thread:

Art. IX: Sec. 5. A legislative proposal is submitted t [sic] to the Secretary of State for publication in "The Hopper." A legislative proposal thus submitted should be followed by the words "Uréu q'estadra så" (or "Proposed by") and the name of the author AND HIS PARTY AND HOME PROVINCE [emphasis mine]. A legislative proposal may be submitted by multiple sponsors, but the legislator whose name is listed first after the words "Uréu q'estadra så" (or "Proposed by") is considered the author of the legislative proposal.

As sad as it would make me, party-principle-wise, I hope that this explanation unconfuses you. Darn it.

Hoping to confuse you again sometime soon, I am,
The Baron H.