Opposition to the recently announced Rule on Legislation Authorship
-
Mr. Speaker, I oppose your recent announcement titled "Rule on Legislation Authorship" due to the following reasons:
-
It has been a habit of most councilors to amend a proposal which they believe is inconsistent to their beliefs and the interests of their nation. And with the voting on amendments taking place afterwards, most councilors vote with respect to their political groups and the relationship of their country of origin to the country of origin of the amendment's proponent. This would mean at this point that nearly all of the amendments submitted by EPA members to proposals are more likely to pass than the amendments submitted by ELDR or PEL members to proposals.
-
The primary idea/framework of proposals are made by the genius minds of individual councilors, therefore I would support this only if proponents of amendments to proposals shall be listed as a sponsor instead of another author.
I hope that this may be understood by the Speaker.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
-
I share some of Van Halen's concern here. The definition of '50%' is difficult to work out in a way that actually reflects the substance of the legislation – someone shouldn't be credited as a 'co-author' if they contribute a lot of housekeeping text but none of the original idea or substance of the legislation. Someone should be credited in some way if, though their contribution doesn't meet the arbitrary 50% threshold, they substantively change the intent and effect of the legislation. And quite frankly, amendment and co-authorship are two very different things.
Perhaps a reasonable compromise might be to credit, under 'amended by', any councillor whose amendments successfully make it into the bill?
Cllr Tupac Shakur
-
"I should make some comment to this as it was some private discussions I held with the Speaker which we tend to hold fairly often that may have contributed to a certain degree on this new rule.
Firstly, its completely conspiratorial to assume that acts will be intentionally hijacked in the name of receiving some credit, or that its entirely based around Eurogroup, or national bias. It's clear that the speaker's new rule is entirely just to ensure proper credit is allocated, and the word sponsor does not allocate proper credit. Especially for example in my case, where I effectively completely rewrote the ESA Act and was made clear by multiple councillors that was the only reason it passed. Why should I just be listed as just a 'sponsor'? Without me, it literally would not have been law. That is not to take away from the legacy Cllr. Huffton left behind, but I doubt the man who was very appreciatitive of my amendments would like to see me cast to the wayside of history. It's been stated multiple times that Huffton was the Father of the ESA, well I should have been its mother then.
Secondly, EPA proposals seem more likely to pass because they are far less outlandish and more pragmatic in approach. The EPA has made it clear that it seeks to work with anyone to ensure the best Europe we can be. From the hospital ship act, to the EHO act, to so many others the EPA worked as equal partners in discussions to ensure the best act possible. Though, the EPA's internal whipping operation while extremely effective showcases how individualistic we can be, I've disagreed with Speaker Firoux quite a fair number of times.
Sure the primary idea of an act, or its framework may be the work of a 'Primary' or 'Principal' author, but this does not take away from the collective work the Council puts forward during the debate and amendment process to make it the best act possible. If someone's amendments clearly changed the intent, changed a large amount of the act's wording beyond just simply housekeeping amendments, they should be listed as an author. Not the principal or primary author, but an author. It's only fair, something the Cllr. from Reitzmag seems to be ignoring as the main point of Speaker Firoux's announcement was to be fair to people who put a lot of effort into their council work, not some grand EPA conspiracy that much like his friend Winston tend to espouse on a near daily basis.
Cllr. Shakur brings up a valid point, and I hope the Speaker will look upon the intent of amendment changes when deciding on records keeping, and that it is only reserved for cases like mine instead of the stockstandard house keeping series of amendments. I don't agree with the idea of compromising by just saying it was amended by a Councillor, it was clearly put to law with their ideas and writings as a part of it, they should be creditted as an author if it was a major addition. I hope the Speaker clarifies in the future who they list in addition for Authorship just for transparency."
Carita Falk
Archrepublic of Vayinaod -
Councillors Shakur and Falk have both given me a lot to think about.
Councillor Shakur is right in that there is a difference between amendment and co-authorship. However, as Councillor Falk has pointed out, there are instances where the amendments have effectively rewritten entire pieces of legislation from top to bottom, as was her case.
However, like Councillor Falk, I do see the point on taking substantial and meaningful changes besides housekeeping amendments into account. It's true, substantial housekeeping amendments don't really warrant co-authorship. Thus, I accept Councillor Falk's suggestion on the matter. I will also look upon the intent and outcome of amendment changes, and how they meaningfully impact the overall goal or premise of the legislation, in addition to my previous rule. If there is grounds for co-authorship, I will mention it once the legislation has been passed, and if the councillor accepts co-authorship, then I shall make it evident in the Acquis Communautaire.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
Mr. Speaker, I now agree on your new stances in this ruling. Thank you for taking our opinions into consideration.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag
