User talk:Peteforsyth/leg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Copyright Proposal 2 Ideas for improvement 2.1 ORS 3 Broken link?

[edit] Copyright Proposal

(moved from User talk:Peteforsyth)

Two things came to mind:

• I don't know off the top of my head if the state can force the local governments to comply. The local governments are charted/incorporated by state law, but then again states are part of the US and the US government cannot tell the states to not copyright their materials. So maybe one battle at a time.
• Costs. The government likes to know how much this is going to cost. Now it propably won't cost money to implement, but they may lose revenue. So maybe some research into that aspects with the Dept. of Revenue to bolster the public good arguement.

Otherwise looks fine. Aboutmovies 20:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Two excellent points. I'm happy to remove the request re: local governments (maybe leaving in a parenthetical suggestion somewhere.) Not sure the best way to identify revenue streams that rely on copyright retention, but I'll mull it over and ask around. Thanks! -Pete 22:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ideas for improvement

It's a good start. Ideas:

• Make it even clearer what is wrong and what the legislator should do to fix it
• Replace

I am not an attorney, but it is my understanding that works of the Federal government already have this status.

with the specific CFR section which waives copyright. (It is my understanding too, having worked in the Forest Service, and heard it stated by USGS, USDA, NASA, and BLM personnel.)

• Another point is that reserving copyright—and not publishing ORS online—might be seen as impeding distribution and dissemination of the law.

—EncMstr 20:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just some background, ORS *is* published online--I know because I helped format it for that use. The Legislative Counsel Committee retains copyright to certain aspects of it (not sure what those are), and the on-line edition is not considered certified or official, however, after the LC does all the work compiling and editing a new print edition of the ORS every two years (been there, done that) there is a competing company that produces their own version of the print edition and that is perfectly legal. Katr67 21:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys/gals(?)!

EncMstr, I think your first two points will be addressed by general editing. I expect to tinker with this for a while before sending it off. I'll look at the agencies you mention, but would also love it if you find any specifics. If it's OK, I'll ask you to look over a final draft before I send it. Your third point is a good one, are you suggesting it might be illegal for them to claim copyright? I wasn't thinking so much of ORS as of maps, photos, and documents…but I'm open to suggestion of where to focus. -Pete

Well, I was thinking it was stupid for them copyright anything: Didn't we already pay for the intellectual property? Should we have to pay again to obtain copies of them? —EncMstr 22:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There are two similar but distinct issues at play: (1) whether info is placed in its entirety on the web, and (2) whether or not the gummint claims copyright. Either may be true without the other. My guess is that no copyright is claimed on ORS - I see no notes that it is on the state web site. Having them place it in public view is important as well, but a slightly different issue. -Pete 22:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Katr, thanks for the background. Do you know who that competing company is?

Finally, the two examples I chose are from my own work, but I'm open to replacing/supplementing them with other examples. Please let me know if any come to mind.

-Pete 22:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I can probably find the CFR if you need me to, though AM might have better access to some handy law databases. I think its a good start too--I agree, be very clear what the problem is, and how you propose to solve it. Be passionate! They like that. Also, if you can get a legislator interested in this, this may be the very letter s/he will take to the drafter in the Legislative Counsel to show the drafter what is wanted. So be very clear and specific. Is there any existing Oregon law related to this matter? That might be good to mention. I'll offer my services as a copyeditor on the final copy if you would like. I did very similar work at the LC. I wonder if there are any legislators that would be particularly interested in this issue... I know the deadline for legislators to get bill draft proposals in to the LC is looming--they're trying to get a lot done in a shorter session this year so I don't know if this will make it this year. Katr67 00:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought of something else. Why the heck should some legislator care about Wikipedia? Does s/he even know what it is? Does s/he think of it as a positive thing or a collection of poorly written nonsense? You might have to sell Wikipedia a bit, and expand your scope to include applications outside Wikipedia, with specific examples. What's in it for them? Giving someone the chance to be a champion of more open government, freedom of speech, etc. is a good angle. Katr67 04:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Katr: Sorry, I don't know what CFR is. Thank you for the insight into legislative drafting process, and also for your willingness to copyedit. As to the "selling" bit - I'm pretty confident that I could persuade my rep and maybe senator of its value, largely along the lines you describe. Maybe one or two others. But ultimately, I don't think it would be successful unless I do a little more grassroots rabble rousing, and get a few others to send similar letters to their legislators, and maybe get a letter to the editor published or something. So ultimately, this legislative session might be a little over-ambitious for anything more than some foreshadowning of a future push? I definitely see the value of using non-wikipedia examples, and will keep my eye out for those. Thanks again for all the ideas - I had no idea you were so familiar with the legislature's inner workings! -Pete 05:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, CFR=Code of Federal Regulations. Good about your reps--there are a few hip ones about. I can think of a couple who might be interested. Re: Inner workings--yeah, too bad I prefer to write and edit nice tame topics like Podunk small towns, huh? :) Katr67 06:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: inner workings, you took the words outta my mouth :) Seriously though, I ain't about to knock the work you do here no way, nohow; public service comes in all shapes and sizes. Re: CFR, let's leave that aside for now. Either I'll stumble upon it, or we can track it down right before the final draft. -Pete 07:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Er, speaking of stumbling, how's this? I love these Internets! -Pete 07:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice find! What's the correct citation format? 17 CFR 1.105? Odd that this is in the part with commodities and securities exchanges. Maybe an artifact of their codifying process? —EncMstr 16:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ORS

Katr67, remember the question about ORS 401.615? Wasn't that hard to resolve because it wasn't published? —EncMstr 22:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a gal, which isn't a secret, but I think being low-key about it keeps a lid on any discrimination I might experience. ORS is here. The competing company is Thompson-West. I found an interesting comparison on the Oregon State Bar page. EncMstr, the law in question ended up not changing ORS and it wasn't written in a way to include it in the ORS chapter, so it resides in 1995 Oregon Laws (which is separate from ORS, for those of you playing along at home), which isn't online. Not because of copyright restrictions, but because of the limitations of getting documents online. The LC only has them online back to 1999, which is probably when they started doing it, and they might not have the previous ones in the proper format. It would probably take a a bunch of work to get them on there. Nice if they could do it, but I know those folks are a little swamped with work right now. :) Katr67 22:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

@_@! I thought I was a bit confused before, but now I'm sure something has completely passed me by. ORS is distinct from Oregon Laws? Is there an example of "chapter & verse" reference to state law. Isn't ORS 401.615 a reference to ORS? Please save me, Ms. wizard..... —EncMstr 23:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh, don't mind us as we take over your page, Pete. Reread the entire thread on my talk page, and maybe it will make more sense. In a nutshell, the bill you had asked me about did indeed modify ORS 401.615, but by the time both houses got done with it, it no longer modified any existing ORS chapters. Most existing state law is codified in the Oregon Revised Statutes. Each year, after the legislative session, all the laws passed that session are compiled in a volume called Oregon Laws. For some arcane reason I don't understand, any laws passed that don't modify existing ORS may or may not be included in ORS. Some are assigned chapter and section numbers as an editorial decision, others just hang out in Oregon Laws (along with various resolutions and memorials), perhaps with a note in ORS, perhaps not. Sometimes this is because they are temporary laws that include sunset provisions. Does that help? Katr67 23:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. ORS chapter 279 shows some examples of a citation of Oregon Laws. Do forgive the weird typo/text conversion artifacts--obviously I wasn't the one who checked over that section. :P Katr67 23:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. Here's another example of a note in ORS 480 that refers to OL. "Note: The amendments to 480.432 by section 34, chapter 758, Oregon Laws 2005, become operative July 1, 2006. See section 57, chapter 758, Oregon Laws 2005, as amended by section 57a, chapter 758, Oregon Laws 2005. The text that is operative until July 1, 2006, is set forth for the user’s convenience." Katr67 00:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm really having a hard time following. Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense.^[1] Are you saying that they pass a bunch of laws (truly, a sausage-making operation), put them into a pile and someone else decides which are put into effect? —EncMstr 00:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

1. ^ Pilot trainer Rod Machado

Naw, I love that you gals and guys are taking over this talk page! Among other things, it's refreshing to learn that I'm not the only person who gets confused by this stuff. I'll echo EncMstr's confusion, but let me sum up what I think Katr is saying: (1) Oregon Revised Statutes is re-published following every legislative session, with any modifications. (2) New laws passed by the legislature or initiative, if they do not modify an existing statute or the Constitution, do not always appear in the ORS. (3) Those become something called "Oregon Laws."

If all that is right, I think we need to find out: what's the difference between a "law" and a "statute" and ORS? I had thought they were all the same. I'll ask an attorney. -Pete 01:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Close. The "pile of laws" that are passed all go into effect on various dates depending on how the bill is written. Not all of these laws are codified, but I'll get back to that. This pile of laws is Oregon Laws. For example, after the 2005 legislative session, all the bills (a collection of laws, resolutions and memorials) that were passed were published in the three-volume Oregon Laws 2005. Now, each bill may modify several sections of ORS, or create new laws, so each bill is broken down into sections and placed in the appropriate ORS chapter if it is to be codified. The newly codified sections go into a revised version of Oregon Revised Statutes, other sections are amended, and other stuff that has been repealed is removed. After a long, boring process, much of which is still done using hard copy and colored pencils, the 19-volume 2005 Oregon Revised Statutes is born. Both the ORS and OL are collections of laws, but ORS is also a collection of statutes, which are laws that have been codified. See also: Glossary of Legislative Terms, and How an Idea Becomes a Law. There's another handy explanation of the legislative process, but the site is down right now... Any clearer? Sorry you asked? Katr67 02:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I see. There's no restriction how much—or how little—of the ORS will be affected by a bill. So new bills become The Law and they affect ORS as they become effective. Codification is important to be a statute, but I was fuzzy until reading the glossary:

Statute; A codified law. (NOTE: "Codify" means "to arrange laws systematically." A codified law is one that has been incorporated into that section of the ORS that it amends, modifies, or accompanies.)

Bill: a bucket of proposed laws

The Law: all the buckets of laws in effect

Codify: assign chapter and verse to a new law, and shuffle it into ORS; or erase or modify existing ORS verses

ORS: the final list of codified laws

Does that mean that The Law is a waiting room for items until codified, and it gets cleaned completely out every few years? So that would mean checking to see if something is "legal" means looking at ORS, but then also checking the latest Law collection to see if a pending change is waiting. Am I close? —EncMstr 02:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I do believe you've got it. Here's that other handy page: How An Idea Really Becomes A Law - What Only Jacques Cousteau Can Know "To understand how an idea becomes law, a person must witness the whole of the formal legislative process, not just the parts that make for the best political theater." —Former Legislative Counsel, Gregory A. Chaimov

If a change is pending, a note to that effect is placed in ORS as I cited above. Sometimes the OL section is placed in ORS as a note as in ORS 138: "(Temporary provisions relating to post-conviction motion for DNA testing are compiled as notes preceding ORS 138.005)" (scroll down past the TOC to see the provisions) Temporary provisions may be subsequently made permanent by further legislation. I'm a little fuzzy on the stuff that is never codified. It doesn't really get "cleaned out", but I think most of the time it just sits there until it sunsets. Are there still laws from 1973 hanging around that aren't codified? I don't think so, but if I bump into someone who knows I'll ask. Katr67 04:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broken link?

Wow, looks great so far - kudos on the effort. I want to point out, though, that the link (http://bluebook.state.or.us/state/legis/legis15cbig.htm) in point (2) went nowhere, for me at least. Otherwise, good luck! -Tobogganoggin ^talk 23:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - not sure where I grabbed that from , but I just put the correct link ( http://bluebook.state.or.us/state/legis/legis15c.htm ) in there. Much appreciated! -Pete 23:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)