Introduction

This textbook is the culmination of [how many?] years of work on legislative drafting education by the University of San Francisco (USF) in Indonesia. Funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the university’s Center for Law and Global Justice began in [year] to train professors and other professionals in legislative drafting, specifically the legislative drafting theory developed by Professors Ann and Robert Seidman of the Boston University School of Law.

The University of San Francisco’s initial program was based in [Denpasar?], but expanded to [Jakarta?], [_____], and [list other LD locations], in [year(s)]. By 2002, the program had trained [insert number of Indonesian LD graduates] Indonesian Government officials and other professionals. With [insert number of LD centers; number should match number of locations, above] legislative drafting centers in operation, the university turned to the development of a curriculum that could be taught in Indonesian universities. Early on, the University of San Francisco decided to make the curriculum multidisciplinary in order to ensure that an understanding of creating social change through the law was not reserved only for lawyers likely to write laws, but was also available to economists, sociologists, foresters, and agriculture specialists responsible for implementing the law and for drafting regulations to carry out the law.

The curriculum was developed by a team of legislative drafting center graduates and professors from February through July 2003. The team, which included [insert names of curriculum developers (with official titles or positions, if applicable), in order, as appropriate], began by developing a general outline for the course. Throughout February and March 2003, the professors “test taught” the curriculum to volunteer students at Udayana University in Denpasar, Bali. After teaching each lesson, the professors reviewed evaluations completed by each student and participated in a critique group made up of other team members. Based on their experience teaching and the feedback received, each professor submitted a lesson for inclusion as a chapter in this textbook.

Glenn Sarka and Mark Hamilton, the author and editor of this textbook, are both graduates of the Boston University School of Law. At Boston University, they studied legislative drafting theory and techniques under the guidance of Professor Robert B. Seidman and both served as Editors-in-Chief of the Legislative Services Program there. After receiving his law degree in 1995, Glenn Sarka moved to Marquette, Michigan, in the United States, where he spent 5 years working on issues of violence against women, first as a Community Coordinator for a local battered women’s shelter, then as an Assistant Prosecutor. After leaving Marquette, he served in Kazakhstan for 2 years as a Gender Issues Legal Specialist for the American Bar Association’s Central and Eastern European Legal Initiative (ABA/CEELI). While in Kazakhstan, he worked closely with representatives from the government and from non-governmental organizations on a nationwide domestic violence law. After receiving his law degree in 1996, Mark Hamilton worked in Olympia, Washington, at the Washington State Legislature, in the United States. He then moved to Washington, D.C., where he spent about 4 years working as Assistant Legislative Counsel at the U.S. House of Representatives, drafting laws and legislation for the United States Congress. He is now a legislative consultant in Washington, D.C.

NOTE: I do not know whether you wish to include the paragraph above, with biographical information about Glenn and me. Please feel free to remove it.

The curriculum consists of a textbook and accompanying teacher’s manual. The material in the textbook is based primarily on Legislative Drafting for Democratic Social Change: A Manual for Drafters, by Ann and Robert B. Seidman and Nalin Abeysekere, but is also influenced by Indonesian sources. Like that book, this course is designed to enable students to identify, analyze, and propose legal solutions to social problems in a way that fosters good governance and development. This course has been designed for students and professionals in a multidisciplinary setting. Consequently, the course focuses on the mechanics of finding and forming legal solutions to social problems in broad informal terms. If teachers or students require a more in-depth explanation of the issues presented in the textbook, they should freely consult the Seidman text and the other sources cited at the end of each chapter.

Acknowledgments

This book is based primarily on Legislative Drafting for Democratic Social Change: A Manual for Drafters, by Ann and Robert B. Seidman and Nalin Abeysekere. Their manual was originally written in English and has now been translated into numerous languages, including Bahasa Indonesia.

Robert B. Seidman is Professor Emeritus of Law and Political Science at the Boston University School of Law, where he has been a distinguished member of the faculty since 1972. Ann Seidman is an Adjunct Professor at the Boston University School of Law. Ann and Robert Seidman are Co-Directors of the Boston University Program on Legislative Drafting for Democratic Social Change. The Seidmans, who are married, have served as chief technical consultants to United Nations-sponsored programs to foster economic reforms and strengthen legislative drafting in Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe, including Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Lao P.D.R., Bhutan, Nepal, Mozambique, South Africa, Kazakhstan, and Estonia. They have also, together and separately, written and edited numerous books and articles on law and development and comparative law of the Third World and transitional worlds.

Nalin Abeysekere has served in the in the Legal Draftsman’s Department in Sri Lanka since 1971 and has been the Legal Draftsman for Sri Lanka since 1984.

The Materials

The curriculum consists of a textbook and teacher’s manual. The textbook includes several sample social problem scenarios. Each scenario provides enough information on which to base a student research paper and proposed solution. The scenarios are not meant to replace student identification and compilation of their own research on actual social problems in their communities, but are meant to be used when lack of either resources or access to information makes using actual problems impractical.

Teaching Note

Remember, the recommended instructional outline generally follows the order of the materials presented in the text. The Teaching Notes throughout the text of this book should help you generate class discussion and help answer student questions.

It is important at the outset for the instructor to choose whether students should complete research reports on actual problems in their communities or should work on the scenarios provided in the textbook. If actual problems are used, you should ensure that the problems provide adequate work for each student in the group. You may wish to check in advance to ensure that appropriate experts or government officials are available for interviews, etc. These social problems will be assigned to the students after Lesson 7.

Outline of the Course

An outline of the intended course for which this textbook is written is below. The course should take 16 weeks to complete. The first 8 weeks will be taught through lectures. After a 1-week period without class, to be used for research and preparation for the first critique group meeting, the course will resume and begin critique group sessions, which will meet for 6 weeks. At the last week’s meeting, the critique groups will each present to the class a final research report.

Week	Duration	Description
Week 1	__ hour(s)	Course introduction.
Week 2	1½ hours	Lesson 1 (Ch. 1). Identifying and analyzing social problems: The who and what of problematic behavior.
Week 3	2 hours	Lesson 2 (Ch. 2). Introduction to the ROCCIPI problem-solving methodology.
Week 4	2¼ hours	Lesson 3 (Ch. 3). Analyzing role occupant (stakeholder) behavior using the ROCCIPI problem-solving methodology.
Week 5	2¼ hours	Lesson 4 (Ch. 4). Analyzing implementing agency behavior using the ROCCIPI problem-solving methodology.
Week 6	2 hours	Lesson 5 (Ch. 5). Formulating solutions, designing implementation provisions, and assessing costs and benefits.
Week 7	2 hours	Lesson 6 (Ch. 6). Data-gathering and research.
Week 8	2½ hours to 2¾ hours	Lesson 7 (Ch. 7). The research report. Assignment of course scenarios or actual social problems and explanation of critique groups.
Week 9	__ hours	No class meeting. Research and preparation for first critique group meeting.
Week 10	__ hours	Critique group meeting no. 1. [Maybe insert a description of the section(s) of the research report to be critiqued?]
Week 11	__ hours	Critique group meeting no. 2. [Maybe insert a description of the section(s) of the research report to be critiqued?]
Week 12	__ hours	Critique group meeting no. 3. [Maybe insert a description of the section(s) of the research report to be critiqued?]
Week 13	__ hours	Critique group meeting no. 4. [Maybe insert a description of the section(s) of the research report to be critiqued?]
Week 14	__ hours	Critique group meeting no. 5. [Maybe insert a description of the section(s) of the research report to be critiqued?]
Week 15	__ hours	Critique group meeting no. 6. [Maybe insert a description of the section(s) of the research report to be critiqued?]
Week 16	__ hours	Presentation of final research reports.

NOTE:

1. I’m not sure how long some of the classes should take. I’ve marked them with blank lines and in red.

2. The time for Lesson 7 is in red because it may need to be adjusted, depending on what you do with Chapter 7 (in the Recommended Instructional Outline).

3. Pipit, I may be confused about the structure of the course. I thought there were 8 lectures, 1 week off, then 5 critique group meetings, then the final class meeting. But having only 5 critique group meetings would leave an extra week with no lesson plan. I have filled in the gap (if there is one) by adding a 6th critique group meeting. You may need to adjust the outline, if I have done this incorrectly. [If I am wrong about the 1 week off, then you may need to adjust the text above the outline AND the text in the Teaching Notes at the end of Chapter 7, where it says: “Critique groups should begin 2 weeks after Lesson 7 (this lesson)”.