It's still really unclear to me why we'd want this bill.  The only benefit seems to be that it will be slightly easier for the MinImm, since they can reject some petitions.  But since they'll now be in charge of scrutinizing all of the essay portions and issuing directions as to their deficiency, it looks to me as though it would increase the workload.  The MinImm job would expand from "process applications" to "be the first judge of applicant worth and then process their applications," which is surely more labour.

Also, as pointed out, this would be an astonishing amount of power for a Government official to have.  The minister is evaluating the worth of an applicant in private, rejecting them based on their subjective assessment of the essay.  Even though I'm sure that this is well-meant, such a power could be abused with great ease.  Unless there's a very good reason, we shouldn't be giving anyone right of first refusal on new immigrants who successfully fulfill the process.

Thirdly, why would we require someone to mick a petition before approval?  Why require getting an ID, a process that can take weeks or months (especially if the minister in charge has had a really shitty run of luck)?  I guess it wouldn't hurt things any, but it seems like a weird additional hurdle.  Is the idea to just generally make it harder for people to immigrate?  Why would we want to do that?  That's a bad thing for a country that continues to exist on the basis of regular new immigrants.

Maybe my macronational sympathies are bleeding through a little, but I think gatekeeping Talossa is probably not a good idea -- let's let everyone in who wants to join with any seriousness.  We already regularly kick out people who lose interest afterwards.  If we're going to start locking our door, we should also stop kicking people out the window.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 12, 2024, 05:51:13 PMIf you go forward with this bill, this part should probably be removed.  There's no provision in the law requiring that the Government keep its prior internal communications private.  We have extensive privacy laws, and the law specifically identifies the only things that should remain private (ie, anything covered by Lexh.D.8.3-5).

Hopefully the Corts can answer that one if they review the action taken by the Avocat-Xheneral.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 12, 2024, 10:45:57 AMWHEREAS Lex D.8.9 seals Cabinet discussions for seven years following the demise of the government of the time of said Cabinet,

If you go forward with this bill, this part should probably be removed.  There's no provision in the law requiring that the Government keep its prior internal communications private.  We have extensive privacy laws, and the law specifically identifies the only things that should remain private (ie, anything covered by Lexh.D.8.3-5).

If you want to add a new provision requiring that no future Government be permitted to disclose internal communications after an election, then (a) I think that's a bad idea in terms of transparency and (b) this bill would need new language requiring that.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 12, 2024, 10:45:57 AM

QuoteD.8.9.3 The Royal Archivist may designate the current Scribe of Abbavilla or Deputy Scribe of Abbavilla to assist the Royal Archives in preserving Cabinet archives per D.8.9. [end new text of El Lex]

As others have mentioned, this is silly.  The Archivist can already create deputies, as explicitly permitted by law.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 12, 2024, 05:16:31 PMIf I might jump in in front of my Ministers here: as I've said elsewhere, the Government is fully in favour of expanding the Civil Service and providing backup in case officials go AWOL. The only question is being *able* to recruit to such provisions. The problem with legislatively establishing Deputies is that it doesn't amount of a hill of beans if there's no-one available. As we've found out with PermSec Immigration.

So instead of legislating, in the first place, let's simply ask the Royal Archivist to appoint a Deputy.

@Miestră Schivă, UrN Are you officially asking your party counterpart the Senator and Royal Archivist @GV to do so?

I am delighted to see that the SoS appears to be the only case where the FreeDems are OK with members of the civil service serving in political positions. I would also note we found a Deputy SoS pretty quickly when pressed.

If I might jump in in front of my Ministers here: as I've said elsewhere, the Government is fully in favour of expanding the Civil Service and providing backup in case officials go AWOL. The only question is being *able* to recruit to such provisions. The problem with legislatively establishing Deputies is that it doesn't amount of a hill of beans if there's no-one available. As we've found out with PermSec Immigration.

So instead of legislating, in the first place, let's simply ask the Royal Archivist to appoint a Deputy.

@Sir Lüc and @Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP
Are you both saying you could support the bill with a provision for a Deputy Royal Archivist instead of involving the Scribery or Chancery?

Tuischach,

With permission I wanted to remind the Seneschal of Open Society's policy on government accountability via our latest statement. It may annoy her but we will continue to provide needed accountability to the extent necessary:

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 12, 2024, 12:50:07 PMWe would like to take a moment to thank government ministers for their timely and, with one concerning exception, respectful and lawful responses to Opposition enquiries. We have observed progress on several items on which there is agreement between Open Society and the Government. But a lawsuit has arisen out of one exchange and we will explore an additional concern next month.

This is how Talossa politics should work. An active and accountable Government, and an active and vigorous Opposition working in cooperation to ensure good service to the Talossan people.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 12, 2024, 04:12:02 PMIf I may, est. Túischac'h:

- the Member is using Terpelaziuns "tactically". He has set out to ask every member of Cabinet a TERP to attempt to exert political pressure, regardless of whether this is appropriate or even sensible. Consequently, he has tried to ask this question of the Distáin, when the Distáin is the Deputy in the office of the Prime Ministry, and this question should have been directed to the Seneschál, i.e. me. We should not be surprised by this, because the Member has a history of bullying the Distáin, and it is to be hoped that the Distáin doesn't start getting nasty WhatsApp messages again.

Anyway, the Member is fully aware that I have previously answered both his questions, and I will repeat these answers below:

1) that, while a non-political Permanent Secretary of Immigration would be ideal, and we looked for one, we found no takers. We asked the previous Minister of Immigration to stay on in a non-political capacity; he turned us down. In desperation, I personally took on Immigration, and since I've found it's not as hard as I thought it would be, I've stuck with it. Applications for the position of PermSec Immigration are always open to those enthusiastic about doing donkey work, and not personally unpleasant.

2) the Member's "Single Transferable Obsession" with the SoS is irrelevant to the question of increasing the scope of the civil service, since the SoS is a civil servant and has no role in the elected Ziu or in the Government, as it should be.

Finally: the Government is discussing further points on the issue of expanding the Civil Service and we hope to announce further initiatives down the track.

Tuischach,

The Seneschal's inaccurate but creative (as usual) political analysis relates not one whit to my original questions but it is entertaining. The rest of the first part of the answer is, well, new, so it was not already answered as the Distain claimed. I appreciate the answer finally given under obligation that they saw merit in my suggestion, tried to find someone, and failed.

Number two is not much of an answer as it does nothing to explain why the FreeDems believe it is appropriate, as they have just voted, to allow for the nation's election administrator to also lead one of the parties participating in that election...as the FreeDems did when they appointed the SoS as their Party President. You now admit you pressed a civil servant into a political position.

I am really sorry that your own actions make the questions that follow uncomfortable for you to answer. But that discomfort is far from bullying.

If I may, est. Túischac'h:

- the Member is using Terpelaziuns "tactically". He has set out to ask every member of Cabinet a TERP to attempt to exert political pressure, regardless of whether this is appropriate or even sensible. Consequently, he has tried to ask this question of the Distáin, when the Distáin is the Deputy in the office of the Prime Ministry, and this question should have been directed to the Seneschál, i.e. me. We should not be surprised by this, because the Member has a history of bullying the Distáin, and it is to be hoped that the Distáin doesn't start getting nasty WhatsApp messages again.

Anyway, the Member is fully aware that I have previously answered both his questions, and I will repeat these answers below:

1) that, while a non-political Permanent Secretary of Immigration would be ideal, and we looked for one, we found no takers. We asked the previous Minister of Immigration to stay on in a non-political capacity; he turned us down. In desperation, I personally took on Immigration, and since I've found it's not as hard as I thought it would be, I've stuck with it. Applications for the position of PermSec Immigration are always open to those enthusiastic about doing donkey work, and not personally unpleasant.

2) the Member's "Single Transferable Obsession" with the SoS is irrelevant to the question of increasing the scope of the civil service, since the SoS is a civil servant and has no role in the elected Ziu or in the Government, as it should be.

Finally: the Government is discussing further points on the issue of expanding the Civil Service and we hope to announce further initiatives down the track.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 12, 2024, 02:57:55 PM

Quote from: Barclamïu da Miéletz on September 12, 2024, 01:27:34 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 12, 2024, 09:10:20 AM

Quote from: Barclamïu da Miéletz on September 12, 2024, 04:58:22 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 12, 2024, 04:28:36 AM

Quote from: Barclamïu da Miéletz on September 12, 2024, 02:43:58 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 11, 2024, 08:19:20 PMbarclamiu you have Talossa24 which could use some support.

(It didn't mention me.)

Any support would be appreciated, however, I can't take any money (I'm not old enough to have a PayPal account yet.)

Ah ok, understood about PayPal. But Talossa 24 has been about as active as Fora Talossa unfortunately. Hopefully we can get some active news sources to cover this Government's actions.

I'll try my best to publish some news to my channel.

Please do Barclamïu. Any news. Right now Talossa24 is a TalossaWiki announcement and a death announcement. I'm genuinely excited to see what you decide to produce but I hope there is something in the future.

Of course when I have the time.

You've done a great job with the transportation signage.

Doing some sort of revision on it (I noticed just now that the triangles didn't have equal sides so... I'm altering German road signs, though I will add as much Talossanity as possible to them, of course some signs will stay similar but be refreshed).