Wittenberg

Whereas, it is a vital national interest to have an election administration authority free of actual or reasonably perceived partisan partiality, and

Whereas, the below-proposed restrictions (as a part of ensuring this interest are modelled after those written by Dama Miestra Schiva in 53RZ2 The Civil Service (Commissioner Abolition) Bill, and

Whereas, this bill would still allow parties to appoint whoever they choose as national party officers but those officers themselves would not be permitted to serve as Secretary of State simultaneously.

Therefore, be it enacted by the Ziu, that El Lexhatx C.5 which currently reads:

Quote5. The Secretary of State shall hold no seat in the Ziu.

Is amended to read as follows:

Quote5. The Secretary of State shall not hold the offices of Seneschal, Distain, Judge of the Uppermost Cort, Monarch, any cabinet portfolio, any leadership office in a political party at the national level, or member of the Ziu.

Ureu q'estadra så,
Mximo Carbonel (Sen-FL)

Just for your reference S:reu Tzaracomprada:

QuoteEl Lex.H 6.1. All citizens of Talossa are entitled to participate fully in discussions and debates in the Hopper, within the bounds of law and of the decisions of the administering and presiding authorities of the Hopper. Any citizen may submit a draft of legislation to the Hopper, though these shall not be considered to be "legislative proposals" until sponsored by one or more individuals authorised to submit legislative proposals under Organic Law VII.5.

OrgLaw VII.5: Section 5
Any Member of the Cosa, or a Senator, or the King, or the Secretary of State, 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, and specified by law. Within the bounds and rules imposed by law, tradition, and reason, the Secretary of State shall ensure that all legislators be allowed to submit their bills for consideration.

You will need a sponsor for your draft legislation.

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on December 02, 2023, 08:49:22 PMJust for your reference S:reu Tzaracomprada:

QuoteEl Lex.H 6.1. All citizens of Talossa are entitled to participate fully in discussions and debates in the Hopper, within the bounds of law and of the decisions of the administering and presiding authorities of the Hopper. Any citizen may submit a draft of legislation to the Hopper, though these shall not be considered to be "legislative proposals" until sponsored by one or more individuals authorised to submit legislative proposals under Organic Law VII.5.

OrgLaw VII.5: Section 5
Any Member of the Cosa, or a Senator, or the King, or the Secretary of State, 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, and specified by law. Within the bounds and rules imposed by law, tradition, and reason, the Secretary of State shall ensure that all legislators be allowed to submit their bills for consideration.

You will need a sponsor for your draft legislation.

Thanks Txec. Yeah, I am not sure who will, but I wanted to throw it out there since Miestra mentioned it.

Just a note to say the revision brings the restrictions into line with those for permanent secretaries. With the addition of a bar from national party leadership.

Miestra I think you authored those previous restrictions.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on December 02, 2023, 11:43:46 PMJust a note to say the revision brings the restrictions into line with those for permanent secretaries.

Permanent secretaries can be members of the Ziu.

I would argue this proposed law violates the third covenant.

QuoteTalossans have the right to freely organize political parties and other organizations, subject to their own laws of membership, and this right may not be abridged except with regards to organizations which advocate the use of violence or intimidation to attain political or other ends, or which seek to restrain any person or group of people from the exercise of their rights as granted under these Covenants.

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on December 03, 2023, 09:21:28 AMI would argue this proposed law violates the third covenant.

QuoteTalossans have the right to freely organize political parties and other organizations, subject to their own laws of membership, and this right may not be abridged except with regards to organizations which advocate the use of violence or intimidation to attain political or other ends, or which seek to restrain any person or group of people from the exercise of their rights as granted under these Covenants.

Sounds like something for the corts to decide. Should this be passed feel free to bring a lawsuit and let the judiciary settle it.

Heck, there could even be a request for am advisory opinion now, I think. Txec, you actually did this last term.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on December 03, 2023, 07:06:45 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on December 02, 2023, 11:43:46 PMJust a note to say the revision brings the restrictions into line with those for permanent secretaries.

Permanent secretaries can be members of the Ziu.

Just a helpful hint here...considering one element of the TNC-FreeDems negotiations... I'm referring to the cabinet portfolio 😀

@mximo would you be willing to sponsor this bill? You voted for a bill encouraging an apolitical Chancery in the Florencian House of Shepherds just days ago.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on December 03, 2023, 10:56:51 AM

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on December 03, 2023, 07:06:45 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on December 02, 2023, 11:43:46 PMJust a note to say the revision brings the restrictions into line with those for permanent secretaries.

Permanent secretaries can be members of the Ziu.

Just a helpful hint here...considering one element of the TNC-FreeDems negotiations... I'm referring to the cabinet portfolio 😀

I'm not sure what you mean.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on December 03, 2023, 10:44:03 AMSounds like something for the corts to decide. Should this be passed feel free to bring a lawsuit and let the judiciary settle it.

This is really not how lawmaking is supposed to work. The citizenship oath to uphold the Organic Law applies to everyone.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on December 03, 2023, 01:35:15 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on December 03, 2023, 10:44:03 AMSounds like something for the corts to decide. Should this be passed feel free to bring a lawsuit and let the judiciary settle it.

This is really not how lawmaking is supposed to work. The citizenship oath to uphold the Organic Law applies to everyone.

It is exactly how lawmaking works. If there is a question on a bill's compliance with the law then the judiciary can settle that question. We don't immediately assume it is not compliant at the presentation of a question...though that may serve certain people's goals well in this case.

Actually, as SoS I am empowered to not Clark any bill I find to be inorganic, which is why I brought up the Third Covenant. It was a suggestion to reword your proposal. 

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on December 03, 2023, 01:56:19 PMActually, as SoS I am empowered to not Clark any bill I find to be inorganic, which is why I brought up the Third Covenant. It was a suggestion to reword your proposal. 

Thank you Txec. I assumed you would ask for an advisory opinion and didn't know it was also up to your discretion as well. As mentioned in Discord, I respectfully withdraw this proposal, not assuming or trying to force your hand, but to demonstrate that other avenues would be acceptable too.

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on December 03, 2023, 09:21:28 AMI would argue this proposed law violates the third covenant.

QuoteTalossans have the right to freely organize political parties and other organizations, subject to their own laws of membership, and this right may not be abridged except with regards to organizations which advocate the use of violence or intimidation to attain political or other ends, or which seek to restrain any person or group of people from the exercise of their rights as granted under these Covenants.

I would strongly disagree. We're not talking about the right to be a party officer. Anyone has that right. We are talking about requirements for secretary of state. This is a government function. It's is perfectly valid for the ziu to set restrictions on who can hold such a position. If this proposal were to pass anyone would still be free to become a party officer. They just could not also be sos. Super broad interpretations of convenants are dangerous, because it reduces the ability of the ziu and the people to hold the government accountable. The convenants should protect citizens from the state, not the other way round.

 

Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on December 03, 2023, 02:50:22 PM

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on December 03, 2023, 09:21:28 AMI would argue this proposed law violates the third covenant.

QuoteTalossans have the right to freely organize political parties and other organizations, subject to their own laws of membership, and this right may not be abridged except with regards to organizations which advocate the use of violence or intimidation to attain political or other ends, or which seek to restrain any person or group of people from the exercise of their rights as granted under these Covenants.

I would strongly disagree. We're not talking about the right to be a party officer. Anyone has that right. We are talking about requirements for secretary of state. This is a government function. It's is perfectly valid for the ziu to set restrictions on who can hold such a position. If this proposal were to pass anyone would still be free to become a party officer. They just could not also be sos. Super broad interpretations of convenants are dangerous, because it reduces the ability of the ziu and the people to hold the government accountable. The convenants should protect citizens from the state, not the other way round.

This was a well-stated response, @Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB Do you have thoughts on this alternative view? @Ian Plätschisch ?

Also, @mximo
I have withdrawn from the proposal but if you are still in support of it. It is open to being sponsored by you since you are a senator.

I wasn't arguing one way or the other about whether this bill is inorganic. I was making the broader point that if someone believes a bill to be inorganic, they should not vote for it.

Everyone is free to have their own opinions. I was simply stating my belief that it may be inorganic. Reasonable people can disagree :-)

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on December 04, 2023, 08:27:11 AMI wasn't arguing one way or the other about whether this bill is inorganic. I was making the broader point that if someone believes a bill to be inorganic, they should not vote for it.

Oh OK understood.

A couple quick updates.
We are a week out now from the period when Txec began his own considerations on creating an internal Chancery policy concerning the taking of partisan positions. No update yet but hopeful.
Senator Mximo is positively inclined toward taking on sponsorship as he supports the initiative. The TNC is currently in a week-long vote on their official stance on the bill, according to my last communication with him.

👀

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on December 10, 2023, 02:34:07 PMSenator Mximo is positively inclined toward taking on sponsorship as he supports the initiative. The TNC is currently in a week-long vote on their official stance on the bill, according to my last communication with him.

Another update, to the best of my knowledge, the TNC internal vote was in support of the bill, in support of allowing Mximo to sponsor, or both. Just waiting on a sponsor now.

That's interesting; from what sources is a former member getting info on TNC internal discussions?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 20, 2023, 02:48:35 PMThat's interesting; from what sources is a former member getting info on TNC internal discussions?

That's a great question, Miestra.

"I'M IN YOUR BASE KILLING RECRUITING YOUR D00DS" - Brenéir to Bråneu and Þerxh :D

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 21, 2023, 01:16:21 PM"I'M IN YOUR BASE KILLING RECRUITING YOUR D00DS" - Brenéir to Bråneu and Þerxh :D

This is cute but I am still wondering who will sponsor the draft bill.
To my TNC friends, please consider your support for this reasonable effort. I am not privy to your discussions but the outcome appears to have been positive.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on December 21, 2023, 04:17:58 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 21, 2023, 01:16:21 PM"I'M IN YOUR BASE KILLING RECRUITING YOUR D00DS" - Brenéir to Bråneu and Þerxh :D

This is cute but I am still wondering who will sponsor the draft bill.
To my TNC friends, please consider your support for this reasonable effort. I am not privy to your discussions but the outcome appears to have been positive.

@Þerxh @Bråneu Excelsio @mximo
Let's please move forward with this reasonable effort.

@Iason Taiwos would you be willing to sponsor this legislation?

Senator Mximo Carbonèl
Sponsor this bill

Thank You

Quote from: mximo on December 23, 2023, 08:17:50 PMSenator Mximo Carbonèl
Sponsor this bill

Thank You

Mximo, thank you, meirci, and merci.
I would corral many more languages but it would still be insufficient in expressing my gratitude.

@mximo I think this bill is ready for the CRL. It can be submitted as a new thread here: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?board=40.0

Correction: I think it has a few more days (ready for CRL on Jan 3)

Im not sure I can do it by myself.

Mximo

Quote from: mximo on December 31, 2023, 03:47:50 PMIm not sure I can do it by myself.

Mximo

If the CRL allows it then I am happy to help make the post.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on January 06, 2024, 09:09:45 PMI'm a little concerned that the portion about party offices is too vague. For example, what counts as a "leadership position"? One could envisage many positions with party responsibilities that may or may not be considered "leadership".

Also, is a "political party" defined as an entity that registered in the previous election, an entity that has Cosa seats, or with some other definition?

@mximo As the sponsor I wanted to get your input in addressing his concerns.
Would you support specifying a "national political party office(s) similar in function and purpose to party president (leader), party treasurer, or party secretary"?
Also, political party would be specified as political parties currently registered with the Chancery?

I still think a SOS shoud be ban to be in any political party...

This is my opinion.

Now they try to broke the comprise you try to make by tell us this to vague...

Mximo...

Quote from: mximo on January 06, 2024, 11:31:01 PMI still think a SOS shoud be ban to be in any political party...

This is my opinion.

Now they try to broke the comprise you try to make by tell us this to vague...

Mximo...

My concern is that banning party membership may be too broad and be too high a restriction. And lessens the potential support for the law.

Despite assertions to the contrary, this proposal is in response to a precedent where the nation's election administrator acts as both chief of one of the contestants and contest oversight.

We are trying to reassert a national interest here: the nation's interest in a non-conflicted and impartial election administrator. In order to achieve that interest here it may be better to narrowly define the restrictions. This is why I have pushed for restrictions, with respect to the parties, only on "national leadership positions or party offices" because the SoS runs elections primarily at the national level.

I am assuming Ian has presented these concerns in good faith. And hoping that responding with changes addressing those concerns demonstrates good faith on my part.

@Sir Lüc https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2902.msg24574#new
Thanks bae <3

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 11, 2024, 10:29:21 AM@Sir Lüc https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2902.msg24574#new
Thanks bae <3

Just to be clear, my intention (both in the initial post and the bump) was to ask for comments from all stakeholders before imposing a new rule, rather than imposing such a rule unilaterally.

What I meant in the bump message was that it occurred to me that my proposal would also solve the difficulties encountered by the Senator for Florencia in moving the bill to committee, since then a CRL member would take care of moving it to the right subboard on his behalf.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on January 11, 2024, 11:31:27 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 11, 2024, 10:29:21 AM@Sir Lüc https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2902.msg24574#new
Thanks bae <3

Just to be clear, my intention (both in the initial post and the bump) was to ask for comments from all stakeholders before imposing a new rule, rather than imposing such a rule unilaterally.

What I meant in the bump message was that it occurred to me that my proposal would also solve the difficulties encountered by the Senator for Florencia in moving the bill to committee, since then a CRL member would take care of moving it to the right subboard on his behalf.

@Sir Lüc Thank you!

Naturally if this proposal is accepted, I will give moderator powers to all members of the current CRL over the hopper so they can accomplish this goal.

@mximo Just for your information here is the relevant section of the statute concerning movement of legislation through the CRL:

QuoteH6.6. After the CRL has given its recommendation, or if it gives no recommendation within 30 days of the bill having passed to committee, the bill has passed the hopper and the sponsor of the bill may ask for it to be Clarked, with or without amendments.

That thirty day period began when you posted to the CRL on January 6th. So February 5th, 2024 which would make it eligible for the March 2024 Clark presumably.

The present bill is related to the functioning of the Chancery, and therefore falls into the scope of the Agreement between TNC and Freedem (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2857.0), which was signed at the start of this 59th Cosa.

The Freedem representatives in the Standing Committee set by this agreement did not agree to push to the Ziu any bill forbidding in the future the simultaneous tenure of the position of SoS and the one of Party Leader.

Honouring its signature on the TNC-Freedem agreement, the TNC will then not Clark the present "Nonpartisan SoS act".

The TNC anyhow deeply regrets that the Freedem representatives did not allow the members of the Ziu to democratically discuss the bill, possibly amend it, and vote on it.

The Free Democrats of Talossa would like to express our pleasure and gratitude that the incoming Seneschal and the Talossan National Congress are still committed to the Agreement which put the TNC government into office.

There is indeed a fundamental difference in principle between the parties. We agree that there is a real need to make sure that the Secretary of State, the Chancery and the whole Royal Civil Service act without any hint of partisan bias. We do not agree that limiting the civil rights to free association of the Secretary of State are necessary or justifiable in that regard; nor that, when the Secretary of State briefly served as Free Democrats Party President during a crisis, he behaved improperly or even criminally. We deplore the way that this has been brought up over and over again, and the way in which it seems likely to be brought up again in future.

Notwithstanding this, the Agreement between the two parties has proven to be a success, in that frank discussions behind closed doors have led to a far greater mutual understanding of our common ground as well as our differences. We regret that the former Seneschal who negotiated the agreement with us is not around to see this.

The Free Democrats look forward to proposing a bill in the Hopper which will specifically raise higher guardrails against any Chancery or Royal Civil Service official displaying partisan bias. We look forward to more constructive discussion between the two major parties, in public where possible and in private where necessary.