I've created this private board at the request of the Seneschal. Only members of the committee have access.
@þerxh Sant-Enogat,
@Miestră Schivă, UrN,
@Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB, and
@Breneir Tzaracomprada.
Thanks Txec
I suppose we have two items to discuss, under the terms of the agreement:
1) the Brenéir/Mximo bill currently before the CRL;
2) my own OrgLaw amendment re: Cunstaváis
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 19, 2024, 01:22:46 PMI suppose we have two items to discuss, under the terms of the agreement:
1) the Brenéir/Mximo bill currently before the CRL;
2) my own OrgLaw amendment re: Cunstaváis
I support both.
Thanks
@Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB for this private board
I've read both bills
1) the Brenéir/Mximo bill currently before the CRL
I agree to the clarking being sent to the Ziu. I think the Ziu is able to vote on this bill.
Personally, I would vote for it, as is sets rules to avoid conflict of interest (as future Secretaries of State may not be as honest as you are dear Txec ;-)
2) Miestra's OrgLaw amendment re: Cunstaváis
I also agree with this bill being forwarded to the Ziu.
Personally, I would vote for it, I think it will help to maintain active cunstavals
As both bills affect me as both the Secretary of State AND a Cunstaval, I won't comment on them. I think that recusing myself is appropriate.
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on January 19, 2024, 02:08:37 PMAs both bills affect me as both the Secretary of State AND a Cunstaval, I won't comment on them. I think that recusing myself is appropriate.
Determination to make Txec king
intensifies
To make things clear - and to check if I understand well : agreeing on a bill in this committee means that both parties agree on having a vote on this bill.
None of us will have to vote Për the bill if we don't support it personally, nor ask our parties to vote for it. This committee can just veto the voting process of a bill.
@þerxh Sant-Enogat I did not expect the first response in this Committee to prove me correct. But I would have preferred to be surprised and wrong.
Anyway, are we all in agreement about the Cunstaváis amendment going forward?
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 20, 2024, 03:21:31 AMAnyway, are we all in agreement about the Cunstaváis amendment going forward?
No, using the criteria you just applied to the Nonpartisan SoS Act, it was presented to the Hopper a few days ago before this committee convened as a fait accompli. And therefore was a violation of the agreement.
I am not ok with it going forward without revisions in this committee.
With respect to committee transparency, do you all know if the committee proceedings will fall under the recent Transparency Act? As in, will these proceedings be archived and published seven years after the end of this Cosa term? I don't think the Act covers it but perhaps a PD could make it so?
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 20, 2024, 05:18:31 AMQuote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 20, 2024, 03:21:31 AMAnyway, are we all in agreement about the Cunstaváis amendment going forward?
No, using the criteria you just applied to the Nonpartisan SoS Act, it was presented to the Hopper a few days ago before this committee convened as a fait accompli. And therefore was a violation of the agreement.
I am not ok with it going forward without revisions in this committee.
Any revisions in particular you had in mind?
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 20, 2024, 09:40:14 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 20, 2024, 05:18:31 AMQuote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 20, 2024, 03:21:31 AMAnyway, are we all in agreement about the Cunstaváis amendment going forward?
No, using the criteria you just applied to the Nonpartisan SoS Act, it was presented to the Hopper a few days ago before this committee convened as a fait accompli. And therefore was a violation of the agreement.
I am not ok with it going forward without revisions in this committee.
Any revisions in particular you had in mind?
Absolutely, and this is just a proposal Miestra, what if we increased the number of ex-officio PC members to include Leader of the Opposition and Mencei? And decreased the restricted offices in the Chancery bill?
As far as members of the Privy Council go, I'm not even sure why we are even expanding it. In all the time I've been on the council, I've only had a few interactions with the king and most of those have been heraldry related. There really isn't much to do on the Privy Council, least wise with a king who is barely even around.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 20, 2024, 09:08:55 PMWith respect to committee transparency, do you all know if the committee proceedings will fall under the recent Transparency Act? As in, will these proceedings be archived and published seven years after the end of this Cosa term? I don't think the Act covers it but perhaps a PD could make it so?
Well this isn't a government communication, as half of the committee is not a member of the government, so I'd say it doesn't. Also, I'm not sure a PD can alter Organic Law, as 58RZ6 did.
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on January 20, 2024, 10:52:03 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 20, 2024, 09:08:55 PMWith respect to committee transparency, do you all know if the committee proceedings will fall under the recent Transparency Act? As in, will these proceedings be archived and published seven years after the end of this Cosa term? I don't think the Act covers it but perhaps a PD could make it so?
Well this isn't a government communication, as half of the committee is not a member of the government, so I'd say it doesn't. Also, I'm not sure a PD can alter Organic Law, as 58RZ6 did.
I'm not sure I understand the part about a PD altering Organic Law. Would including this committee's proceedings in the Government archives implicate the Organic Law? If not, then a PD altering Organic Law isn't even necessary. Which is what confuses me about your statement.
I mentioned the PD as a potential route, if necessary, to include these proceedings as a supplement to the eventual archives of the 59th Cabinet. It might also be achieved by a simple request of the Seneschal to the Archivist.
You mentioned transparency when asking about an edited post and that got me thinking about including these in the transmission to the Archivist.
Would this be something you or Miestra are opposed to?
I personally don't care. I mention OrgLaw because the transparency act was an amendment to OrgLaw.
However, this committee has nothing to do with the Cabinet and the Seneschal is not in charge of this committee. I would think we would need to vote on anything like what you suggest as we are all equal here.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 20, 2024, 09:46:21 PMAbsolutely, and this is just a proposal Miestra, what if we increased the number of ex-officio PC members to include Leader of the Opposition and Mencei? And decreased the restricted offices in the Chancery bill?
The Privy Council issue is in a different bill, this one is about Cunstaváis alone.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 20, 2024, 11:58:04 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 20, 2024, 09:46:21 PMAbsolutely, and this is just a proposal Miestra, what if we increased the number of ex-officio PC members to include Leader of the Opposition and Mencei? And decreased the restricted offices in the Chancery bill?
The Privy Council issue is in a different bill, this one is about Cunstaváis alone.
Sorry, you are correct. Let me think about it then.
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on January 20, 2024, 11:14:47 PMI personally don't care. I mention OrgLaw because the transparency act was an amendment to OrgLaw.
However, this committee has nothing to do with the Cabinet and the Seneschal is not in charge of this committee. I would think we would need to vote on anything like what you suggest as we are all equal here.
No, that is not correct. The Second Talossan Government Transparency Act was a statutory change. Txec.
I was asking if there are any objections. A vote is fine if it answers that question.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 21, 2024, 08:00:35 AMQuote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 20, 2024, 11:58:04 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 20, 2024, 09:46:21 PMAbsolutely, and this is just a proposal Miestra, what if we increased the number of ex-officio PC members to include Leader of the Opposition and Mencei? And decreased the restricted offices in the Chancery bill?
The Privy Council issue is in a different bill, this one is about Cunstaváis alone.
Sorry, you are correct. Let me think about it then.
I'd like to get it on this Clark; no real rush but I'd like the thumbs-up in time for the CRL to get a good look at it
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 22, 2024, 07:21:34 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 21, 2024, 08:00:35 AMQuote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 20, 2024, 11:58:04 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 20, 2024, 09:46:21 PMAbsolutely, and this is just a proposal Miestra, what if we increased the number of ex-officio PC members to include Leader of the Opposition and Mencei? And decreased the restricted offices in the Chancery bill?
The Privy Council issue is in a different bill, this one is about Cunstaváis alone.
Sorry, you are correct. Let me think about it then.
I'd like to get it on this Clark; no real rush but I'd like the thumbs-up in time for the CRL to get a good look at it
Hi Miestra, after some thought the Cunstaváis bill is good to go without any suggested changes and has my support. I can't speak for the entire party though, of course.
Can I be added as a sponsor to the Privy Council one? I do think some bipartisan support would be a good signal of our willingness to work together.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 21, 2024, 08:03:34 AMQuote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on January 20, 2024, 11:14:47 PMI personally don't care. I mention OrgLaw because the transparency act was an amendment to OrgLaw.
However, this committee has nothing to do with the Cabinet and the Seneschal is not in charge of this committee. I would think we would need to vote on anything like what you suggest as we are all equal here.
No, that is not correct. The Second Talossan Government Transparency Act was a statutory change. Txec.
I was asking if there are any objections. A vote is fine if it answers that question.
Hi all, is there any objection to our committee proceedings being added to the archives? Remember these will not be available to the public until
2031 at the earliest.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 22, 2024, 08:02:58 PMCan I be added as a sponsor to the Privy Council one? I do think some bipartisan support would be a good signal of our willingness to work together.
We'll wait for any final amendments; I'll add you as a sponsor to the version that goes to the CRL if you are still keen at that stage.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 22, 2024, 10:43:00 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 22, 2024, 08:02:58 PMCan I be added as a sponsor to the Privy Council one? I do think some bipartisan support would be a good signal of our willingness to work together.
We'll wait for any final amendments; I'll add you as a sponsor to the version that goes to the CRL if you are still keen at that stage.
Thanks Miestra
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 21, 2024, 08:03:34 AMQuote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on January 20, 2024, 11:14:47 PMI personally don't care. I mention OrgLaw because the transparency act was an amendment to OrgLaw.
However, this committee has nothing to do with the Cabinet and the Seneschal is not in charge of this committee. I would think we would need to vote on anything like what you suggest as we are all equal here.
No, that is not correct. The Second Talossan Government Transparency Act was a statutory change. Txec.
I was asking if there are any objections. A vote is fine if it answers that question.
Haven't received an answer here. I'm going to seek approval to write legislation on it.