Wittenberg

Folks, here is the legislation concerning the Chancery currently under review in the CRL. I must express my thanks for the help of Ian P. with tightening the language.

---

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:

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

Is amended to read as follows:

Quote
5. The Secretary of State shall not hold the offices of Seneschal, Distain, Judge of the Uppermost Cort, Monarch, any cabinet portfolio, or member of the Ziu. The Secretary of State also shall not hold the office of leader, deputy leader, secretary, treasurer, or any other executive position (according to the party's bylaws) of any registered or unregistered political party at the national level.


Ureu q'estadra så,
Mximo Carbonèl (Sen-FL)
Breneir Tzaracomprada (MC, TNC)

Let me tell you why I do *not* support this bill being Clarked:

- because it was presented to this Committee as a "fait accompli"; after being moved by a TNC Senator; after the TNC internally voted to move forward with this, even though they knew it flouted the terms of the agreement, and even though it undermined the Seneschál at the time. At the behest of someone who had quit the party in protest at the agreement, and eventually succeeded in undermining his replacement.

I will tell you plainly that the internal chatter in the Free Democrats is that we have got nothing from (temporarily) giving up a seat to allow the TNC to take power. Hell, we got the Seneschal whom we supported into office undermined until he renounced. Worse, from what Brenéir has been saying in the Shoutbox, if we allow him to retrospectively condemn Txec for having temporarily taken over as FreeDems president, his next target is Lüc - apparently his theory is that all Civil Service members should be prohibited from being politically active. (And it's just a coincidence that the targets are FreeDems, I assume.)

I cannot imagine any way that I will agree to this bill being Clarked, unless my TNC comrades come up with something pretty damn solid that I can take back to my party as a win.

Edited: Miestra, I genuinely thought that discussing the bill here in this committee which was authorized by the agreement you made with Braneu would be considered a win. I also must point to the assistance given by Ian in the Hopper as proof that it certainly was not a fait accompli. Ian's assistance led to definitions on the national party positions, which was a significant improvement.

If the bill is reviewed and approved here then would that not be a win? Especially when a FreeDem member assisted with editing the bill in the Hopper?

Azul Miestra,

No law is retroactive in time, so this bill does not condemn AT ALL any past situation.

When the TNC approved the discussion of the bill, the only positive votes were Mximo and myself, Bråneu voted no after my vote. I do my mea culpa I should have waited for this bill to be approved in this committee but at the time I was not in charge of this committee and I thought the process would be respected once the vote was positive.
The TNC vote was then my misunderstanding of the application of our agreement, not a will to break it. I´ve told again recently my fellow party members that I firmly want that the TNC respect the agreement I have signed.
I would then beg you to reconsider your answer. Clarking a bill should not be interpreted as a win or a loss for a party, but only the answer to the question ´is this bill worth being debated within our Nation ?'.

If you confirm you do not agree I will ask the TNC to respect the agreement and withdraw the bill (and hope it will be so), but we will of course have to disclose  that the Freedem refused this bill being discussed or voted, for pure political reasons, which will not appear as a democratic decision in my opinion.
If you don't agree on the essence of a bill (and there may be good reasons , such as the lack of active citizens) you should start a debate, at worst you have a democratic veto right at the Senate, but Talossans should have the right to a democratic debate and vote.

For clarification, what puts you in charge of the committee? Was that part of the agreement?

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on January 20, 2024, 12:59:25 AMIf you confirm you do not agree I will ask the TNC to respect the agreement and withdraw the bill (and hope it will be so), but we will of course have to disclose  that the Freedem refused this bill being discussed or voted, for pure political reasons, which will not appear as a democratic decision in my opinion.
If you don't agree on the essence of a bill (and there may be good reasons , such as the lack of active citizens) you should start a debate, at worst you have a democratic veto right at the Senate, but Talossans should have the right to a democratic debate and vote.

This sounds like a bit of a threat: "don't debate it we call it politics and tell everyone." Expression of opinion is not refusing to engage.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 19, 2024, 10:22:46 PMEdited: Miestra, I genuinely thought that discussing the bill here in this committee which was authorized by the agreement you made with Braneu would be considered a win. I also must point to the assistance given by Ian in the Hopper as proof that it certainly was not a fait accompli. Ian's assistance led to definitions on the national party positions, which was a significant improvement.

If the bill is reviewed and approved here then would that not be a win? Especially when a FreeDem member assisted with editing the bill in the Hopper?

I notice that you deleted a post. I would think for the sake of transparency, we should avoid doing that in this committee. Edit: sorry the post I thought I saw is still there. Apologies.

Also, just because someone helps with revisions doesn't mean they agree. The law as first written was clunky, so it got revised. Happens all the time.

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on January 20, 2024, 01:26:04 AMFor clarification, what puts you in charge of the committee? Was that part of the agreement?

I'm not sure to understand your question. I entered the committee because when I became Seneschal I understood it has not been set up and I wanted that TNC respects its commitment

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on January 20, 2024, 01:27:50 AMThis sounds like a bit of a threat: "don't debate it we call it politics and tell everyone." Expression of opinion is not refusing to engage.

I don't want it to be interpreted as a threat, more an advice to both our parties not to go back on endless discussions about consequences of what happened before, which are rotting our country and deceiving our cocitizens. I would like to achieve what Bråneu wanted when he discussed with Miestra, that this Cosa sees a constructive legislative session with focussed debates and contribution from both sides.

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on January 20, 2024, 01:30:23 AMAlso, just because someone helps with revisions doesn't mean they agree. The law as first written was clunky, so it got revised. Happens all the time.

I agree

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on January 20, 2024, 12:59:25 AMIf you confirm you do not agree I will ask the TNC to respect the agreement and withdraw the bill (and hope it will be so), but we will of course have to disclose  that the Freedem refused this bill being discussed or voted, for pure political reasons, which will not appear as a democratic decision in my opinion.

I must say, Þerxh, I am pleasantly surprised that you would actually abide by the terms of the agreement and ask your party to not Clark the bill. The second part of your sentence would be a fair enough response on your part, if it comes to that. I hope it doesn't.

I would say, though, that our objections are not "purely political" - by which I assume you mean that we're doing this as a reaction to recent developments in the TNC (though those have not gone down well on our side). Simply put, we do not agree with the basic premise of the bill, that the Secretary of State should be deprived of the rights of political association. We agree that the SoS and all Royal Civil Service appointees must *behave* in a non-partisan manner. I am very interested in replacing this bill which guarantees *that*.

There may have been an honest misconception on the part of your party that Txec, because he offered amendments to your bill, agreed with its principle. There is a big problem that Txec wants to prove that he is non-partisan as SoS; but to debate this bill publicly will make him look partisan. Real Catch-22 stuff.

Can we move forward from here?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 20, 2024, 03:18:44 AM

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on January 20, 2024, 12:59:25 AMIf you confirm you do not agree I will ask the TNC to respect the agreement and withdraw the bill (and hope it will be so), but we will of course have to disclose  that the Freedem refused this bill being discussed or voted, for pure political reasons, which will not appear as a democratic decision in my opinion.

I must say, Þerxh, I am pleasantly surprised that you would actually abide by the terms of the agreement and ask your party to not Clark the bill. The second part of your sentence would be a fair enough response on your part, if it comes to that. I hope it doesn't.

I would say, though, that our objections are not "purely political" - by which I assume you mean that we're doing this as a reaction to recent developments in the TNC (though those have not gone down well on our side). Simply put, we do not agree with the basic premise of the bill, that the Secretary of State should be deprived of the rights of political association. We agree that the SoS and all Royal Civil Service appointees must *behave* in a non-partisan manner. I am very interested in replacing this bill which guarantees *that*.

There may have been an honest misconception on the part of your party that Txec, because he offered amendments to your bill, agreed with its principle. There is a big problem that Txec wants to prove that he is non-partisan as SoS; but to debate this bill publicly will make him look partisan. Real Catch-22 stuff.

Can we move forward from here?

Then vote against the bill, Miestra. But don't block it from a vote. I would also say we could simply ask for an advisory opinion from the Judiciary if there is a question concerning its impact on the Secretary of State's political association rights. Even though I think Gluc handily disposed of this assertion in the Hopper.

Therxh, if the FreeDems veto this bill then we should at least inform the public of that fact.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 20, 2024, 03:18:44 AM(..)

I would say, though, that our objections are not "purely political" - by which I assume you mean that we're doing this as a reaction to recent developments in the TNC (though those have not gone down well on our side). Simply put, we do not agree with the basic premise of the bill, that the Secretary of State should be deprived of the rights of political association. We agree that the SoS and all Royal Civil Service appointees must *behave* in a non-partisan manner. I am very interested in replacing this bill which guarantees *that*.

(...)

Can we move forward from here?

I think that we all agree that the goal we want to achieve is to avoid having one day a SoS who will behave in a partisan way. This would however be possible whatever we decide as forbidden simultaneous positions...
The current definition of the forbidden positions may be too large : we are not so many, and I understand that a SoS wants to participate in a political party to provide input and participate in the definition of a program. Why not also to help this party for some support functions (finance, administration,..). This is a right of political association that I understand.
The line may be drawn when the position is that a possible spokesman/frontliner/"official opponent" for a party (leader, seneschal candidate, may be deputy leader, and may be - to be discussed - member of a shadow cabinet)

Could such a starting point on limitating the forbidden simultaneous positions be a way to move forward ? Even if I think that this kind of discussions are typically the ones that should happen at the Ziù, I personally agree to review part of the Bill to at least fix that.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 20, 2024, 03:18:44 AM(..)

There may have been an honest misconception on the part of your party that Txec, because he offered amendments to your bill, agreed with its principle. There is a big problem that Txec wants to prove that he is non-partisan as SoS; but to debate this bill publicly will make him look partisan. Real Catch-22 stuff.

We are all a bit conflicted here, either because we are SoS, or we are Party Leaders.. I am sure that nobody thinks that Sir Txec does his job with a partisan mind. Everyone would also understand - with the help of a public acknowledgement on our side also if needed - that Txec has the right to give his opinion on a subject he knows perfectly and for which he should be a model for future potential SoS.

Here we are really in the role of this committee as I understand it : provide the best possible conditions for legislative discussions to avoid misinterpretation and political recuperation, and to clarify that no one tries to trap the other side in a different goal that the essence of the discussed bills.

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on January 20, 2024, 08:15:15 AM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 20, 2024, 03:18:44 AM(..)

I would say, though, that our objections are not "purely political" - by which I assume you mean that we're doing this as a reaction to recent developments in the TNC (though those have not gone down well on our side). Simply put, we do not agree with the basic premise of the bill, that the Secretary of State should be deprived of the rights of political association. We agree that the SoS and all Royal Civil Service appointees must *behave* in a non-partisan manner. I am very interested in replacing this bill which guarantees *that*.

(...)

Can we move forward from here?

I think that we all agree that the goal we want to achieve is to avoid having one day a SoS who will behave in a partisan way. This would however be possible whatever we decide as forbidden simultaneous positions...
The current definition of the forbidden positions may be too large : we are not so many, and I understand that a SoS wants to participate in a political party to provide input and participate in the definition of a program. Why not also to help this party for some support functions (finance, administration,..). This is a right of political association that I understand.
The line may be drawn when the position is that a possible spokesman/frontliner/"official opponent" for a party (leader, seneschal candidate, may be deputy leader, and may be - to be discussed - member of a shadow cabinet)

Could such a starting point on limitating the forbidden simultaneous positions be a way to move forward ? Even if I think that this kind of discussions are typically the ones that should happen at the Ziù, I personally agree to review part of the Bill to at least fix that.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 20, 2024, 03:18:44 AM(..)

There may have been an honest misconception on the part of your party that Txec, because he offered amendments to your bill, agreed with its principle. There is a big problem that Txec wants to prove that he is non-partisan as SoS; but to debate this bill publicly will make him look partisan. Real Catch-22 stuff.

We are all a bit conflicted here, either because we are SoS, or we are Party Leaders.. I am sure that nobody thinks that Sir Txec does his job with a partisan mind. Everyone would also understand - with the help of a public acknowledgement on our side also if needed - that Txec has the right to give his opinion on a subject he knows perfectly and for which he should be a model for future potential SoS.

Here we are really in the role of this committee as I understand it : provide the best possible conditions for legislative discussions to avoid misinterpretation and political recuperation, and to clarify that no one tries to trap the other side in a different goal that the essence of the discussed bills.

The bill's restrictions are already limited to leadership positions not any and all political participation. This definition was facilitated by a FreeDem member. The list of restrictions is also purposefully modelled on those introduced by Miestra herself in a bill from the 53rd Cosa covering permanent secretaries (other civil servants).

Folks, we can't avoid the fact that this issue came about from an action taken by the FreeDems not by me or the TNC. When Txec took a partisan position as Party President of the Free Democrats while also serving as Secretary of State. Pointing to that fact is not demonization or an attack. It is the central reason for the need for this bill now. If that had not happened then we would not be here discussing this legislation because the norm would not have been weakened.

I do not support any further limitation on the restrictions. Nor do I believe that such a limited restriction is either an inorganic reduction in political association rights or a threat to our ability to recruit future secretaries of state.

I just recalled, Miestra and Therxh, from our discussion in the Discord shoutbox Miestra said this bill since it is a statute and not an amendment to Organic Law was outside of the purview of this committee. Why are we even discussing this bill here now, if that is still the case?

Edited to add the relevant statement in the Discord chat box, made by Miestra on December 2:

"Had to check which reform you meant, but I don't believe it would need an organic law amendment, simply a law such as El Lexh C.5. Therefore it is not on the OrgLaw committee's purview. I should also note that under El Lexh H.6.1, any citizen can propose bills to the Hopper, so I can only suggest that a certain citizen "go for it""

And what did I do? Lol, I went for it as encouraged.

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on January 20, 2024, 08:15:15 AMWhy not also to help this party for some support functions (finance, administration,..). This is a right of political association that I understand.
The line may be drawn when the position is that a possible spokesman/frontliner/"official opponent" for a party (leader, seneschal candidate, may be deputy leader, and may be - to be discussed - member of a shadow cabinet)

Therxh, I re-read this part of your comments and actually agree with you. This excellent distinction really is the crux of the issue. So I would be in agreement to remove the part of the definition containing "secretary, treasurer, or any other executive position."

This would hopefully would address concerns about political association satisfactorily and again reduce the restrictions so as to address concerns about future recruitment. Again I am still skeptical on both of those matters but entertain them as an attempt at cooperation here.

Right. Is that the TNC's final offer? That there can be no movement on the principle "the Secretary of State should be banned from leadership (defined narrowly) in a political party"?


The hand wringing about Txec taking our Party's leadership a few terms ago for a brief time has left him - and our party - confused and angry. On the subject, this is precisely why I wanted this Committee to operate in camera - because Txec didn't feel confident about exposing himself in public debates on this issue.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 20, 2024, 11:19:38 AMI just recalled, Miestra and Therxh, from our discussion in the Discord shoutbox Miestra said this bill since it is a statute and not an amendment to Organic Law was outside of the purview of this committee.

Quote from: The AgreementThe TNC and FreeDems will set up a Standing Committee on Talossa's Constitution, with two members from each party, to discuss amendments to Talossa's constitution which have broad support. No legislation to amend the Organic Law, or to amend the functioning of the Chancery, will be proposed by either party without the prior unanimous approval of this Committee.

(emphasis added)

When I made that comment, Brenéir was of course not in the TNC, not an MC, and leader of an unrepresented minor party, so of course it was outside this committee's purview. It *became* within this Ctte's purview when Mximo sponsored it.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 20, 2024, 11:56:47 PMRight. Is that the TNC's final offer? That there can be no movement on the principle "the Secretary of State should be banned from leadership (defined narrowly) in a political party"?


The hand wringing about Txec taking our Party's leadership a few terms ago for a brief time has left him - and our party - confused and angry. On the subject, this is precisely why I wanted this Committee to operate in camera - because Txec didn't feel confident about exposing himself in public debates on this issue.

The problem here is that the FreeDems do not seem to see this as a serious issue. As evidenced by describing it as "hand-wringing." Txec's taking of a partisan position while acting as SoS created a very dangerous precedent. And now you are complaining about the effort to address the dangerous precedent you created. How is this confusing? And why would you be angry about efforts to fix a problem you created? Unless you don't think it is a problem or thought this was some anti-Txec operation.

If you do not believe this should be prohibited then we should just announce that publicly. As Mximo, Therxh, (Gluc) and myself have, in good faith, answered every single concern brought forward.

Can we please allow this bill to come for a vote?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 21, 2024, 12:06:11 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 20, 2024, 11:19:38 AMI just recalled, Miestra and Therxh, from our discussion in the Discord shoutbox Miestra said this bill since it is a statute and not an amendment to Organic Law was outside of the purview of this committee.

Quote from: The AgreementThe TNC and FreeDems will set up a Standing Committee on Talossa's Constitution, with two members from each party, to discuss amendments to Talossa's constitution which have broad support. No legislation to amend the Organic Law, or to amend the functioning of the Chancery, will be proposed by either party without the prior unanimous approval of this Committee.

(emphasis added)

When I made that comment, Brenéir was of course not in the TNC, not an MC, and leader of an unrepresented minor party, so of course it was outside this committee's purview. It *became* within this Ctte's purview when Mximo sponsored it.

Miestra, thank you. That clarifies it for me that it was not then but became the purview of the committee later. I thought your Discord statement was based on the committee purview being exclusive to the Organic Law which was incorrect.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 21, 2024, 08:20:39 AMThe problem here is that the FreeDems do not seem to see this as a serious issue.

That's right. No, we don't. We don't see it as a problem or a serious issue at all. We would not have any objections if Þerx, as TNC leader, became SoS as long as he didn't cheat to benefit his party. I'm sorry that we haven't expressed ourselves clearly on this, but you have accurately identified our stand.

QuoteIf you do not believe this should be prohibited then we should just announce that publicly.

I thought we had! Multiple times! I apologise for not being sufficiently clear.

I would like Þerxh to weigh in at this point.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 21, 2024, 08:07:33 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 21, 2024, 08:20:39 AMThe problem here is that the FreeDems do not seem to see this as a serious issue.

That's right. No, we don't. We don't see it as a problem or a serious issue at all. We would not have any objections if Þerx, as TNC leader, became SoS as long as he didn't cheat to benefit his party. I'm sorry that we haven't expressed ourselves clearly on this, but you have accurately identified our stand.

QuoteIf you do not believe this should be prohibited then we should just announce that publicly.

I thought we had! Multiple times! I apologise for not being sufficiently clear.

I would like Þerxh to weigh in at this point.

Thank you Miestra, I had never seen that stated clearly in public, as far as I can recall, so I appreciate you saying so. I am saddened by this stance but am grateful for the clarity.

Therxh, I join Miestra in asking for your thoughts.

Thanks Miestra, I admit I also thought that agreed to some extent to the future separation between the 2 positions, even if not stated in the law now.
I agree that honest people can hold both without letting their political inclination interfere in their SoS responsibilities, and on the contrary a 'dishonest' party leader will not become suddenly honest by quitting its political leadership position. This should be one of the argument to be used in a debate at the Ziu imho.
I wouldn't want to hear that the four of us have decided and confiscated parliament's right, and receive criticisms on the role of this committee.
Again I am quite ok to put as a preamble of Ziu discussion that we only target future possible abuse which we did not have when Txec held both positions.
But of course choice is yours.

I said I wouldn't weigh in but let me give some more information. When I agreed to become party leader, it was on the condition that it was administrative and not political. Also, because of the existence of the Electoral Commission, I was not worried that cheating in an election would even be possible, given that every single vote is verified by three other people, and the SoS can't see private votes either. It never crossed my mind that a conflict existed because I knew that I had done what I could to keep things above board. I also knew my stint as party leader was brief, and the only reason I took the role was to give my friend of many years Dame Miestrâ a little break.

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on January 22, 2024, 06:02:53 AMI said I wouldn't weigh in but let me give some more information. When I agreed to become party leader, it was on the condition that it was administrative and not political. Also, because of the existence of the Electoral Commission, I was not worried that cheating in an election would even be possible, given that every single vote is verified by three other people, and the SoS can't see private votes either. It never crossed my mind that a conflict existed because I knew that I had done what I could to keep things above board. I also knew my stint as party leader was brief, and the only reason I took the role was to give my friend of many years Dame Miestrâ a little break.

Thanks Txec. I better understand the historical context and why you accepted , and it confirms that I am 100% sure that you did your SoS job independently and honestly.

Txec, your reasons for doing so are irrelevant. By doing so, you created a precedent that should be answered in law or in an internal policy. No one has said that you are a bad person because you took a partisan position while acting as SoS but you did take a partisan position while acting as the nation's election administrator. It was the act itself not Miestra's need for a break, or it being temporary, or some private and unannounced condition on it being administrative only that is important here. And I am not comfortable with going on trust alone for future SoSs now that the precedent has been created. Further, such a powerful position deserves a higher standard than mere "trust among friends."

The fact that you attemped to make a distinction between the political and administrative parts of the Party Leader position seems to indicate an understanding that there might be some conflict with the appointment, Txec. And the needs of a party do not outweigh the need for a clearly impartial election administrator and that is what was brought into question here.

I do understand now that the FreeDems and Therxh think it's OK for this to happen in the future. I disagree but respect your position. It is a position and vote that should be able to withstand public scrutiny as the principles around the matter are explored.

Now that we have discussed let's allow it to move forward for a vote.

Sorry Breneir, I was not clear enough : I did not say it is ok for me to happen in the future, I would like to put in the law that the 2 positions cannot be help simultaneously. I just said that I understood why Txec did this, and that he managed to do his SoS job honestly and impartially, but I don't want that in the future another SoS can also be a party leader. I think this law is good, but I want to make it clear that the target is not what Txec did before, the target is what can happen in the future.

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on January 22, 2024, 12:59:48 PMSorry Breneir, I was not clear enough : I did not say it is ok for me to happen in the future, I would like to put in the law that the 2 positions cannot be help simultaneously. I just said that I understood why Txec did this, and that he managed to do his SoS job honestly and impartially, but I don't want that in the future another SoS can also be a party leader. I think this law is good, but I want to make it clear that the target is not what Txec did before, the target is what can happen in the future.

Thank you so much for clarifying Therxh. ☺️

Well, it looks like there will be no climb-down from the TNC on this principle.

So Þerxh has said that if we stick to our guns, then the TNC will abide by the agreement and not Clark the bill, but will make a public statement explaining why. That would be fair, but now it seems that we understand each other better, maybe a joint statement, with the emphasis that our two parties will continue to debate this further in public.

But personally I would love us to collaborate on a bill that will cut down on any political bias in the Chancery or the Civil Service - perhaps giving citizens the right to sue for political bias?

How's that?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 22, 2024, 01:52:28 PMWell, it looks like there will be no climb-down from the TNC on this principle.

So Þerxh has said that if we stick to our guns, then the TNC will abide by the agreement and not Clark the bill, but will make a public statement explaining why. That would be fair, but now it seems that we understand each other better, maybe a joint statement, with the emphasis that our two parties will continue to debate this further in public.

But personally I would love us to collaborate on a bill that will cut down on any political bias in the Chancery or the Civil Service - perhaps giving citizens the right to sue for political bias?

How's that?

I'm not sure I understand, Miestra. You are opposing bringing a bill up for a vote concerning the SoS which is in direct reaction to an actual event. And we've already collaborated on that bill by further defining and reducing the restricted positions based on your expressed concerns. So, there has been movement by the TNC in the changes made in the Hopper and here in this Committee. Why not just add the right to sue for political bias into the current bill?

Also, there is no inciting event from other members of the Civil Service. Despite assertions to the contrary, there have been no plans to expand prohibitions on other members of the Civil Service. This bill is a reaction to an unacceptable precedent by the SoS not other members of the Civil Service. And the restricted positions authored by you in the 53rd (?) Cosa seem sufficient as an early alert against overtly political behaviour with respect to other members of the Civil Service. This is why I mostly copied them into the bill you all are currently opposing. Because I thought it would be non-controversial and demonstrate I was using your own earlier effort as an instructive example.

If you support the ability of future SoSs to serve both as party leader and SoS then I'm afraid there is a fundamental difference in principle between the parties. I am completely comfortable with making this difference public and allowing Talossans to give their verdict on who has the right approach here.

Therefore, Therxh, I too, would support a public announcement concerning these proceedings. And I would support including the offer just made by Miestra as it is also educational on what the FreeDems find acceptable. I do not support a joint statement promising further discussion because THIS discussion and that over several months in the Hopper has made it clear where each of us stands. Miestra, you even said yesterday that you thought you made your position clear multiple times. If Talossa's elected representatives are not to be allowed to render a vote on this proposal then it is time for the Talossan public to deliver one.

For the record, Therxh, these are my personal opinions. Not trying to speak on behalf of you or the party as a whole. :)

 

A joint announcement seems very strange.
I would rather, as TNC representative in the Committee (cosigned by Breneir if you are fine with this) communicate something like (to be translated in a better english):
"The Freedem representatives in the committee did not agree to push to the Ziu any bill forbiding in the future the simultaneous holding of the position of SoS and the one of Party Leader.
Honouring its signature on the TNC-Freedem agreement, the TNC will withdraw the bill from the Hopper.
The TNC anyhow deeply regrets that the Freedem representatives did not allow the members of the Ziu discuss the bill, possibly amend it, and vote on it."
Miestra, do you agree that this is factual ? And what would be your announcement in response ?

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 22, 2024, 02:55:13 PMIf you support the ability of future SoSs to serve both as party leader and SoS then I'm afraid there is a fundamental difference in principle between the parties. I am completely comfortable with making this difference public and allowing Talossans to give their verdict on who has the right approach here.

Yup, so am I, though I'd like Txec to chime in before we put this to bed. I would have no objection to Þerxh's statement above being released; we would knock up a corresponding statement of our own.

Not hearing an answer on whether you would be happy to collaborate on a bill specifically dealing with bias in the Chancery/Civil Service? If not, I'm happy to get that going in the Hopper sometime.

I've already stated publicly that as SoS I would never again serve in a political leadership role. I don't believe my choices were improper, but I can see how it can look bad.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 22, 2024, 07:17:44 PMNot hearing an answer on whether you would be happy to collaborate on a bill specifically dealing with bias in the Chancery/Civil Service? If not, I'm happy to get that going in the Hopper sometime.

This was my answer, Miestra.
No, I do not support a general bill because the problem is not a general one. It is a specific precedent created by the actions of a specific individual. We need to act to prevent future individuals in that specific position from seeing this specific precedent as permission to do the same.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 22, 2024, 02:55:13 PMAlso, there is no inciting event from other members of the Civil Service. Despite assertions to the contrary, there have been no plans to expand prohibitions on other members of the Civil Service. This bill is a reaction to an unacceptable precedent by the SoS not other members of the Civil Service. And the restricted positions authored by you in the 53rd (?) Cosa seem sufficient as an early alert against overtly political behaviour with respect to other members of the Civil Service. This is why I mostly copied them into the bill you all are currently opposing. Because I thought it would be non-controversial and demonstrate I was using your own earlier effort as an instructive example.

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on January 22, 2024, 04:22:21 PMA joint announcement seems very strange.
I would rather, as TNC representative in the Committee (cosigned by Breneir if you are fine with this) communicate something like (to be translated in a better english):
"The Freedem representatives in the committee did not agree to push to the Ziu any bill forbiding in the future the simultaneous holding of the position of SoS and the one of Party Leader.
Honouring its signature on the TNC-Freedem agreement, the TNC will withdraw the bill from the Hopper.
The TNC anyhow deeply regrets that the Freedem representatives did not allow the members of the Ziu discuss the bill, possibly amend it, and vote on it."
Miestra, do you agree that this is factual ? And what would be your announcement in response ?

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.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 25, 2024, 01:43:44 AM

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on January 22, 2024, 04:22:21 PMA joint announcement seems very strange.
I would rather, as TNC representative in the Committee (cosigned by Breneir if you are fine with this) communicate something like (to be translated in a better english):
"The Freedem representatives in the committee did not agree to push to the Ziu any bill forbiding in the future the simultaneous holding of the position of SoS and the one of Party Leader.
Honouring its signature on the TNC-Freedem agreement, the TNC will withdraw the bill from the Hopper.
The TNC anyhow deeply regrets that the Freedem representatives did not allow the members of the Ziu discuss the bill, possibly amend it, and vote on it."
Miestra, do you agree that this is factual ? And what would be your announcement in response ?

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.

Therxh, this is problematic. Can we edit our statement to account for this?

Well, Þerxh? Any problem as far as you can see? Probably time is a factor

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 27, 2024, 08:26:29 PMWell, Þerxh? Any problem as far as you can see? Probably time is a factor

Presenting the situation to the TNC, give us a few more days

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on January 28, 2024, 06:28:25 AM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 27, 2024, 08:26:29 PMWell, Þerxh? Any problem as far as you can see? Probably time is a factor

Presenting the situation to the TNC, give us a few more days

You can have as many days as you like for the statement, but I need it confirmed that you/Mximo will NOT Clark the bill

Well, the broad masses will have noted by now that Mximo's bill wasn't Clarked. Perhaps it's best for the FreeDems to put out our statement and then the TNC is free to say whatever they want, whenever they're ready?