WHEREAS, Cabinet ministers may currently appoint Permanent Secretaries at any time, including in a "lame duck" or "caretaker" period following the close of an election; and
WHEREAS, this could conceivably permit an outgoing Government to staff ministries with Permanent Secretaries in contradictory ways to the desires of an incoming Government; and
WHEREAS, this seems an obviously unfair move that ought to be prohibited; thenBE IT RESOLVED BY THE ZIU that Title C of El Lexhatx, Section 1.1.1, which currently reads as follows:
Quote1.1.1. A Minister of the Cabinet may recommend to the King the creation of an Office within their Ministry and the appointment of a Permanent Secretary to that office based upon their qualifications, willingness to work and taking into consideration the applicant's performance in prior positions. All Permanent Secretary positions shall exist within the Royal Civil Service and shall be non-political appointments which shall be held until lawful dismissal, resignation or incapacitation.
Shall be altered to read:
Quote1.1.1. A Minister of the Cabinet may recommend to the King the creation of an Office within their Ministry and the appointment of a Permanent Secretary to that office based upon their qualifications, willingness to work and taking into consideration the applicant's performance in prior positions. No recommendations or appointments to a Permanent Secretary role shall be made in the period following a dissolution of the Cosă, until either a petition to name a Seneschal has been presented to the King, or the first Clark of the following Cosă term has opened, whichever occurs first. All Permanent Secretary positions shall exist within the Royal Civil Service and shall be non-political appointments which shall be held until lawful dismissal, resignation or incapacitation.
Uréu q'estadra så:
Mic'haglh Autófil (MC - URL)
I don't support this. This is another paranoia-based legislative proposal. Even if the Government is in caretaker status it is still the elected government with all the capabilities that affords.
Ah, see, had you been at the March Informal Session you would have been present for the Baron stating that he intended to re-appoint several Permanent Secretaries on the way out the door. Not "paranoia-based" when it's based on explicit statement of intention.
That being said, in many parliamentary democracies, caretaker status does in fact restrict certain government decisions, and rightfully so. With no legislature in session, the question of whether a caretaker government truly retains its mandate is unresolved until the electoral results are known. With the status of that mandate in question, it is inappropriate for the Government to make major policy decisions, including creation of Permanent Secretary offices within its ministries.
I'm not sure we'd want to block someone from doing that, though, especially considering the exact circumstances you're referencing: people conflicted out of their secretarial positions who are being returned to those positions.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 03, 2026, 07:15:27 AMI'm not sure we'd want to block someone from doing that, though, especially considering the exact circumstances you're referencing: people conflicted out of their secretarial positions who are being returned to those positions.
Yes. A good point. I reiterate we also need to stop this paranoia-based style of legislating.
If the next Government wishes to offer new Permanent Secretary positions for the outgoing Ministers to continue their duties that they held before joining the Cabinet, that's all well and good. But that ought to be their call.
@Sir Lüc , please move this bill to the CRL.
Approved.
I don't quite understand the possible triggers here... So no one can be appointed unless someone has presented a petition for appointment of a seneschal or unless no one has and the Clark is being put together? Was that your intention with this bill?
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 30, 2026, 01:22:21 PMI don't quite understand the possible triggers here... So no one can be appointed unless someone has presented a petition for appointment of a seneschal or unless no one has and the Clark is being put together? Was that your intention with this bill?
The "caretaker" period, we'll call it, begins when the Ziu dissolves. It ends when either (a) a petition to appoint a Seneschal is presented to the King, or (b), the First Clark opens, whichever happens first.
Well, I would suggest that you might want to rephrase and remove the last clause. "Whichever occurs first" ends up reading ambiguously because the appositive phrase in the sentence can be misread as another series without an Oxford comma, like in the next sentence. Replacing it with either/or seems like a better way to go in terms of the form here.