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: 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: 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: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 20, 2024, 11:58:04 PM

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.

Sorry, you are correct. Let me think about it then.

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on January 20, 2024, 10:52:03 PM

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.

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?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 20, 2024, 09:40:14 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 20, 2024, 05:18:31 AM

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.

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?

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: 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.

I just know we have more Talossan epicureans out there. Please consider submitting your original or favorite non-original recipes for Volume 4 of the Book of Cuisine.

Quote from: Bentxamì Puntmasleu on January 06, 2024, 12:28:26 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 05, 2024, 10:37:24 PMI'm more than happy to help with work on the flyer.

Thank you! I'm not quite sure where to begin. I have no background in design and I don't really know what sort of things will look good or bad. I do have a couple tentative ideas. I'll post them here in a little while.

Hey there Benxami, following up on this.

Folks, if you are not following Talossa on Instagram @kingdomoftalossa then please do so. I have to publicly applaud Therxh for his quality content there. Including the hoisted bicolour before Cezembre.

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 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.

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.

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.