Quote from: Audrada Roibeardet on August 16, 2022, 08:26:42 PM
It is kind of messed up that Taco Bell is our "national cuisine". We can do better.

I thought the reason Taco Bell was chosen was because of unlimited refills on fountain drinks. If that's the case, it makes it even more messed up.

Judging by the initial law which established that, I think it was so designated because Ben Madison and his colleagues used to hang out at Taco Bell and shoot the miéida.

As part of my commitment in the Justice portfolio, my next step on legal reform will be a spring-cleaning of the Finance section of our law (El Lex D.2.8, C.1.5. and similar). The need for this was brought up in June/July, when it became clear that our budgeting procedure as set down in law was not sufficiently flexible to deal with last-minute changes in prices from our Internet provider. An additional need for this has arisen given the current Burgermeister's apparent personal problems.

Before I go too deep in writing a draft, I suppose I'd better call for public input. Two major questions:
- does the current budgeting procedure provide the correct balance between making sure no money is spend without democratic accountability; and making sure that money *can* be spent for necessary items without too much red tape? (One major issue is that emergency spending can currently only happen through a PD, which requires that the King actually be paying attention.)

- a major, major flaw in our procedures is a lack of safeguarding over the Royal Treasury. At the moment, the Burgermeister of Internal Revenue is the only person with any actual authority over the Royal Treasury - i.e. he's the only name on the bank accounts and on the PayPal account. It's increasingly becoming clear that this is a potential catastrophic point of failure that needs to be legislatively amended. Could the answer be as simple as to require the King to be a co-signatory on all Treasury accounts?

Comments?

First presented to the Hopper more than 10 days ago

WHEREAS the principle of the Royal Civil Service, including the Chancery, is that it should be free from political interference, and yet still responsible for its performance to the elected representatives of the people;

AND WHEREAS when the Royal Civil Service was established, this principle was put into effect such that the Secretary of State should be responsible to the chairs of the Two Houses of the Ziu, as well as to the Seneschal;

AND WHEREAS the current situation is that any one of those three persons can effectively dismiss the Secretary of State;

AND WHEREAS this is a little bit too responsible;

BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosă and Senäts in Ziu assembled that El Lexhatx C.3.1 be changed to read as follows:

Quote3.1 The Secretary of State is appointed by the King on the recommendation of the Seneschál, and removed by the King on the recommendation of any two of the Seneschál, the Túischac'h or the Mençei for professional misconduct, inability to perform their duties due to incapacitation or failure to perform their required duties.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 01, 2022, 07:06:15 PM
RZ9, 10 and 12 - AUSTÁNEU. To be absolutely blunt, these kinds of resolutions are the kind of thing which makes me cringe about Talossa. While I agree in principle with at least 2 out of them (maybe with the 3rd, I haven't done the research), they're empty posturing, and not something I want to encourage Talossans to spend their time and energy on going forward. Something more concrete, like a law to authorise donations to the Ukrainian war effort, for example, would be something I could support. Or going the other way and actually declaring war, like KR1 in 1999 against Serbia, would least have humour value.

RZ11 - CONTRA. Making more work for the overloaded SoS is just vindictive at this point in time. I can see, however, that this would be a good thing for the Ministry of STUFF to do as a special edition of La C'hronica.

RZs 13 and 14 - PER

HA HA HOLY CRAP

VoC: PËR

Ummm... we're kind of excluding pious Muslim women here.

Okay colleagues, give me a heads up on this: I've posted the substantive text of a bill here, but not yet the "fluff", preamable, "whereases" etc.

Does the 10 day countdown before I can bring it in here start from Aug 5, when I posted the "meat" of the bill, or doesn't it count before I put the "fluffy stuff" on? My reading of El Lexh H.6.4. suggests that the "legislative proposal" needs to spend 10 days in the Hopper, which I think means the essential text of the proposed law or amendment, which suggests the more permissive wording.

Can I also add - riffing off something from the recent TNC partisan press - that I agree that the Senator from Florencia is doing a splendid job as Leader of the Opposition; just the kind of job he should have been doing last term; and I really hope he continues to do this job in the next Cosa, and the one after that.

Mr Túischac'h, I was never made aware of this question, by the questioner, the Túischac'h, or the Seneschál, or the Secretary of State. My apologies. I suggest that in future all Terps actually "tag in" the Minister responsible.

But in any case I have to defer this question to the Secretary of State, who has been carrying out this work with cxhn. Martì-Pair Furxhéir. All I can do is sum up the issues:

- the current Database is no longer fit for long term use. It is far too difficult to make changes or updates, for example, to the texts of bills that have already been Clarked; and as we found out last term, it is not even possible to put out a Clark with only the VoC on it, in months when no bills are Clarked.

- the question then becomes, whether to a) upgrade; or (b) totally replace the existing Database. Both are outside the skill set of the Chancery or the Ministry of Technology, so we require on the co-operation of outside experts, like MPF or Bradley Higgs. I should note that cxhn. Higgs is currently working hard on the upgrade to Wittenberg software, which I was given to understand the leadership of the Opposition considered their top priotiy.

- MPF has - without wanting to breach his privacy - a very busy life. And nothing can happen to the existing database without his say-so and input. So - as I understand it - work is proceeding behind the scenes to fully hand over the Database to Chancery control. But that work is going very slowly, and at the pace set by MPF's extra-Talossan commitments.

If any of this is wrong, I invite the SoS to chime in and correct me. This is a quite rushed answer for what, I hope, will now be seen to be understandable reasons. Again, apologies for somehow missing this.

So far, public opinion in Maricopa seems entirely negative, even though the Maricopa government is in favour.

That said, let's not be churlish. I might be wrong about all this and it's not just another partisan manoeuvre meant. So it's probably time for an open thread for FreeDems and those friendly (including our PdR colleagues) on: what would you hope to see in a Monarchy Reform proposal that could actually get 3/4 support?

I suppose I'd start by saying that the last bit is the rub. Any Monarchy Reform would need 3/4 support because any Monarchy Reform worth its salt would get the Royal Veto. Or alternatively - is there anything worth passing that could get the Incumbent Absentee monarch's approval? I doubt it.

I'd also add (and this is only my personal opinion, not representative of the party leadership): I still believe that the combination of a life term and actual political powers is a bad combination which automatically leads to corruption, as any observer of the US Supreme Court could tell you. J. Woolley wasn't always an out-of-touch partisan only interested in guarding his own prerogatives. If we just replace him without reforms to the structure, we'll be in the same mess in less than a decade.

Glad I could help. But seriously: if you think we should delete  El Lexhatx C.1.2.2.5.2, then I'll consider it. But I would never have thought that the Opposition would support the Government parties blowing their own horn about how great they are and how embarrassing the Opposition are, in every citizen's mailbox once a month? I certainly never want to set a precedent that La C'hronica will become the TNC Newsletter if you guys should ever gain power.

QuoteTNC members have for the past several weeks been engaged in a spirited internal debate on the issue of monarchy reform. Now that the blockade has ended and the danger of creating harmful precedents has passed. Member debate has focused on restoring some form of royal succession procedure, potential changes to the removal threshold, and considering the interesting proposals from Minister Mic'haglh Autofil's PdR.

If this were honest, the end of this Blockade would be cause for us to take a victory lap. But I fear it's not honest. Firstly, there's the question of how the Government parties could trust something coming from the guy who signed a document supporting a monarchy reform, then did a totally unexplained 180 degree heel-turn against that proposal. It's hard to take a party seriously if they will support something, become its most vicious opponents, then re-introduce it, all without explanation, if it seems in their partisan interests - all the while hoping that the public won't notice it or their partisans will "doublethink" away the contradiction.

Secondly, what about the principled Monarchists in the TNC - for example, their member of the Cosa who wrote this particular bit of purple prose and is on the record as supporting the return of hereditary succession? Where do rank and file TNC voters stand? Will the same people (MZs and voters) who chanted GOD SAVE THE KING just accept a real monarchy reform, because their leader and "Chief of Staff" had decided that it's time? I doubt it - which is precisely why this won't go anywhere without FreeDems/PdR support.

Thirdly, the devil will be in the details. I've got a pretty good idea of what "succession procedure" means, and it'll be nothing that democratic-minded Talossans can accept. I would bet it would mean the King simply appointing a successor, just like he appointed a Regent. I think you see where this is going.

If only there were some way to be assured of the good faith of a party which has no compunction about dishonesty when politically advantageous.

Per

The Ministry of STUFF would like to respond to and clarify certain statements made in the partisan press of the Talossan National Congress, to whit:

QuoteIn three successive issues of the official Government news, L'Chronica, they inexplicably failed to mention their own blockade

1. The name of the Government's official news sheet is La C'hronica.

2. La C'hronica is prohibited by law from publishing articles referring to political parties by El Lexhatx 1.2.2.5.2, which would prohibit the SoS from distributing any issue which contained such articles. (The previous Secretary of State, Glüc da Dhi, rejected certain articles for La C'hronica on precisely this point).

3. Talossa has a fine tradition of a partisan press, and a not-so-fine tradition of a press which tells outright lies for partisan benefit. It would be embarrassing if the latter were coming back, and I hope the TNC's honourable members will not support it.

4. The apparent surrender of the TNC's Anti-Monarchy Reform Blockade is a more pleasant topic that will be dealt with later.