RZ20: PER
RZ21: CONTRA
RZ22: PER
RZ23: PER
RZ24: PER
VoC: ÜC

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on October 28, 2024, 07:39:53 PMMadam Constable,

Please advise on your response to the other three bills.

I think we need a separate thread where the Governor invites the Constable to consider passed resolutions for approval, with the full text of same. It will keep things easier to follow and I can see the final full text of the resolutions for consideration. 

I'm quite happy to start one. 

@Zilect Uómbat Firă & @Breneir Tzaracomprada: After a closer reading of the Constitution of Florencia, I must add to my objections that this resolution directly contravenes constitutional provisions. Specifically, Article III, Section 6 assigns executive powers solely to the Governor, including the following responsibilities:

QuoteArticle III Section 6. The Governor.
The executive powers of the province shall be vested in a singular Governor, or in Talossan "Governadéir", who shall:
(a) Be the presiding officer of the House of Shepherds, and have by right of such office one mandatory and equal seat there;
(b) Resolve all parliamentary questions in the House of Shepherds, and take care that their business be undertaken in good and honorable manner;
(c) Keep and make publicly available the text of all laws of Florencia, in conjunction with the Scribery of Talossa;
(d) Take care that the laws of Talossa and Florencia be enforced faithfully; and
(e) Represent the province in any and all judicial actions to which it be a party.
[...]

These responsibilities are constitutionally vested in the Governor and therefore cannot be reassigned by a mere resolution.

It appears to me that Article IV, Section 6 of the Constitution of Florencia has not been adhered to, as I see no evidence that the Governor has invited the Constable to consider any resolution for approval. This procedural step is essential under the Constitution to ensure the lawful enactment of resolutions.

Regardless, under my authority in Article IV, Section 6, I am formally disapproving the Statutory Law Codification Act. My objections are grounded in the resolution's apparent inorganic provisions that impose obligations upon the Crown to maintain and administer provincial laws. Should the office of Constable become vacant, this requirement would place a direct administrative responsibility upon the Sovereign, which is neither appropriate nor consistent with constitutional/organic intent. The Constitution nor OrgLaw does not envision a province requiring the Crown to undertake provincial administrative duties, as this fundamentally misinterprets the nature of the Crown's role.

Further, the resolution breaches Article III, Section 1, as it misinterprets the role of the Constable. The Constable is a representative of the Sovereign of Talossa, and the administration of provincial laws is not an obligation of the Crown but rather a duty of the provincial legislature, the Governor, or bodies created by them.

Per Article IV, Section 6:

QuotePresentation to the Constable
Whenever the House of Shepherds has passed a resolution, the Governor shall close the question, sign the instrument forthwith, and invite that Constable consider it for approval.
... If the Constable disapprove a resolution presented by the Governor, then the former shall return it to the consideration of the Shepherds with his objections in writing: and if the same resolution should earn again at least twice as many affirmative votes as negative ... the Governor shall close the question and promulgate the resolution forthwith.

For these reasons, I am returning the Statutory Law Codification Act to the House of Shepherds for further consideration, citing these constitutional/organic objections.

Quote from: Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat on August 29, 2024, 07:58:45 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on August 28, 2024, 11:24:14 PMMight also be interesting to send official invitations to other monarchs and micronational leaders who might attend the coronation ceremony virtually.

I think this is a great idea!

Agreed, especially given that 16 foreign monarchs attended the coronation of Charles III and Camilla, breaking tradition where foreign crowned monarchs and consorts did not attend the coronations of others and were instead represented by other royals.

Just a polite reminder of my previous request ([Cantzelerïă/Chancery] Call for Bills for the August, 2024 Clark (talossa.com)) to Clark: [CRL] The Clerk of the Corts Hat Restriction Act (talossa.com)

The text being as follows:

QuoteThe Clerk of the Corts Hat Restriction Act


WHEREAS under current arrangements the Attorney-General can simultaneously hold the position of Clerk of the Corts;

AND WHEREAS under same current arrangements a Deputy Clerk of the Corts cannot be appointed if s/he also hold the portfolio of Attorney General or Minister of Justice, due to the nature of these duties;

AND WHEREAS due to the nature of these duties it makes sense to also extend this prohibition to the Clerk of the Cort and not just their Deputies;

AND WHEREAS there is some duplication in 2 sections regarding Deputies that needs tidying up;


THEREFORE BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosâ and Senäts of Talossa in Ziu assembled as follows:

Section 4.8 of El Lexhatx G. Justice, which currently reads:

"The individual holding the office of Clerk of the Corts shall enjoy immunity from civil or criminal suit for any actions performed in the course of his or her official duties while holding this office. This immunity shall be lost upon leaving office. Due to the nature of the Clerk's responsibilities, an individual may not hold the office of Clerk of the Corts, or any deputy thereunder, while simultaneously holding office as a Justice of the Uppermost Cort or any national inferior court."

Shall be amended to read as follows:

"4.8. The individual holding the office of Clerk of the Corts shall enjoy immunity from civil or criminal suit for any actions performed in the course of his or her official duties while holding this office. This immunity shall be lost upon leaving office. Due to the nature of the Clerk's responsibilities, an individual may not hold the office of Clerk of the Corts, or any deputy thereunder, while simultaneously holding office as a Justice of the Uppermost Cort or any national inferior court or the portfolio of Attorney General or any office within the Ministry of Justice."

Furthermore, Section 5.4 of El Lexhatx G. Justice, which currently reads:

"5.4. Due to the nature of these duties, no deputy shall be appointed who is seated on the bench of the Uppermost Cort or any inferior cort. Nor shall any appointee hold the portfolio of Attorney General or Minister of Justice."

Is hereby repealed in full.

Ureu q'estadra så,


Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN (MC, IND, CZ)

Thanks!

I've been reflecting on why so many new citizens start with boundless enthusiasm but gradually drift away, and it occurred to me that this process is strikingly similar to what happens when someone takes up a new hobby. Imagine discovering something new and exciting—a sport, a craft, or an instrument. At first, you're completely captivated. You purchase all the necessary gear, immerse yourself in tutorials, and can't wait to see yourself mastering this new interest. But as time goes on, life's daily demands start to creep in, and that initial excitement begins to fade. Before long, the hobby that once thrilled you starts to feel like an afterthought, and all that gear you bought ends up collecting dust in a cupboard.

I believe this is precisely what we're witnessing with many new citizens in Talossa. They join us with a bucket full of enthusiasm, eager to dive into the unique world of our nation, keen to explore its culture, engage with its governance, and perhaps even shape its future. But as time progresses, the realities of their everyday lives start to take priority, and that initial passion begins to wane. Without a way to sustain their engagement, their participation dwindles, and we end up losing citizens who once showed so much potential to make meaningful contributions.

Given the issues that Miestră raised regarding our current immigration process, particularly around the lack of long-term engagement from new citizens, and the various suggestions that have been brought forward, I think it's crucial that we consider strategies to keep that initial spark alive. We need to help new citizens maintain their enthusiasm and remain actively involved over the long haul, turning that early interest into a lasting commitment.

Here are some ideas on how we might achieve this:

1. Ongoing Engagement Through Mentorship: One of the most effective ways to sustain enthusiasm is through personal connection. Sir Txec mentioned the importance of engaging with new citizens, and I fully agree. We could reinstate a structured mentorship programme, where each new citizen is paired with an experienced Talossan who can guide them through their first few months. This mentor would act as a friendly face and a knowledgeable guide, helping them navigate the ins and outs of Talossan life, whether it's understanding our political landscape, exploring cultural opportunities, or simply finding a social niche. Regular check-ins and ongoing support could make a significant difference in keeping new citizens engaged.

2. Structured Activities and Challenges: Another way to maintain interest is by offering structured activities that provide a sense of purpose and achievement. I propose introducing a "First 100 Days in Talossa" programme designed specifically for new citizens. This programme could include a series of activities or challenges, such as participating in local events, contributing to a community project, or attending virtual meet-ups. Completing these tasks could come with small rewards or public recognition, which would not only keep their enthusiasm alive but also help them integrate more fully into our community. It would also give them a clear path to follow, making the transition from newcomer to active participant smoother and more rewarding.

3. Clear Pathways to Involvement: Building on Sir Lüc's idea of a "welcome packet," I think we should expand this concept into a detailed roadmap for new citizens. This roadmap could outline clear, actionable steps for getting involved in various aspects of Talossan life. Whether it's joining the Cosă, getting involved in provincial activities, starting or contributing to a cultural project, or even exploring opportunities within the Civil Service, giving new citizens specific avenues to explore would help them find their place in our community more quickly. By laying out these pathways, we can help them turn their initial curiosity into sustained involvement.

4. Building a Sense of Belonging: A crucial aspect of maintaining engagement is fostering a strong sense of belonging. It's often the personal connections and the feeling of being part of a close-knit community that keeps people coming back. We could enhance this sense of belonging by organising regular social events, both online and in person, where new citizens can meet and interact with others in a relaxed setting. Small group discussions or interest-based meet-ups could also help them connect with like-minded individuals. The more connected they feel to other Talossans, the more likely they are to remain engaged and active within our community.

5. Regular Feedback and Adjustment: Finally, we mustn't overlook the importance of regular feedback. As we implement these strategies, it's crucial to create opportunities for new citizens to share their experiences and provide feedback on what's working for them and what isn't. This could be done through surveys, informal check-ins, or even focus groups. By actively listening to their concerns and suggestions, we can continually refine our approach, ensuring that we're meeting their needs and addressing any issues before they lead to disengagement.

By implementing these strategies, I believe we can ensure that the initial enthusiasm new citizens bring doesn't just fade away but instead deepens into a lasting commitment to Talossa. This approach would not only help keep our community vibrant and active but also ensure a steady influx of engaged citizens who are genuinely invested in the future of our nation. We all know that the strength of Talossa lies in the dedication and participation of its citizens, so let's make sure we're doing everything we can to support and nurture that dedication from the moment they join us.

Understanding the very late hour (due to CRL delays) but I would like to Clark, [CRL] The Clerk of the Corts Hat Restriction Act (talossa.com), in either the upcoming Clark or the following Clark thereafter, as you see fit. 

-- Litz

Quote from: Sir Lüc on July 31, 2024, 11:05:23 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on July 31, 2024, 09:09:36 AMOpen Society proposed a draft bill based on a previous effort by mpf concerning annual elections. We think that longer Cosa terms with a larger Civil Service to support would open up space for a flowering of non-political activity. Talossa has plenty of opportunities for politicians and political scientists. 9-10 month long Cosa terms and fixed election dates.

I have long mulled something similar to this, mostly because I feel six Clarks is really not a lot if you want to get stuff done without significant pressure from deadlines and time constraints - for instance, failing to get your bill on a Clark is less of an issue when you have more time to work with to begin with. There's also the practicality angle, since lots of cultural events and financial deadlines are either yearly or tied to election timing, and yearly-fixed election dates would help with planning and scheduling.

One major issue would be that we presently adopt a parliamentary system where a term of the Ziu may effectively be cut short for any number of reasons (usually, but not exclusively, loss of Confidence). But I feel this might be addressed in two ways:

- Removing the requirement to hold a VoC every month, and instead requiring a certain number of MCs to sponsor and Clark a resolution stating the Cosă has no confidence in the Government;

- Removing the requirement to dissolve the Cosă when Confidence is lost, and instead allowing the King to inquire with party leaders whether a caretaker Government can be formed. (Or indeed, whether the same government can be reappointed if the King ascertains that the loss of Confidence is due to a temporary justified absence of an MC.)

 I would be against removing the monthly Vote of Confidence (VoC) requirement because of the way the Clark system works. It would take far too long for a VoC to be voted on and passed in the manner you suggest. For example, say the Government does something on the 1st of August that results in the majority of the Cosa losing confidence in said Government. With this suggestion, it would be no sooner than the 21st of September before the Government could be removed from office—far too long by Talossan standards. With a VoC on the Clark every month, it allows for a quick response to confidence in the Government. If a resolution of no confidence in the Government could be tabled and voted on without being in the Clark, it would address this concern.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 30, 2024, 06:32:47 PMI am going to start the ball rolling with a great idea from @Sir Lüc  which should get discussed.
There is a big problem with the Senäts, and that is: huge incumbency advantage in elections, especially since active Talossans are unevenly divided between the provinces. So barely active citizens get in Senäts seats and stay there. Also, Talossa has never been a federal system, the provinces are sporadically active at best, so the argument for "provincial representation" is meaningless.
(Yes, I'm aware of what that implies about the FreeDems' persistent Senäts majority. All the more reason why opposition parties should be keen on what I am about to suggest, lol.)
The suggestion: every Cosă election, half the Senäts seats are elected at large by the whole Kingdom.
My personal preference that this be by Single Transferable Vote - but of course that's complex. An easier alternative would be Single Non-Transferable Vote - every citizen gets 1 vote and the top 4 candidates get in. (I would totally oppose a "four votes for four seats" position because that would guarantee the most popular Senäts "ticket" of 4 candidates would get all the seats.) Possibly we could do the reform and set the electoral system later by legislation.
This preserves the best thing about the current Senäts, i.e. the ability of non-party independents to win. While my sympathies are with unicameralism, that would be *much* more complicated to enact, you might need a whole new OrgLaw.
Comments?

Personally, my first preference would be to see the Senäts abolished completely and Talossa become a unicameral system with one legislative body, the Cosa. Aside from the legal fiction of "provincial representation" (which I agree is meaningless), I fail to see any reason why we need the Upper House at all, nor what functions it performs that can't be done just as well in a unicameral system. Therefore, I would like to see a referendum on the future of the Senäts, namely, whether it should be abolished or reformed.

Should the majority of my fellow citizens choose the reform option, I can see merit in what is proposed above, and it is not a bad alternative. Personally, however, I would like to see something more like the Republic of Ireland's Seanad being adopted, where the Senäts is divided into panels (or in Talossa's case: seats) of experts in certain fields. For example (and these are just suggestions), if we have five seats in the Senäts, one seat would be for an expert in law, one for an expert in culture, one for an expert in el glheþ, one for an expert in media, and one for an expert in foreign affairs. These five experts wouldn't be directly elected but would all be elected by MCs from amongst their membership before the first Clark. Thus, the Upper House would be a house of seasoned experts in all things Talossan, rather than citizens who are there because no one else was interested in running.

Anyway, that's one suggestion to add to the thought process, and I am glad that this discussion has started.

My two bence,

-- Litz

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on July 26, 2024, 09:17:00 PMI see this language is present in the original, but I am not sure why both "Attorney General or Minister of Justice" are written out, since that's the same position.

I have no idea - my assumption was there was a reasoning behind it when the bill was passed, so I just copied to text over.
 
Taking on that point and expanding on perhaps the rationale behind it - I have updated the text as follows:

QuoteThe Clerk of the Corts Hat Restriction Act

WHEREAS under current arrangements the Attorney-General can simultaneously hold the position of Clerk of the Corts;

AND WHEREAS under same current arrangements a Deputy Clerk of the Corts cannot be appointed if s/he also hold the portfolio of Attorney General or Minister of Justice, due to the nature of these duties;

AND WHEREAS due to the nature of these duties it makes sense to also extend this prohibition to the Clerk of the Cort and not just their Deputies;

AND WHEREAS there is some duplication in 2 sections regarding Deputies that needs tidying up;

THEREFORE BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosâ and Senäts of Talossa in Ziu assembled as follows:

Section 4.8 of El Lexhatx G. Justice, which currently reads:

"The individual holding the office of Clerk of the Corts shall enjoy immunity from civil or criminal suit for any actions performed in the course of his or her official duties while holding this office. This immunity shall be lost upon leaving office. Due to the nature of the Clerk's responsibilities, an individual may not hold the office of Clerk of the Corts, or any deputy thereunder, while simultaneously holding office as a Justice of the Uppermost Cort or any national inferior court."

Shall be amended to read as follows:

"4.8. The individual holding the office of Clerk of the Corts shall enjoy immunity from civil or criminal suit for any actions performed in the course of his or her official duties while holding this office. This immunity shall be lost upon leaving office. Due to the nature of the Clerk's responsibilities, an individual may not hold the office of Clerk of the Corts, or any deputy thereunder, while simultaneously holding office as a Justice of the Uppermost Cort or any national inferior court or the portfolio of Attorney General or any office within the Ministry of Justice."

Furthermore, Section 5.4 of El Lexhatx G. Justice, which currently reads:

"5.4. Due to the nature of these duties, no deputy shall be appointed who is seated on the bench of the Uppermost Cort or any inferior cort. Nor shall any appointee hold the portfolio of Attorney General or Minister of Justice."

Is hereby repealed in full.

Ureu q'estadra så,

Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN (MC, IND, CZ)

It would be great if @þerxh Sant-Enogat/@Ian Plätschisch/ the CRL could approve this before the beginning of the First Clark!!

Quote from: Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN on July 23, 2024, 08:43:26 AMCan this please be moved to the CRL/Committee?

Bumping the above in case it was missed? 

I would also be honoured to be added as a co-sponsor to this bill.

I'd like to add my support also to the CRL bypass.

Can this please be moved to the CRL/Committee?