Fellow senators,

it falls upon me to appoint one of you to serve on the electoral commission to assist with approving the rules and verifying the results of the upcoming general elections (March 15th - April 1st).

I have to appoint someone who is not an officer of a political party and whose seat is not up for re-election (or who is retiring, but I think it's preferable to appoint someone whose seat isn't up at all).

@mximo @Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu, O.SPM @GV @Sir Ian Plätschisch @Iason Taiwos any takers?

I would be worried that the many TCAT fans usually showing up to support the Cézembrean teams across France might be unaware of this change and show up using the wrong flag.

A couple of points:

* As usual I think it would be preferable to include the text of the current lexhatx in order to compare. Also perhaps quotation marks could be used for the bits of lexhatx. That might make it a bit easier to read.

* This bit:

QuoteThe existing 1.2.1 is renumbered to 1.2.2 and revised and following subsections are renumbered:

is difficult for me to understand. It might be better to phrase it something like this:

Quote1.2.1 is renumbered to 1.2.2 and revised to read as follows: "[revised 1.2.2]"

The following subsections are renumbered accordingly.

Similarly I think for the new 1.2.1. it might be better to say the section is added in front of the old 1.2.1. rather than replacing it, because it's not really being replaced. To me that would make things clearer.

* I worry the bit about succeeding the SoS conflicts with Lex.C.3.1. which states the King appoints the SoS on the advice of the Seneschal. That article probably needs to be amended as well to reflect this change.

I have no further recommendations

This looks fine. My recommendation is approval.

Many thanks Your Grace, for everything you have done for our Kingdom for the last nearly 20 years!

Congratulations to all honourees! All these honours are very well deserved. And of course congratulations to our new King.

¡Så vivadra el Regeu!

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on November 30, 2024, 09:28:04 PMI do not support legal action, since I dislike the precedent set by someone having their speech suppressed for being gross and unpleasant to a member of an opposing political party.

However, the last person to act in this specific way was Iusti Canun, who would sometimes write me to tell me that he thought I was handsome. It was creepy.  As we all know, that sort of behavior didn't bode well.  I hope Breneir reconsiders this course of action upon reflection.  It's possible to make a comeback after almost anything in Talossa, but no one has ever continued in the country after openly establishing themselves as a sex pest.

Breneir, obviously you'll never just think about your behavior, realize that even "playful" sexual harassment is wrong, and apologize.  So I would encourage you to just do the same thing you did with your grudge against Txec: seize on some plausible shred of principle that's involved, and loudly pretend you were trying to make a point about that principle.  If you do a good job, it might even seem real.  Do not double down and make a big deal about how it's somehow really important that you get to say creepy shit to a young person.  He doesn't deserve that, and no one will tolerate it.

Maybe this is really about freedom of speech, for example?  You just want to be able to speak your mind without Government censorship, perhaps.

Agreed that legal action would be too much, but I do think the comments made violate at least wittiquette #8 and maybe #3 (although harrassment isnt explicitly mentioned), so on that basis a moderator could intervene if it happens again, either by editing the offending bits or giving a warning. Obviously we should be careful not to censor political debate for minor violations, but when comments seem purely intended to be patronising or bordering on harrassment without making any sort of political point moderators may decide to moderate.

I have several thoughts on the functioning of the CRL. Unfortunately I have been to lazy all year to properly write these down. Apologies. I suppose if this passes it would be a moot point. I do think the CRL serves some useful purpose and I do think it can be improved.

I do note that in the current situation bills do not actually need approval from CRL members to pass the hopper. The current text just says the bill has passed the hopper if the CRL has given its recommendations, which I interpret as meaning the bill still passes even if all CRL members recommend rejection. In this proposal it would need actual approval in order to pass in 20 days instead of 30. I'm not saying thats a good or a bad thing. Just wanted to point it out.

I also agree with Ians point about merging 2.13 and 2.14, but that's a minor point.

I don't have any technical objections or further recommendations.

RZ17 - Per
RZ18 - Con

I'm not entirely sure from the whereas clauses why this bill is needed? What would be the issue if someone else released these 'transmittals' after seven years?

I would also perhaps rephrase it like this:

QuoteThese transmittals shall only be released to the public by the Royal Archives seven (7) years after the conclusion of that Government's term of office.

That feels clearer to me.

Other than that I have no recommendation

I think the Túischac'h has a good point. Under the current law it looks as if there is already nothing preventing the archivist from enlisting the scribe to help. I also agree that if the point is to have a stopgap it shouldn't depend on the archivist appointing someone.

My recommendation would be to merge this proposal with "The Second Talossan Government Transparency (Repair) Act" and alter it to make sure a stopgap is always in place.

Looks good. I would recommend acceptance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss-system_tournament 8-)

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 14, 2024, 02:07:09 PM1.2.3 of el Lexhatx

This should presumably read C.1.2.3 of el Lexhatx.

I have no further recommendations. To be honest the implication of this change isn't entirely clear to me. If office of the Secretary of State were to become vacant the appointment of a succesor would still have to go through the regular procedure. It's not clear to me how this would change things.

The current government submitted a budget allocating 50 dollars for expenditure by the Bureau of Humanitarian Aid and International Development. I would be interested to hear from the minister of finance how the government envisions this money be spent. Is it first come, first serve with the money going to whichever charity the Ziu passes a bill for first? Does the government itself have a project in mind? Does it support this particular bill and if it passes does that mean the government won't support any further BHAID donations this term? Basically, how do ad-hoc BHAID bills like this relate to the budget? @Sir Lüc

I have no recommendation on this bill.