Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 20, 2025, 03:40:14 PMWhat is the advantage of having a permanent secretary do this?

The primary goal is to move the BHAID (and the administrator position) into the Civil Service as a part of making more use of the civil service, lessening any politicization of our work on humanitarian assistance, and allowing for a more permanent occupant of BHAID leadership. I was moved to do this after the former Seneschal stated the BHAID Administrator is a political position and due to the inaction of the former Minister of Foreign Affairs after appointing herself to the position of BHAID administrator.

I was further disappointed by the lack of government action to mark an important milestone (the BHAID's first decade).

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 29, 2025, 07:13:41 PMIf you would be willing to defer this bill, I have some ideas about reforming the whole process.

Sure, I look forward to seeing those ideas.

Quote from: xpb on Today at 09:37:16 AMI have always voted in public on Witt.  I appreciate that you have taken the proper step not to comment within the official voting thread.

Of course, that thread is only for voting and comments explaining the votes by the MC. I appreciate you sharing your reason for voting against the bill. I hope we can continue the progress toward an open and outward looking foreign policy despite that vote.

Because provinces have sometimes had that as their local government, and I don't want to prohibit that.  We should leave it up to them.

I have always voted in public on Witt.  I appreciate that you have taken the proper step not to comment within the official voting thread.

How about simply "no one can be cunstaval and a provincial leader of any province at the same time"

Oh, I see. Well, that wouldn't be closing a loophole, that would be a significant change. In the past, some provinces have chosen to have their Constable also serve as the ceremonial head of state or the head of their government. So I don't want to prevent provinces from doing that. Provinces will already be now enabled to pass their own restrictions on who can hold the office, and they can add this restriction if they so choose.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on December 31, 2025, 05:11:16 PMThere is a great example, which I wrote about once, where I compared the same chapter about former Seneschál Tamorán dal Navă before and after he fell out with King Robert.

That was one of the issues of Qator Itrins, if I remember my Talossan reading correctly.

62RZ01: PER. I believe we have gotten a fair compromise made to this bill, and will support it.
62RZ02: CON. Given the opposition to this bill from some individuals with a good deal of experience with our legal system, I cannot support it. I'm open to looking at altering how advisory opinions work, but they appear to still be of use in some form, and this bill deletes them outright.
62RZ03: PER. I have some reservations about the removal threshold being a simple majority, but these can be addressed with additional legislation.
62RZ04: CON. I've made my stance pretty clear on this elsewhere.
62RZ05: AUS. Given the actions taken by the Foreign Ministry under the previous Government, and that the current one has not yet rescinded them, this bill seems somewhat weak compared to the current official position. Frankly, I'm more concerned with trying to stop democratic backsliding in Talossa.

VoC: NON

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 07:08:08 PMThat section is the current language from existing law, as it has been for many years. And respectfully, I find your version actually a little bit more confusing than the simpler version. Invalidating candidacy sounds like you just can't run for the office or something. I'm open to the idea, but could you explain to me why you think this is an improvement?

I grant the way I phrased it may not have been the best,
But the intention is to clear up a loophole in the language you presented which, as the prohabition against being a Cunstaval in the same province you are from, as this bill would do, it doesn't prohibit you being able to hold a provincial government head and the position of cunstaval in the SAME province. Which is what I was trying to stop in the suggested change I put forward earlier