Isn't the "crown" just a general's hat, Your Majesty?

**Point of Order and Proposal to Restart the Procedure**

The normal procedure provides that one member nominates another member, that the nominee is then asked whether they accept or decline the nomination, and that a vote is subsequently held on the accepted candidacies, within a clearly established timeframe.

At this stage, however, the discussion is confused and disorderly. Furthermore, a person who is not a member of the Senate has intervened in our debates, which runs counter to established practice and undermines the clarity of our proceedings.

This situation calls for a return to order and respect for proper procedure.

Accordingly, I propose that the nomination and election process be restarted entirely from scratch, in accordance with the established rules.

I therefore ask the officer responsible for the vote to kindly call this Honourable Chamber to order and to formally relaunch the process in compliance with the rules.


Mximo Carbonèl

This is nowhere near a finished piece of legislation... it's a broad proposal asking for feedback.  The main feedback from the URL is that they're very opposed to the basic concept.  They like things the way they are.  I think my plan is a good idea for reform, though, and I'll work to convince our conservative friends across the aisle to support this step towards progress.

Right now, we have eleven ministries of various size and scope.  This means we always need to stack multiple jobs on a handful of people, since it's the best way to handle that situation (as we promised in our campaign).  But that system wasn't handed down from on high... the government should serve the people's needs!

Accordingly, my proposal would maintain just a few statutory ministers.  These would basically operate as before.  Otherwise, the list of necessary tasks would be divided up by government as needed among these few ministers or however many new ministers might be needed or wanted, and then publicly posted.

This has a lot of advantages.  For one, it would make it a little more likely to have specific people given just one or two tasks, increasing accountability when compared to the current system of general deputies.  This allows people with specific expertise but not much time, or who want to just do one bit of something, to contribute without a significant commitment.

Additionally, it means people are less likely to need to round out the Government with less active people, just for the look of it, and we won't need to have people with five Cabinet job titles all at the same time.

Now, this reform isn't do-or-die -- since it seems like we don't have the numbers for this right now, we can just keep doing things the traditional way.  But I do think it would improve things and better reflect the real needs of the government.  I hope to be able to change some minds on this in the future.

The URL condemns in strongest terms yet another disastrous policy decision by the incoming Government. As one citizen has put it, the new Seneschal, not content with dismantling parliamentary democracy over the ages, now wants to abolish ministries as a concept altogether.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 20, 2025, 02:40:31 PMHonestly, I almost think that we might want to make things more fluid intentionally, so that responsibilities can be assigned as better suits the staff available.  It might be time to revamp the whole system.

Let's be clear: ministries exist in any country, large or small, to divide responsibilities cleanly and clearly. You know that Task A goes with Job A, and Task B goes with Job B. There are several obvious benefits of this method:

• There is no confusion on who may act on a given matter, because the lines of authority are clearly-defined. If you do not hold a given position, you do not have legal authority over its subject matter. (This in turn minimizes the possibility for conflicting directives.)
• Knowing with certainty the individual who holds a given responsibility makes it easy to hold them accountable. Blurred lines of authority make it easier for people to pass the buck, avoiding accountability for their failures and needlessly confusing the situation.
• Knowing with certainty where responsibilities lie is also important for the very people who hold them. If the situation is "more fluid intentionally", the members of Cabinet (if it can still be called a Cabinet) are left with only vague guidelines about what they should be doing, as opposed to clearly-defined roles.

The Seneschal has argued that his obliteration of the cabinet model of government is necessary because the current system encourages "stacking" jobs and roles for individual members of Cabinet. Unfortunately, his argument ignores the obvious truth, namely that the work still must be done. Whether you have one ministry with five areas of responsibility or five ministries with one responsibility each, the responsibilities still exist. The advantage of the latter approach is that it allows for responsibilities to be divided in a more manageable fashion, permitting the work to be divided in line with the abilities and availabilities of each minister. In turn, this helps each minister avoid overwork and burnout. While "stacking" has been performed in multiple governments in the past (including during the 58th Cosa, where the current Seneschal himself held three portfolios), he has chosen to criticize the previous Government for their stacking. In doing so, he ignores that because he has chosen to leave the Public Records and Defense Ministries vacant, he holds both of those by default, as well as the Seneschalsqab and the Immigration portfolio -- bringing him to four Cabinet posts, level with the same people he criticizes.

Equally curious is that the Progressive Alliance explicitly stated their support for "stacking" in their campaign material in the last election:

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 23, 2025, 11:39:47 AMWhere possible, preference should be given to someone active and letting them serve multiple positions, as opposed to picking less active people to round out the numbers.

In other words, the Seneschal is currently arguing against doing something he himself campaigned on ... while doing it anyway.

It is unclear how much of the current regime's decisions are being driven by a lack of understanding of how Talossa's systems work, and how much are being driven by a desire to create chaos and avoid accountability, but the URL has a few important ways we can prevent too much damage from being done:

• The most obvious, in the immediate term, is what we're doing right now: informing you, the public! You have a right to be informed about what your government is trying to get away with.
• We will continue to argue in defense of a government model that promotes responsibility and accountability, both because it is the right thing to do, and because the alternative that has been presented is deeply concerning.
• More important in the long term is the ability of URL-affiliated Senators to prevent misguided changes to our laws. Any changes not thoroughly debated and broadly agreed-upon are unlikely to be adopted by the Ziu.

Talossa deserves government, not chaos.

Oh, of course!  I would never never change it without authorization of the Ziu.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on July 29, 2025, 11:42:23 PMPersonally, I think it's nice to keep the sash as it is. I am very fond of the fact that it's part of the royal regalia.

I do think it would be nice to think about adding to the regalia in some way, though.

Incidentally, my wife is a very talented sewist, if it would be helpful to have someone adjust the sash to close it up at the right angle for your measurements.

Keep the sash as-is as a historic heirloom, the talents of your resident seamstress notwithstanding.

OKAY whew.  After like an hour of negotiating, there's a deal.  @Béneditsch Ardpresteir for Mencei and Tafial for Tuischach.

I second the nomination of @Françal I. Lux as Tuischac'h

I rescind my nomination for Tafi and instead nominate our Culture Minister, [mention]Françal I. Lux [/mention]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Yesterday at 01:42:00 PMThe "usual tradition" is for both Chambers to be led by non-government members.

I made this suggestion in Discord: that a URL member lead the Cosa, and a Progressive who's not in Government leads the Senate.  D:na Miestra seems to have rejected that offer out of hand, in what she once called "political aggression," but the offer stands.