The Chancery Proposal

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Well, it looks like there will be no climb-down from the TNC on this principle.

So Þerxh has said that if we stick to our guns, then the TNC will abide by the agreement and not Clark the bill, but will make a public statement explaining why. That would be fair, but now it seems that we understand each other better, maybe a joint statement, with the emphasis that our two parties will continue to debate this further in public.

But personally I would love us to collaborate on a bill that will cut down on any political bias in the Chancery or the Civil Service - perhaps giving citizens the right to sue for political bias?

How's that?

I'm not sure I understand, Miestra. You are opposing bringing a bill up for a vote concerning the SoS which is in direct reaction to an actual event. And we've already collaborated on that bill by further defining and reducing the restricted positions based on your expressed concerns. So, there has been movement by the TNC in the changes made in the Hopper and here in this Committee. Why not just add the right to sue for political bias into the current bill?

Also, there is no inciting event from other members of the Civil Service. Despite assertions to the contrary, there have been no plans to expand prohibitions on other members of the Civil Service. This bill is a reaction to an unacceptable precedent by the SoS not other members of the Civil Service. And the restricted positions authored by you in the 53rd (?) Cosa seem sufficient as an early alert against overtly political behaviour with respect to other members of the Civil Service. This is why I mostly copied them into the bill you all are currently opposing. Because I thought it would be non-controversial and demonstrate I was using your own earlier effort as an instructive example.

If you support the ability of future SoSs to serve both as party leader and SoS then I'm afraid there is a fundamental difference in principle between the parties. I am completely comfortable with making this difference public and allowing Talossans to give their verdict on who has the right approach here.

Therefore, Therxh, I too, would support a public announcement concerning these proceedings. And I would support including the offer just made by Miestra as it is also educational on what the FreeDems find acceptable. I do not support a joint statement promising further discussion because THIS discussion and that over several months in the Hopper has made it clear where each of us stands. Miestra, you even said yesterday that you thought you made your position clear multiple times. If Talossa's elected representatives are not to be allowed to render a vote on this proposal then it is time for the Talossan public to deliver one.

For the record, Therxh, these are my personal opinions. Not trying to speak on behalf of you or the party as a whole. :)

 

[þerxh Sant-Enogat]

A joint announcement seems very strange.
I would rather, as TNC representative in the Committee (cosigned by Breneir if you are fine with this) communicate something like (to be translated in a better english):
"The Freedem representatives in the committee did not agree to push to the Ziu any bill forbiding in the future the simultaneous holding of the position of SoS and the one of Party Leader.
Honouring its signature on the TNC-Freedem agreement, the TNC will withdraw the bill from the Hopper.
The TNC anyhow deeply regrets that the Freedem representatives did not allow the members of the Ziu discuss the bill, possibly amend it, and vote on it."
Miestra, do you agree that this is factual ? And what would be your announcement in response ?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

If you support the ability of future SoSs to serve both as party leader and SoS then I'm afraid there is a fundamental difference in principle between the parties. I am completely comfortable with making this difference public and allowing Talossans to give their verdict on who has the right approach here.

Yup, so am I, though I'd like Txec to chime in before we put this to bed. I would have no objection to Þerxh's statement above being released; we would knock up a corresponding statement of our own.

Not hearing an answer on whether you would be happy to collaborate on a bill specifically dealing with bias in the Chancery/Civil Service? If not, I'm happy to get that going in the Hopper sometime.

[King Txec]

I've already stated publicly that as SoS I would never again serve in a political leadership role. I don't believe my choices were improper, but I can see how it can look bad.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Not hearing an answer on whether you would be happy to collaborate on a bill specifically dealing with bias in the Chancery/Civil Service? If not, I'm happy to get that going in the Hopper sometime.

This was my answer, Miestra.
No, I do not support a general bill because the problem is not a general one. It is a specific precedent created by the actions of a specific individual. We need to act to prevent future individuals in that specific position from seeing this specific precedent as permission to do the same.

Also, there is no inciting event from other members of the Civil Service. Despite assertions to the contrary, there have been no plans to expand prohibitions on other members of the Civil Service. This bill is a reaction to an unacceptable precedent by the SoS not other members of the Civil Service. And the restricted positions authored by you in the 53rd (?) Cosa seem sufficient as an early alert against overtly political behaviour with respect to other members of the Civil Service. This is why I mostly copied them into the bill you all are currently opposing. Because I thought it would be non-controversial and demonstrate I was using your own earlier effort as an instructive example.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

A joint announcement seems very strange.
I would rather, as TNC representative in the Committee (cosigned by Breneir if you are fine with this) communicate something like (to be translated in a better english):
"The Freedem representatives in the committee did not agree to push to the Ziu any bill forbiding in the future the simultaneous holding of the position of SoS and the one of Party Leader.
Honouring its signature on the TNC-Freedem agreement, the TNC will withdraw the bill from the Hopper.
The TNC anyhow deeply regrets that the Freedem representatives did not allow the members of the Ziu discuss the bill, possibly amend it, and vote on it."
Miestra, do you agree that this is factual ? And what would be your announcement in response ?

The Free Democrats of Talossa would like to express our pleasure and gratitude that the incoming Seneschal and the Talossan National Congress are still committed to the Agreement which put the TNC government into office.

There is indeed a fundamental difference in principle between the parties. We agree that there is a real need to make sure that the Secretary of State, the Chancery and the whole Royal Civil Service act without any hint of partisan bias. We do not agree that limiting the civil rights to free association of the Secretary of State are necessary or justifiable in that regard; nor that, when the Secretary of State briefly served as Free Democrats Party President during a crisis, he behaved improperly or even criminally. We deplore the way that this has been brought up over and over again, and the way in which it seems likely to be brought up again in future.

Notwithstanding this, the Agreement between the two parties has proven to be a success, in that frank discussions behind closed doors have led to a far greater mutual understanding of our common ground as well as our differences. We regret that the former Seneschal who negotiated the agreement with us is not around to see this.

The Free Democrats look forward to proposing a bill in the Hopper which will specifically raise higher guardrails against any Chancery or Royal Civil Service official displaying partisan bias. We look forward to more constructive discussion between the two major parties, in public where possible and in private where necessary.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

A joint announcement seems very strange.
I would rather, as TNC representative in the Committee (cosigned by Breneir if you are fine with this) communicate something like (to be translated in a better english):
"The Freedem representatives in the committee did not agree to push to the Ziu any bill forbiding in the future the simultaneous holding of the position of SoS and the one of Party Leader.
Honouring its signature on the TNC-Freedem agreement, the TNC will withdraw the bill from the Hopper.
The TNC anyhow deeply regrets that the Freedem representatives did not allow the members of the Ziu discuss the bill, possibly amend it, and vote on it."
Miestra, do you agree that this is factual ? And what would be your announcement in response ?

There is indeed a fundamental difference in principle between the parties. We agree that there is a real need to make sure that the Secretary of State, the Chancery and the whole Royal Civil Service act without any hint of partisan bias. We do not agree that limiting the civil rights to free association of the Secretary of State are necessary or justifiable in that regard; nor that, when the Secretary of State briefly served as Free Democrats Party President during a crisis, he behaved improperly or even criminally. We deplore the way that this has been brought up over and over again, and the way in which it seems likely to be brought up again in future.

Therxh, this is problematic. Can we edit our statement to account for this?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Well, Þerxh? Any problem as far as you can see? Probably time is a factor

[þerxh Sant-Enogat]

Well, Þerxh? Any problem as far as you can see? Probably time is a factor

Presenting the situation to the TNC, give us a few more days

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Well, Þerxh? Any problem as far as you can see? Probably time is a factor

Presenting the situation to the TNC, give us a few more days

You can have as many days as you like for the statement, but I need it confirmed that you/Mximo will NOT Clark the bill

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Well, the broad masses will have noted by now that Mximo's bill wasn't Clarked. Perhaps it's best for the FreeDems to put out our statement and then the TNC is free to say whatever they want, whenever they're ready?