Open Society statement on 60RZ4

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

As it currently stands voting on 60RZ4 indicates it will be rejected. Open Society is concerned we are continuing to fail to deal with the worrying precedent created when the nation's election administrator is also the leader of one of the election's contestants. This is a textbook case of a conflict of interest and must be prevented from happening again. For those hanging their opposition on the supposition that this was an anti-Txec crusade we present Open Society's leader who was the first to propose Txec as King John's successor (November 2023) and then helped initiate the events eventually leading to King John's abdication and to Txec's potential ascension to the throne. Further, Open Society does not plan on stopping its campaign for a non-partisan Chancery once we have King Txec. For those proposing this is an inOrganic infringement on association rights, I simply direct you to a succinct refutation of this assertion by a former secretary of state: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2922.msg24245#msg24245

This matter hinges on an important principle for the preservation of our democratic society not personal animus. Open Society will continue to defend this principle so long as the actions or inactions of other individuals and parties necessitates it.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I simply direct you to a succinct refutation of this assertion by a former secretary of state: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2922.msg24245#msg24245

Actually, as SoS I am empowered to not Clark any bill I find to be inorganic, which is why I brought up the Third Covenant. It was a suggestion to reword your proposal. 

???

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I simply direct you to a succinct refutation of this assertion by a former secretary of state: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2922.msg24245#msg24245

Actually, as SoS I am empowered to not Clark any bill I find to be inorganic, which is why I brought up the Third Covenant. It was a suggestion to reword your proposal. 

???

Hi, that's not the reference point. The reference point is Gluc's statement on the association rights mentioned in the Covenant. The one you mentioned in a statement in the Hopper as to why you opposed preventing the SoS from taking a party officer position.

And based on the current FreeDem votes in the Cosa and Senats, still do believe it's entirely appropriate for the same person to run the elections and one of the parties in that election simultaneously.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I simply direct you to a succinct refutation of this assertion by a former secretary of state: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2922.msg24245#msg24245

Actually, as SoS I am empowered to not Clark any bill I find to be inorganic, which is why I brought up the Third Covenant. It was a suggestion to reword your proposal. 

???

Hi, that's not the reference point. The reference point is Gluc's statement on the association rights mentioned in the Covenant. The one you mentioned in a statement in the Hopper as to why you opposed preventing the SoS from taking a party officer position.

For assistance and public consumption, here are the exact (and wise) words from Glüc:

"I would strongly disagree. We're not talking about the right to be a party officer. Anyone has that right. We are talking about requirements for secretary of state. This is a government function. It's is perfectly valid for the ziu to set restrictions on who can hold such a position. If this proposal were to pass anyone would still be free to become a party officer. They just could not also be sos. Super broad interpretations of convenants are dangerous, because it reduces the ability of the ziu and the people to hold the government accountable. The convenants should protect citizens from the state, not the other way round."

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

@Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP @Sir Lüc @Bråneu Excelsio @Flip Molinar @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN @þerxh Sant-Enogat I recognize that the FreeDems have made a collective decision to justify and defend something that is not healthy for our democracy. But I want to encourage each of you to support the effort to ensure a nonpartisan Chancery. The prohibitions in the bill are modelled after the very same prohibitions @Miestră Schivă, UrN used in the past.

I know it is impolitic to note but I do think if the precedent had not been created by a Free Democrat then this would probably be a simple action approved long ago.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Even if it came with a falsehood I am thankful for you supporting the bill and the principle, @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu  Other MZs and Senators please join the Baron in supporting a nonpartisan Chancery. I have had people tell me in private that they agree or that there is a better time for this.

Now is always the right time to defend our democracy. I don't care if you call it a personal grudge or a hobbyhorse...as long as the principle is defended.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

With the precedent still unaddressed Open Society commits to continue campaigning for a nonpartisan Chancery. The Nonpartisan Chancery Act or a bill similar to it will be resubmitted in the next Cosa. So long as the precedent continues to be unaddressed the principle is in need of defending.