Withdrawal of Support for Nomination of AD to UC

[Açafat del Val]

Many months ago this year, when the Government of Talossa signaled its interest to fill a vacancy on the Uppermost Cort and support the nomination thereto of S:reu Alexandreu Davinescu, it was the opinion at the time that the gentleman was capable, befitting, and deserving of the office.

During the intervening time, however, the Government has been witness to a discomforting number of displays of inappropriate, unbecoming, and unprofessional behavior of the nominee. To name only a few: Several articles on the Talossa Wiki were vandalized, where good-faith efforts would have sufficed. Impugnation, defamation by implication, baiting, and gaslighting have become pervasive tactics used among colleagues and fellow citizens. Where good intentions may have been attributed, or an opportunity presented for constructive feedback, instead malice or incompetence were assumed and destructive words deployed.

Following the formation of the contemporary Cabinet, new members of the Government have expressed that they opposed nomination from its beginning. Moreover, the aforesaid displays have caused substantial belief among other members that the nominee, if appointed to the office, would fail to serve honorably, prudently, or purposefully.

Indeed, some of the behavior witnessed has persuaded the Government as a whole that the nominee may fall prone to lesser instincts and, worse, may have never wanted the office in the first place, except to the extent of ego and pride rather than duty or service. While no crime was ever committed, it is true, too, that no judge of Talossa should act or speak as has been seen.

Therefore, as the incumbent Attorney-General and a member of the Government, I do regret to inform the public of our decision to withdraw all and any support for the nomination aforementioned: and, if it should continue through the legislative process of the Ziu, then it will continue without the endorsements of the Government, the Free Democrats of Talossa, or the New Peculiar Way.

/s/
Açafat del Val
23 Sep 2020/XLI

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Many months ago this year, when the Government of Talossa signaled its interest to fill a vacancy on the Uppermost Cort and support the nomination thereto of S:reu Alexandreu Davinescu, it was the opinion at the time that the gentleman was capable, befitting, and deserving of the office.

During the intervening time, however, the Government has been witness to a discomforting number of displays of inappropriate, unbecoming, and unprofessional behavior of the nominee. To name only a few: Several articles on the Talossa Wiki were vandalized, where good-faith efforts would have sufficed. Impugnation, defamation by implication, baiting, and gaslighting have become pervasive tactics used among colleagues and fellow citizens. Where good intentions may have been attributed, or an opportunity presented for constructive feedback, instead malice or incompetence were assumed and destructive words deployed.

Following the formation of the contemporary Cabinet, new members of the Government have expressed that they opposed nomination from its beginning. Moreover, the aforesaid displays have caused substantial belief among other members that the nominee, if appointed to the office, would fail to serve honorably, prudently, or purposefully.

Indeed, some of the behavior witnessed has persuaded the Government as a whole that the nominee may fall prone to lesser instincts and, worse, may have never wanted the office in the first place, except to the extent of ego and pride rather than duty or service. While no crime was ever committed, it is true, too, that no judge of Talossa should act or speak as has been seen.

Therefore, as the incumbent Attorney-General and a member of the Government, I do regret to inform the public of our decision to withdraw all and any support for the nomination aforementioned: and, if it should continue through the legislative process of the Ziu, then it will continue without the endorsements of the Government, the Free Democrats of Talossa, or the New Peculiar Way.

/s/
Açafat del Val
23 Sep 2020/XLI

Not completely unexpected.  I was surprised when you guys requested I take the position to begin with, but this is much less surprising.

There's a lot of vague complaints in here.  It is suggested I am unprofessional, but does not mention in what capacity.  I have never erupted into a nasty speech at a judge while I was serving as counsel, for example, like the Avocat-Xheneral has done.  He subsequently apologized to the judge and no harm was done, but I'm trying to think of any time I've done something similar.  I suppose it would be unprofessional to post memes in a courtroom, but just while posting on Witt?  Plus the Seneschal likes her a good meme, too ;)

The only specific one accuses me of "vandalizing" "several articles" on the wiki.  To my knowledge, this could only refer to when I began over a period of three months to try to notify the Scribe that the Organic Law should be in protected space; I began by saying as much on the wiki, then notified him on his talk page so that he'd get a notification, then moved on to repeated reverted edits to show up in Recent Changes, including wholescale replacements which were there for the span of maybe two seconds before returning to the original.  The situation was finally only remedied when I complained on Witt, at which point the Seneschal (who is not a Scribe, note) finally fixed the problem.  At worst, this is "vandalism" in the most technical sense, done to one article.  I accidentally left one comment in during this process in the preamble, but I am the one who noticed and asked for it to be fixed.  I'd be interested to hear more about other articles I have purportedly vandalized.

It's okay, I get it.  I'm the most outspoken critic of the Government by a long chalk.  Despite the potential nomination to the CpI, I haven't shut up.  I'm sure it's frustrating.  So you guys do your thing, no worries.  But I'll keep speaking my mind in the future.  Thanks and have a good one :)

[Açafat del Val]

Another opportunity for humility has been wasted. Where an olive branch or some constructive sentences would have sufficed, you chose antagonistic and agitative rhetoric.

That rhetoric has no place in a court of law.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Another opportunity for humility has been wasted. Where an olive branch or some constructive sentences would have sufficed, you chose antagonistic and agitative rhetoric.

That rhetoric has no place in a court of law.

What did you expect? That he would grovel before you to win back your favor, which would clearly be futile anyway?

If the coalition no longer finds the nominee to be suitable, then there is not much I can do. All I have to say is that you cannot throw out barbs and then be shocked and appalled when you get stung back.

[Viteu]

Another opportunity for humility has been wasted. Where an olive branch or some constructive sentences would have sufficed, you chose antagonistic and agitative rhetoric.

That rhetoric has no place in a court of law.

What did you expect? That he would grovel before you to win back your favor, which would clearly be futile anyway?

If the coalition no longer finds the nominee to be suitable, then there is not much I can do. All I have to say is that you cannot throw out barbs and then be shocked and appalled when you get stung back.

But it's okay for a CpI nominee to act the way AD has and get a free pass? If I even blinked the wrong way during my process I would have been disqualified. Let alone actually vandalizing the Wiki.

It was painfully drilled into my head that a nominee must conduct themselves with the decorum and reverence for the Cort for the duration of the process.  AD has failed miserably at that. And now you're acting like it's anyone's fault but AD's that he is losing support.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION

I was in a minority in the Cabinet on this issue. My position that Sir Alexandreu is qualified for this post remains unchanged. But the Attorney-General is correct that this nomination no longer has the support of a majority of Cabinet.

I have formally requested the Leader of the Opposition to take up and Clark the "AD to the UC" Bill, since I no longer can.The Free Democrats will be granted a free vote on this Bill if it is Clarked, that is, every MC may vote how they choose. I will still vote PER if it is Clarked.

[Eðo Grischun]

I'd like to add my own important clarification.  I was also in the minority on this decision.  I would still vote in favour unless the material circumstances grossly change from where we stand today.  I have no issue over questions of qualification and I am not wholly convinced that a 'not fit and proper' test has been satisfied.  My own personal feelings and problems with AD are not reason enough for me to stand opposed to his nomination.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I'd like to add my own important clarification.  I was also in the minority on this decision.  I would still vote in favour unless the material circumstances grossly change from where we stand today.  I have no issue over questions of qualification and I am not wholly convinced that a 'not fit and proper' test has been satisfied.  My own personal feelings and problems with AD are not reason enough for me to stand opposed to his nomination.

I appreciate from both you and Miestra not only your usual integrity, but also your willingness to speak up.