The Seneschal Selection and Reselection Amendment

[Ian Plätschisch]

WHEREAS The current system of selecting the Seneschal is way too cumbersome given that the result is pretty much known in advance, and

WHEREAS The system for selecting the Túischac'h works well, and if applied to select the Seneschal, would lead to the same result as an election almost all of the time, and

WHEREAS We also have no method of finding a new Seneschal when the existing Seneschal resigns and there is no Distain

THEREFORE Article VI of the Organic Law, which currently reads:

Section 1 The head of the Government is the Prime Minister, who shall be known otherwise as the Seneschál. Any Talossan, except for the King of Talossa, shall be eligible to be the Seneschál. (54RZ23)

Section 2 The Seneschál shall be selected directly by the Cosâ, and his term shall expire upon the installation of his successor. He shall maintain the confidence of a majority of the Cosâ alone in order to hold the office. (54RZ23)

Section 3 The Seneschál has duties of the State. He may advise the King to dissolve the Cosâ and to appoint and remove members of the Cabinet, and such advice to the King shall not be refused. He may also declare war and write treaties with the approval of the Ziu, expedite the Ziu's consideration of legislation, and issue Prime Dictates. (54RZ23)

Section 4 Prime Dictates (PDs) are public declarations which affect government policy and have the force of law. They take effect upon their countersignature by the King and function as laws for all purposes, with such exceptions and subject to such conditions as the Ziu may enact by statute. Prime Dictates are exempt from all provisions relating unto legislative proposals, but may never be used to amend this Organic Law. (54RZ23)

Section 5 The election of a Seneschál shall be the sole and exclusive business of the first Clark of every newly seated Ziu, but neither a member of the Senäts nor the King may vote on the matter. The Senäts may undertake during such Clark any of their business for which the consent of the Cosâ or the King be not requisite. (54RZ23)

The method of election of a Seneschál shall be Ranked Choice Voting. Each member of the Cosâ shall have as many votes in the election as the seats which he hold in the Cosâ, but shall cast his votes as one bloc and have no divided conscience. The candidates for each such election shall be nominated by each political party which shall have earned representation in the Cosâ at the most recent general election. (54RZ23) (55RZ22)

No member of the Cosâ may abstain in the election of a Seneschál, and shall rank on his ballot at least two distinct preferences, which itself shall be made public. (54RZ23)

Whichever candidate shall have earned a majority of the votes in his election, as according to the method of Ranked Choice Voting, shall be appointed subsequently and forthwith by the King to serve as Seneschál, and the results of the election shall be published at large in the Clark. (54RZ23)

Section 6 The Seneschál shall announce publicly both the members of the incoming Government and the Government's legislative agenda at least before, if not sooner than, the last day on which a member of the Ziu may submit a measure to the second Clark. Failing this, the King shall dissolve the Cosa and call new elections.(54RZ23)(55RZ22)

Section 7 No election for the Seneschál shall occur, except during the first Clark of a newly seated Ziu. (54RZ23)

Section 8 The Seneschál shall appoint a member of the Government to be the Deputy Prime Minister, who shall be known otherwise as the Distáin. The Distáin shall act in place of the Seneschál in case of absence or disability of the latter, and shall become the Seneschál in case of death, removal or resignation. The Ziu may establish by law the procedures and standards in order to determine the absence or disability of the Seneschál, as well as the manner or conditions by which the Distáin shall be appointed. (54RZ23)

Section 9 The King appoints and dismisses members of the Government (Cabinet) on the advice of the Seneschal. The Government consists of the Seneschal, the Distáin, and various other ministers as set by law or appointed as the Seneschal sees fit. (54RZ23)

Section 10 Cabinet Ministers are responsible to the Seneschal, whom they advise and from whom they receive direction, and exercise state power with his consent. (54RZ23)

Section 11 Whenever the Government should lose the confidence of the Cosâ by a formal vote, the same Government shall remain in offce as caretakers until a new Seneschál shall be duly installed. (54RZ23)

Shall be amended to read:

Section 1 The head of the Government is the Prime Minister, who shall be known otherwise as the Seneschal. Any Talossan, except for the King of Talossa, shall be eligible to be the Seneschal. (54RZ23)

Section 2 The Seneschal shall be selected by each newly elected Cosâ. When the King is presented with a petition to appoint a Seneschal, signed by MCs who together hold a majority of seats in the Cosâ as then constituted, the person named in the petition shall be appointed by the King to be the Seneschal. Should no such petition be made by the first day of the first Clark, that Clark shall include a Ranked Choice Vote to select the Seneschal. Each party holding seats in the Cosa may nominate one candidate for this election.

Section 3 The Seneschal has duties of the State. He may advise the King to dissolve the Cosâ and to appoint and remove members of the Cabinet, and such advice to the King shall not be refused. He may also declare war and write treaties with the approval of the Ziu, expedite the Ziu's consideration of legislation, and issue Prime Dictates. (54RZ23)

Section 4 Prime Dictates (PDs) are public declarations which affect government policy and have the force of law. They take effect upon their countersignature by the King and function as laws for all purposes, with such exceptions and subject to such conditions as the Ziu may enact by statute. Prime Dictates are exempt from all provisions relating unto legislative proposals, but may never be used to amend this Organic Law. (54RZ23)

Section 5 The Seneschal shall appoint a member of the Government to be the Deputy Prime Minister, who shall be known otherwise as the Distáin. The Distáin shall act in place of the Seneschal in case of absence or disability of the latter, and shall become the Seneschal in case of death, removal or resignation. The Ziu may establish by law the procedures and standards in order to determine the absence or disability of the Seneschal, as well as the manner or conditions by which the Distain shall be appointed. (54RZ23)

Section 6 If the office of the Seneschal becomes vacant, and there is no Distain, then the most senior Minister (according to the seniority of the Ministries) shall become acting Seneschal until MCs together holding a majority of seats in the Cosa petition the King to name a new Seneschal.

Section 7 The King appoints and dismisses members of the Government (Cabinet) on the advice of the Seneschal. The Government consists of the Seneschal, the Distain, and various other ministers as set by law or appointed as the Seneschal sees fit. (54RZ23)

Section 8 Cabinet Ministers are responsible to the Seneschal, whom they advise and from whom they receive direction, and exercise state power with his consent. (54RZ23)

Section 9 At the expiration of each Cosa, the existing Government shall remain in office as caretakers until a new Seneschal shall be duly installed. (54RZ23)

FURTHERMORE, Article IV.7 is amended to read:

Section 7 A newly elected Ziu shall convene on the first day of the month after its general election, to coincide with the publication of the first Clark. Its term shall be equal to six Clarks, subject to the provisions elsewhere in this Organic Law. During its last month, the King shall issue a Writ of Dissolution ending its term. Whenever the Cosâ may be dissolved, all its members shall resign. (54RZ23) (53RZ18)

Ureu q'estadra sa:
Ian Plätschisch (Sen-MM)

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Can we switch to a more standardized "Seneschal" at this point, generally, without the accent?  Outside of this article in the OrgLaw and in most of the rest of the law and almost universally in common discussion, that's the form.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

"expedite the Ziu's consideration of legislation" -- we got rid of this, right?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

"When the King is presented with a petition to appoint a Seneschal, signed by MCs who together hold a majority of seats in the Cosâ, the person named in the petition shall become Seneschal and shall be appointed by the King."

I would suggest this emendation:

"When the King is presented with a petition to appoint a Seneschal, signed by MCs who together hold a majority of seats in the Cosâ as then constituted, the person named in the petition shall be appointed by the King to be the Seneschal."

This accounts for the new citizen seats thing or similar and eliminates possible ambiguity in that regard, as well as the dual action in the latter bit that seems to suggest that the same action is happening through different methods at the same time -- never a good idea when writing a law, since again it can make it ambiguous as to the specific time that action occurred.  I don't think either change has any practical difference in most respects.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Can we switch to a more standardized "Seneschal" at this point, generally, without the accent?  Outside of this article in the OrgLaw and in most of the rest of the law and almost universally in common discussion, that's the form.

Sure

[Ian Plätschisch]

"expedite the Ziu's consideration of legislation" -- we got rid of this, right?

Hmm, now that you mention it I think we did, although it looks like the OrgLaw page on the wiki should be fully updated.

[Ian Plätschisch]

"When the King is presented with a petition to appoint a Seneschal, signed by MCs who together hold a majority of seats in the Cosâ, the person named in the petition shall become Seneschal and shall be appointed by the King."

I would suggest this emendation:

"When the King is presented with a petition to appoint a Seneschal, signed by MCs who together hold a majority of seats in the Cosâ as then constituted, the person named in the petition shall be appointed by the King to be the Seneschal."

This accounts for the new citizen seats thing or similar and eliminates possible ambiguity in that regard, as well as the dual action in the latter bit that seems to suggest that the same action is happening through different methods at the same time -- never a good idea when writing a law, since again it can make it ambiguous as to the specific time that action occurred.  I don't think either change has any practical difference in most respects.

A few things:
-Suppose a party that wins 20 seats is the first to assign their seats to MCs. If those MCs immediately petitioned the King to name a Seneschal, would that petition constitute a majority of the Cosa "as then constituted"?
-Anything that potentially allows the King to throw a wrench in the works by refusing to appoint the Seneschal would be a complete non-starter for a lot of the Free Democrats, I think. I worded it that way very intentionally.

[Tric'hard Lenxheir]

"When the King is presented with a petition to appoint a Seneschal, signed by MCs who together hold a majority of seats in the Cosâ, the person named in the petition shall become Seneschal and shall be appointed by the King."

I would suggest this emendation:

"When the King is presented with a petition to appoint a Seneschal, signed by MCs who together hold a majority of seats in the Cosâ as then constituted, the person named in the petition shall be appointed by the King to be the Seneschal."

This accounts for the new citizen seats thing or similar and eliminates possible ambiguity in that regard, as well as the dual action in the latter bit that seems to suggest that the same action is happening through different methods at the same time -- never a good idea when writing a law, since again it can make it ambiguous as to the specific time that action occurred.  I don't think either change has any practical difference in most respects.

A few things:
-Suppose a party that wins 20 seats is the first to assign their seats to MCs. If those MCs immediately petitioned the King to name a Seneschal, would that petition constitute a majority of the Cosa "as then constituted"?
-Anything that potentially allows the King to throw a wrench in the works by refusing to appoint the Seneschal would be a complete non-starter for a lot of the Free Democrats, I think. I worded it that way very intentionally.

Isn't there a time limit as to how long a party may wait to assign their alotted seats? If not I think this should be included and then the simple fix would be to require a waiting period until all seats are filled before such a petition is presented to the King

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

-Suppose a party that wins 20 seats is the first to assign their seats to MCs. If those MCs immediately petitioned the King to name a Seneschal, would that petition constitute a majority of the Cosa "as then constituted"?

No, because the Cosa would be constituted of 200 seats at that point, and 20 seats are not a majority of 200.  The language I suggest doesn't say, "as then seated," which would have the effect you point out.  But if it's also ambiguous this way, then how about:

"When the King is presented with a petition to appoint a Seneschal, signed by MCs who together hold a majority of the available seats in the Cosâ as then constituted, the person named in the petition shall be appointed by the King to be the Seneschal."

That adjective should make it indisputably plain, I think, without being excessively wordy and still accommodating a now-flexible Cosa size.  Better?

-Anything that potentially allows the King to throw a wrench in the works by refusing to appoint the Seneschal would be a complete non-starter for a lot of the Free Democrats, I think. I worded it that way very intentionally.

Legal precedent has drawn a line in Talossa between "shall" and "may" (as well as other verbs suggesting an option).  This language does not offer a choice or option for refusal.  It is consistently used this way everywhere in the law.  If you're suggesting otherwise, then we have much bigger problems, since these other issues immediately arise:

   
• Right now, people accused of a crime have a right to an attorney that the A-X "shall" provide them.
• And the Corts themselves "shall" interpret law with the guidance of the Covenant.
• And the Chancery "shall" make the text of the ballot for the election public.
• etc etc etc

So you see, there's not really any difficulty here -- unless basically our entire system is about to fall down around us, that is.  His Majesty represents the decision point about when the threshold is reached, but he doesn't have any flexibility in that.  If he declines to take action, then a lawsuit would very swiftly order him to comply with the law.  Heck, I'd join that suit.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, SMC EiP]

I support this amendment, with the ambiguity-reducing changes recommended.

[Ian Plätschisch]

-Suppose a party that wins 20 seats is the first to assign their seats to MCs. If those MCs immediately petitioned the King to name a Seneschal, would that petition constitute a majority of the Cosa "as then constituted"?

No, because the Cosa would be constituted of 200 seats at that point, and 20 seats are not a majority of 200.  The language I suggest doesn't say, "as then seated," which would have the effect you point out.  But if it's also ambiguous this way, then how about:

"When the King is presented with a petition to appoint a Seneschal, signed by MCs who together hold a majority of the available seats in the Cosâ as then constituted, the person named in the petition shall be appointed by the King to be the Seneschal."

That adjective should make it indisputably plain, I think, without being excessively wordy and still accommodating a now-flexible Cosa size.  Better?

-Anything that potentially allows the King to throw a wrench in the works by refusing to appoint the Seneschal would be a complete non-starter for a lot of the Free Democrats, I think. I worded it that way very intentionally.

Legal precedent has drawn a line in Talossa between "shall" and "may" (as well as other verbs suggesting an option).  This language does not offer a choice or option for refusal.  It is consistently used this way everywhere in the law.  If you're suggesting otherwise, then we have much bigger problems, since these other issues immediately arise:

   
• Right now, people accused of a crime have a right to an attorney that the A-X "shall" provide them.
• And the Corts themselves "shall" interpret law with the guidance of the Covenant.
• And the Chancery "shall" make the text of the ballot for the election public.
• etc etc etc

So you see, there's not really any difficulty here -- unless basically our entire system is about to fall down around us, that is.  His Majesty represents the decision point about when the threshold is reached, but he doesn't have any flexibility in that.  If he declines to take action, then a lawsuit would very swiftly order him to comply with the law.  Heck, I'd join that suit.

Fair enough

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Are we going to go ahead with this? If so, we'd better do it in plenty time for the next election

[Ian Plätschisch]

Totally forgot about this, I will clark it next month.