The Nonpartisan SoS Act

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Senator Mximo Carbonèl
Sponsor this bill

Thank You

Mximo, thank you, meirci, and merci.
I would corral many more languages but it would still be insufficient in expressing my gratitude.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

@mximo I think this bill is ready for the CRL. It can be submitted as a new thread here: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?board=40.0

Correction: I think it has a few more days (ready for CRL on Jan 3)

[mximo]

Im not sure I can do it by myself.

Mximo

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Im not sure I can do it by myself.

Mximo

If the CRL allows it then I am happy to help make the post.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I'm a little concerned that the portion about party offices is too vague. For example, what counts as a "leadership position"? One could envisage many positions with party responsibilities that may or may not be considered "leadership".

Also, is a "political party" defined as an entity that registered in the previous election, an entity that has Cosa seats, or with some other definition?

@mximo As the sponsor I wanted to get your input in addressing his concerns.
Would you support specifying a "national political party office(s) similar in function and purpose to party president (leader), party treasurer, or party secretary"?
Also, political party would be specified as political parties currently registered with the Chancery?

[mximo]

I still think a SOS shoud be ban to be in any political party...

This is my opinion.

Now they try to broke the comprise you try to make by tell us this to vague...

Mximo...

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I still think a SOS shoud be ban to be in any political party...

This is my opinion.

Now they try to broke the comprise you try to make by tell us this to vague...

Mximo...

My concern is that banning party membership may be too broad and be too high a restriction. And lessens the potential support for the law.

Despite assertions to the contrary, this proposal is in response to a precedent where the nation's election administrator acts as both chief of one of the contestants and contest oversight.

We are trying to reassert a national interest here: the nation's interest in a non-conflicted and impartial election administrator. In order to achieve that interest here it may be better to narrowly define the restrictions. This is why I have pushed for restrictions, with respect to the parties, only on "national leadership positions or party offices" because the SoS runs elections primarily at the national level.

I am assuming Ian has presented these concerns in good faith. And hoping that responding with changes addressing those concerns demonstrates good faith on my part.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

@Sir Lüc https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2902.msg24574#new
Thanks bae <3

[Sir Lüc]

@Sir Lüc https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2902.msg24574#new
Thanks bae <3

Just to be clear, my intention (both in the initial post and the bump) was to ask for comments from all stakeholders before imposing a new rule, rather than imposing such a rule unilaterally.

What I meant in the bump message was that it occurred to me that my proposal would also solve the difficulties encountered by the Senator for Florencia in moving the bill to committee, since then a CRL member would take care of moving it to the right subboard on his behalf.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

@Sir Lüc https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2902.msg24574#new
Thanks bae <3

Just to be clear, my intention (both in the initial post and the bump) was to ask for comments from all stakeholders before imposing a new rule, rather than imposing such a rule unilaterally.

What I meant in the bump message was that it occurred to me that my proposal would also solve the difficulties encountered by the Senator for Florencia in moving the bill to committee, since then a CRL member would take care of moving it to the right subboard on his behalf.

@Sir Lüc Thank you!

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

Naturally if this proposal is accepted, I will give moderator powers to all members of the current CRL over the hopper so they can accomplish this goal.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

@mximo Just for your information here is the relevant section of the statute concerning movement of legislation through the CRL:

H6.6. After the CRL has given its recommendation, or if it gives no recommendation within 30 days of the bill having passed to committee, the bill has passed the hopper and the sponsor of the bill may ask for it to be Clarked, with or without amendments.

That thirty day period began when you posted to the CRL on January 6th. So February 5th, 2024 which would make it eligible for the March 2024 Clark presumably.

[þerxh Sant-Enogat]

The present bill is related to the functioning of the Chancery, and therefore falls into the scope of the Agreement between TNC and Freedem, which was signed at the start of this 59th Cosa.

The Freedem representatives in the Standing Committee set by this agreement did not agree to push to the Ziu any bill forbidding in the future the simultaneous tenure of the position of SoS and the one of Party Leader.

Honouring its signature on the TNC-Freedem agreement, the TNC will then not Clark the present "Nonpartisan SoS act".

The TNC anyhow deeply regrets that the Freedem representatives did not allow the members of the Ziu to democratically discuss the bill, possibly amend it, and vote on it.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

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.