The Chancery Proposal

Started by Breneir Tzaracomprada, January 19, 2024, 11:44:05 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Breneir Tzaracomprada

Folks, here is the legislation concerning the Chancery currently under review in the CRL. I must express my thanks for the help of Ian P. with tightening the language.

Whereas, it is a vital national interest to have an election administration authority free of actual or reasonably perceived partisan partiality, and

Whereas, the below-proposed restrictions (as a part of ensuring this interest are modelled after those written by Dama Miestra Schiva in 53RZ2 The Civil Service (Commissioner Abolition) Bill, and

Whereas, this bill would still allow parties to appoint whoever they choose as national party officers but those officers themselves would not be permitted to serve as Secretary of State simultaneously.

Therefore, be it enacted by the Ziu, that El Lexhatx C.5 which currently reads:

Quote
5. The Secretary of State shall hold no seat in the Ziu.

Is amended to read as follows:

Quote
5. The Secretary of State shall not hold the offices of Seneschal, Distain, Judge of the Uppermost Cort, Monarch, any cabinet portfolio, or member of the Ziu. The Secretary of State also shall not hold the office of leader, deputy leader, secretary, treasurer, or any other executive position (according to the party's bylaws) of any registered or unregistered political party at the national level.


Ureu q'estadra så,
Mximo Carbonèl (Sen-FL)
Breneir Tzaracomprada (MC, TNC)

Nimis gaudiam habeo

Miestră Schivă, UrN

#1
Let me tell you why I do *not* support this bill being Clarked:

- because it was presented to this Committee as a "fait accompli"; after being moved by a TNC Senator; after the TNC internally voted to move forward with this, even though they knew it flouted the terms of the agreement, and even though it undermined the Seneschál at the time. At the behest of someone who had quit the party in protest at the agreement, and eventually succeeded in undermining his replacement.

I will tell you plainly that the internal chatter in the Free Democrats is that we have got nothing from (temporarily) giving up a seat to allow the TNC to take power. Hell, we got the Seneschal whom we supported into office undermined until he renounced. Worse, from what Brenéir has been saying in the Shoutbox, if we allow him to retrospectively condemn Txec for having temporarily taken over as FreeDems president, his next target is Lüc - apparently his theory is that all Civil Service members should be prohibited from being politically active. (And it's just a coincidence that the targets are FreeDems, I assume.)

I cannot imagine any way that I will agree to this bill being Clarked, unless my TNC comrades come up with something pretty damn solid that I can take back to my party as a win.

Vote THE FREE DEMOCRATS OF TALOSSA
¡LADINTSCHIÇETZ-VOI - rogetz-mhe cacsa!
"They proved me right, they proved me wrong, but they could never last this long"

Breneir Tzaracomprada

#2
Edited: Miestra, I genuinely thought that discussing the bill here in this committee which was authorized by the agreement you made with Braneu would be considered a win. I also must point to the assistance given by Ian in the Hopper as proof that it certainly was not a fait accompli. Ian's assistance led to definitions on the national party positions, which was a significant improvement.

If the bill is reviewed and approved here then would that not be a win? Especially when a FreeDem member assisted with editing the bill in the Hopper?


Nimis gaudiam habeo

þerxh Sant-Enogat

Azul Miestra,

No law is retroactive in time, so this bill does not condemn AT ALL any past situation.

When the TNC approved the discussion of the bill, the only positive votes were Mximo and myself, Bråneu voted no after my vote. I do my mea culpa I should have waited for this bill to be approved in this committee but at the time I was not in charge of this committee and I thought the process would be respected once the vote was positive.
The TNC vote was then my misunderstanding of the application of our agreement, not a will to break it. I´ve told again recently my fellow party members that I firmly want that the TNC respect the agreement I have signed.
I would then beg you to reconsider your answer. Clarking a bill should not be interpreted as a win or a loss for a party, but only the answer to the question ´is this bill worth being debated within our Nation ?'.
þerxh Sant-Enogat, SMC, MC
Sénéchal de Cézembre | Túischac'h dal 60:éă Cosă | PermSec of Propaganda
Duceu pareßel dal Aliançù Progreßïu

þerxh Sant-Enogat

#4
If you confirm you do not agree I will ask the TNC to respect the agreement and withdraw the bill (and hope it will be so), but we will of course have to disclose  that the Freedem refused this bill being discussed or voted, for pure political reasons, which will not appear as a democratic decision in my opinion.
If you don't agree on the essence of a bill (and there may be good reasons , such as the lack of active citizens) you should start a debate, at worst you have a democratic veto right at the Senate, but Talossans should have the right to a democratic debate and vote.
þerxh Sant-Enogat, SMC, MC
Sénéchal de Cézembre | Túischac'h dal 60:éă Cosă | PermSec of Propaganda
Duceu pareßel dal Aliançù Progreßïu

King Txec

For clarification, what puts you in charge of the committee? Was that part of the agreement?
TXEC R, by the Grace of God, King of Talossa and of all its Realms and Regions, King of Cézembre, Sovereign Lord and Protector of Pengöpäts and the New Falklands, Defender of the Faith, Leader of the Armed Forces, Viceroy of Hoxha and Vicar of Atatürk
    

King Txec

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on January 20, 2024, 12:59:25 AMIf you confirm you do not agree I will ask the TNC to respect the agreement and withdraw the bill (and hope it will be so), but we will of course have to disclose  that the Freedem refused this bill being discussed or voted, for pure political reasons, which will not appear as a democratic decision in my opinion.
If you don't agree on the essence of a bill (and there may be good reasons , such as the lack of active citizens) you should start a debate, at worst you have a democratic veto right at the Senate, but Talossans should have the right to a democratic debate and vote.

This sounds like a bit of a threat: "don't debate it we call it politics and tell everyone." Expression of opinion is not refusing to engage.
TXEC R, by the Grace of God, King of Talossa and of all its Realms and Regions, King of Cézembre, Sovereign Lord and Protector of Pengöpäts and the New Falklands, Defender of the Faith, Leader of the Armed Forces, Viceroy of Hoxha and Vicar of Atatürk
    

King Txec

#7
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 19, 2024, 10:22:46 PMEdited: Miestra, I genuinely thought that discussing the bill here in this committee which was authorized by the agreement you made with Braneu would be considered a win. I also must point to the assistance given by Ian in the Hopper as proof that it certainly was not a fait accompli. Ian's assistance led to definitions on the national party positions, which was a significant improvement.

If the bill is reviewed and approved here then would that not be a win? Especially when a FreeDem member assisted with editing the bill in the Hopper?



I notice that you deleted a post. I would think for the sake of transparency, we should avoid doing that in this committee. Edit: sorry the post I thought I saw is still there. Apologies.

Also, just because someone helps with revisions doesn't mean they agree. The law as first written was clunky, so it got revised. Happens all the time.
TXEC R, by the Grace of God, King of Talossa and of all its Realms and Regions, King of Cézembre, Sovereign Lord and Protector of Pengöpäts and the New Falklands, Defender of the Faith, Leader of the Armed Forces, Viceroy of Hoxha and Vicar of Atatürk
    

þerxh Sant-Enogat

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on January 20, 2024, 01:26:04 AMFor clarification, what puts you in charge of the committee? Was that part of the agreement?
I'm not sure to understand your question. I entered the committee because when I became Seneschal I understood it has not been set up and I wanted that TNC respects its commitment
þerxh Sant-Enogat, SMC, MC
Sénéchal de Cézembre | Túischac'h dal 60:éă Cosă | PermSec of Propaganda
Duceu pareßel dal Aliançù Progreßïu

þerxh Sant-Enogat

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on January 20, 2024, 01:27:50 AMThis sounds like a bit of a threat: "don't debate it we call it politics and tell everyone." Expression of opinion is not refusing to engage.
I don't want it to be interpreted as a threat, more an advice to both our parties not to go back on endless discussions about consequences of what happened before, which are rotting our country and deceiving our cocitizens. I would like to achieve what Bråneu wanted when he discussed with Miestra, that this Cosa sees a constructive legislative session with focussed debates and contribution from both sides.
þerxh Sant-Enogat, SMC, MC
Sénéchal de Cézembre | Túischac'h dal 60:éă Cosă | PermSec of Propaganda
Duceu pareßel dal Aliançù Progreßïu

þerxh Sant-Enogat

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on January 20, 2024, 01:30:23 AMAlso, just because someone helps with revisions doesn't mean they agree. The law as first written was clunky, so it got revised. Happens all the time.
I agree
þerxh Sant-Enogat, SMC, MC
Sénéchal de Cézembre | Túischac'h dal 60:éă Cosă | PermSec of Propaganda
Duceu pareßel dal Aliançù Progreßïu

Miestră Schivă, UrN

#11
Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on January 20, 2024, 12:59:25 AMIf you confirm you do not agree I will ask the TNC to respect the agreement and withdraw the bill (and hope it will be so), but we will of course have to disclose  that the Freedem refused this bill being discussed or voted, for pure political reasons, which will not appear as a democratic decision in my opinion.

I must say, Þerxh, I am pleasantly surprised that you would actually abide by the terms of the agreement and ask your party to not Clark the bill. The second part of your sentence would be a fair enough response on your part, if it comes to that. I hope it doesn't.

I would say, though, that our objections are not "purely political" - by which I assume you mean that we're doing this as a reaction to recent developments in the TNC (though those have not gone down well on our side). Simply put, we do not agree with the basic premise of the bill, that the Secretary of State should be deprived of the rights of political association. We agree that the SoS and all Royal Civil Service appointees must *behave* in a non-partisan manner. I am very interested in replacing this bill which guarantees *that*.

There may have been an honest misconception on the part of your party that Txec, because he offered amendments to your bill, agreed with its principle. There is a big problem that Txec wants to prove that he is non-partisan as SoS; but to debate this bill publicly will make him look partisan. Real Catch-22 stuff.

Can we move forward from here?

Vote THE FREE DEMOCRATS OF TALOSSA
¡LADINTSCHIÇETZ-VOI - rogetz-mhe cacsa!
"They proved me right, they proved me wrong, but they could never last this long"

Breneir Tzaracomprada

#12
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 20, 2024, 03:18:44 AM
Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on January 20, 2024, 12:59:25 AMIf you confirm you do not agree I will ask the TNC to respect the agreement and withdraw the bill (and hope it will be so), but we will of course have to disclose  that the Freedem refused this bill being discussed or voted, for pure political reasons, which will not appear as a democratic decision in my opinion.

I must say, Þerxh, I am pleasantly surprised that you would actually abide by the terms of the agreement and ask your party to not Clark the bill. The second part of your sentence would be a fair enough response on your part, if it comes to that. I hope it doesn't.

I would say, though, that our objections are not "purely political" - by which I assume you mean that we're doing this as a reaction to recent developments in the TNC (though those have not gone down well on our side). Simply put, we do not agree with the basic premise of the bill, that the Secretary of State should be deprived of the rights of political association. We agree that the SoS and all Royal Civil Service appointees must *behave* in a non-partisan manner. I am very interested in replacing this bill which guarantees *that*.

There may have been an honest misconception on the part of your party that Txec, because he offered amendments to your bill, agreed with its principle. There is a big problem that Txec wants to prove that he is non-partisan as SoS; but to debate this bill publicly will make him look partisan. Real Catch-22 stuff.

Can we move forward from here?

Then vote against the bill, Miestra. But don't block it from a vote. I would also say we could simply ask for an advisory opinion from the Judiciary if there is a question concerning its impact on the Secretary of State's political association rights. Even though I think Gluc handily disposed of this assertion in the Hopper.

Therxh, if the FreeDems veto this bill then we should at least inform the public of that fact.

Nimis gaudiam habeo

þerxh Sant-Enogat

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 20, 2024, 03:18:44 AM(..)

I would say, though, that our objections are not "purely political" - by which I assume you mean that we're doing this as a reaction to recent developments in the TNC (though those have not gone down well on our side). Simply put, we do not agree with the basic premise of the bill, that the Secretary of State should be deprived of the rights of political association. We agree that the SoS and all Royal Civil Service appointees must *behave* in a non-partisan manner. I am very interested in replacing this bill which guarantees *that*.

(...)

Can we move forward from here?

I think that we all agree that the goal we want to achieve is to avoid having one day a SoS who will behave in a partisan way. This would however be possible whatever we decide as forbidden simultaneous positions...
The current definition of the forbidden positions may be too large : we are not so many, and I understand that a SoS wants to participate in a political party to provide input and participate in the definition of a program. Why not also to help this party for some support functions (finance, administration,..). This is a right of political association that I understand.
The line may be drawn when the position is that a possible spokesman/frontliner/"official opponent" for a party (leader, seneschal candidate, may be deputy leader, and may be - to be discussed - member of a shadow cabinet)

Could such a starting point on limitating the forbidden simultaneous positions be a way to move forward ? Even if I think that this kind of discussions are typically the ones that should happen at the Ziù, I personally agree to review part of the Bill to at least fix that.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 20, 2024, 03:18:44 AM(..)

There may have been an honest misconception on the part of your party that Txec, because he offered amendments to your bill, agreed with its principle. There is a big problem that Txec wants to prove that he is non-partisan as SoS; but to debate this bill publicly will make him look partisan. Real Catch-22 stuff.


We are all a bit conflicted here, either because we are SoS, or we are Party Leaders.. I am sure that nobody thinks that Sir Txec does his job with a partisan mind. Everyone would also understand - with the help of a public acknowledgement on our side also if needed - that Txec has the right to give his opinion on a subject he knows perfectly and for which he should be a model for future potential SoS.

Here we are really in the role of this committee as I understand it : provide the best possible conditions for legislative discussions to avoid misinterpretation and political recuperation, and to clarify that no one tries to trap the other side in a different goal that the essence of the discussed bills.

þerxh Sant-Enogat, SMC, MC
Sénéchal de Cézembre | Túischac'h dal 60:éă Cosă | PermSec of Propaganda
Duceu pareßel dal Aliançù Progreßïu

Breneir Tzaracomprada

#14
Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on January 20, 2024, 08:15:15 AM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 20, 2024, 03:18:44 AM(..)

I would say, though, that our objections are not "purely political" - by which I assume you mean that we're doing this as a reaction to recent developments in the TNC (though those have not gone down well on our side). Simply put, we do not agree with the basic premise of the bill, that the Secretary of State should be deprived of the rights of political association. We agree that the SoS and all Royal Civil Service appointees must *behave* in a non-partisan manner. I am very interested in replacing this bill which guarantees *that*.

(...)

Can we move forward from here?

I think that we all agree that the goal we want to achieve is to avoid having one day a SoS who will behave in a partisan way. This would however be possible whatever we decide as forbidden simultaneous positions...
The current definition of the forbidden positions may be too large : we are not so many, and I understand that a SoS wants to participate in a political party to provide input and participate in the definition of a program. Why not also to help this party for some support functions (finance, administration,..). This is a right of political association that I understand.
The line may be drawn when the position is that a possible spokesman/frontliner/"official opponent" for a party (leader, seneschal candidate, may be deputy leader, and may be - to be discussed - member of a shadow cabinet)

Could such a starting point on limitating the forbidden simultaneous positions be a way to move forward ? Even if I think that this kind of discussions are typically the ones that should happen at the Ziù, I personally agree to review part of the Bill to at least fix that.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 20, 2024, 03:18:44 AM(..)

There may have been an honest misconception on the part of your party that Txec, because he offered amendments to your bill, agreed with its principle. There is a big problem that Txec wants to prove that he is non-partisan as SoS; but to debate this bill publicly will make him look partisan. Real Catch-22 stuff.


We are all a bit conflicted here, either because we are SoS, or we are Party Leaders.. I am sure that nobody thinks that Sir Txec does his job with a partisan mind. Everyone would also understand - with the help of a public acknowledgement on our side also if needed - that Txec has the right to give his opinion on a subject he knows perfectly and for which he should be a model for future potential SoS.

Here we are really in the role of this committee as I understand it : provide the best possible conditions for legislative discussions to avoid misinterpretation and political recuperation, and to clarify that no one tries to trap the other side in a different goal that the essence of the discussed bills.



The bill's restrictions are already limited to leadership positions not any and all political participation. This definition was facilitated by a FreeDem member. The list of restrictions is also purposefully modelled on those introduced by Miestra herself in a bill from the 53rd Cosa covering permanent secretaries (other civil servants).

Folks, we can't avoid the fact that this issue came about from an action taken by the FreeDems not by me or the TNC. When Txec took a partisan position as Party President of the Free Democrats while also serving as Secretary of State. Pointing to that fact is not demonization or an attack. It is the central reason for the need for this bill now. If that had not happened then we would not be here discussing this legislation because the norm would not have been weakened.

I do not support any further limitation on the restrictions. Nor do I believe that such a limited restriction is either an inorganic reduction in political association rights or a threat to our ability to recruit future secretaries of state.

Nimis gaudiam habeo