The Chancery Proposal

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I just recalled, Miestra and Therxh, from our discussion in the Discord shoutbox Miestra said this bill since it is a statute and not an amendment to Organic Law was outside of the purview of this committee.

The TNC and FreeDems will set up a Standing Committee on Talossa's Constitution, with two members from each party, to discuss amendments to Talossa's constitution which have broad support. No legislation to amend the Organic Law, or to amend the functioning of the Chancery, will be proposed by either party without the prior unanimous approval of this Committee.

(emphasis added)

When I made that comment, Brenéir was of course not in the TNC, not an MC, and leader of an unrepresented minor party, so of course it was outside this committee's purview. It *became* within this Ctte's purview when Mximo sponsored it.

Miestra, thank you. That clarifies it for me that it was not then but became the purview of the committee later. I thought your Discord statement was based on the committee purview being exclusive to the Organic Law which was incorrect.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

The problem here is that the FreeDems do not seem to see this as a serious issue.

That's right. No, we don't. We don't see it as a problem or a serious issue at all. We would not have any objections if Þerx, as TNC leader, became SoS as long as he didn't cheat to benefit his party. I'm sorry that we haven't expressed ourselves clearly on this, but you have accurately identified our stand.

If you do not believe this should be prohibited then we should just announce that publicly.

I thought we had! Multiple times! I apologise for not being sufficiently clear.

I would like Þerxh to weigh in at this point.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

The problem here is that the FreeDems do not seem to see this as a serious issue.

That's right. No, we don't. We don't see it as a problem or a serious issue at all. We would not have any objections if Þerx, as TNC leader, became SoS as long as he didn't cheat to benefit his party. I'm sorry that we haven't expressed ourselves clearly on this, but you have accurately identified our stand.

If you do not believe this should be prohibited then we should just announce that publicly.

I thought we had! Multiple times! I apologise for not being sufficiently clear.

I would like Þerxh to weigh in at this point.

Thank you Miestra, I had never seen that stated clearly in public, as far as I can recall, so I appreciate you saying so. I am saddened by this stance but am grateful for the clarity.

Therxh, I join Miestra in asking for your thoughts.

[þerxh Sant-Enogat]

Thanks Miestra, I admit I also thought that agreed to some extent to the future separation between the 2 positions, even if not stated in the law now.
I agree that honest people can hold both without letting their political inclination interfere in their SoS responsibilities, and on the contrary a 'dishonest' party leader will not become suddenly honest by quitting its political leadership position. This should be one of the argument to be used in a debate at the Ziu imho.
I wouldn't want to hear that the four of us have decided and confiscated parliament's right, and receive criticisms on the role of this committee.
Again I am quite ok to put as a preamble of Ziu discussion that we only target future possible abuse which we did not have when Txec held both positions.
But of course choice is yours.

[King Txec]

I said I wouldn't weigh in but let me give some more information. When I agreed to become party leader, it was on the condition that it was administrative and not political. Also, because of the existence of the Electoral Commission, I was not worried that cheating in an election would even be possible, given that every single vote is verified by three other people, and the SoS can't see private votes either. It never crossed my mind that a conflict existed because I knew that I had done what I could to keep things above board. I also knew my stint as party leader was brief, and the only reason I took the role was to give my friend of many years Dame Miestrâ a little break.

[þerxh Sant-Enogat]

I said I wouldn't weigh in but let me give some more information. When I agreed to become party leader, it was on the condition that it was administrative and not political. Also, because of the existence of the Electoral Commission, I was not worried that cheating in an election would even be possible, given that every single vote is verified by three other people, and the SoS can't see private votes either. It never crossed my mind that a conflict existed because I knew that I had done what I could to keep things above board. I also knew my stint as party leader was brief, and the only reason I took the role was to give my friend of many years Dame Miestrâ a little break.

Thanks Txec. I better understand the historical context and why you accepted , and it confirms that I am 100% sure that you did your SoS job independently and honestly.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Txec, your reasons for doing so are irrelevant. By doing so, you created a precedent that should be answered in law or in an internal policy. No one has said that you are a bad person because you took a partisan position while acting as SoS but you did take a partisan position while acting as the nation's election administrator. It was the act itself not Miestra's need for a break, or it being temporary, or some private and unannounced condition on it being administrative only that is important here. And I am not comfortable with going on trust alone for future SoSs now that the precedent has been created. Further, such a powerful position deserves a higher standard than mere "trust among friends."

The fact that you attemped to make a distinction between the political and administrative parts of the Party Leader position seems to indicate an understanding that there might be some conflict with the appointment, Txec. And the needs of a party do not outweigh the need for a clearly impartial election administrator and that is what was brought into question here.

I do understand now that the FreeDems and Therxh think it's OK for this to happen in the future. I disagree but respect your position. It is a position and vote that should be able to withstand public scrutiny as the principles around the matter are explored.

Now that we have discussed let's allow it to move forward for a vote.

[þerxh Sant-Enogat]

Sorry Breneir, I was not clear enough : I did not say it is ok for me to happen in the future, I would like to put in the law that the 2 positions cannot be help simultaneously. I just said that I understood why Txec did this, and that he managed to do his SoS job honestly and impartially, but I don't want that in the future another SoS can also be a party leader. I think this law is good, but I want to make it clear that the target is not what Txec did before, the target is what can happen in the future.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Sorry Breneir, I was not clear enough : I did not say it is ok for me to happen in the future, I would like to put in the law that the 2 positions cannot be help simultaneously. I just said that I understood why Txec did this, and that he managed to do his SoS job honestly and impartially, but I don't want that in the future another SoS can also be a party leader. I think this law is good, but I want to make it clear that the target is not what Txec did before, the target is what can happen in the future.

Thank you so much for clarifying Therxh. ☺️

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Well, it looks like there will be no climb-down from the TNC on this principle.

So Þerxh has said that if we stick to our guns, then the TNC will abide by the agreement and not Clark the bill, but will make a public statement explaining why. That would be fair, but now it seems that we understand each other better, maybe a joint statement, with the emphasis that our two parties will continue to debate this further in public.

But personally I would love us to collaborate on a bill that will cut down on any political bias in the Chancery or the Civil Service - perhaps giving citizens the right to sue for political bias?

How's that?

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Well, it looks like there will be no climb-down from the TNC on this principle.

So Þerxh has said that if we stick to our guns, then the TNC will abide by the agreement and not Clark the bill, but will make a public statement explaining why. That would be fair, but now it seems that we understand each other better, maybe a joint statement, with the emphasis that our two parties will continue to debate this further in public.

But personally I would love us to collaborate on a bill that will cut down on any political bias in the Chancery or the Civil Service - perhaps giving citizens the right to sue for political bias?

How's that?

I'm not sure I understand, Miestra. You are opposing bringing a bill up for a vote concerning the SoS which is in direct reaction to an actual event. And we've already collaborated on that bill by further defining and reducing the restricted positions based on your expressed concerns. So, there has been movement by the TNC in the changes made in the Hopper and here in this Committee. Why not just add the right to sue for political bias into the current bill?

Also, there is no inciting event from other members of the Civil Service. Despite assertions to the contrary, there have been no plans to expand prohibitions on other members of the Civil Service. This bill is a reaction to an unacceptable precedent by the SoS not other members of the Civil Service. And the restricted positions authored by you in the 53rd (?) Cosa seem sufficient as an early alert against overtly political behaviour with respect to other members of the Civil Service. This is why I mostly copied them into the bill you all are currently opposing. Because I thought it would be non-controversial and demonstrate I was using your own earlier effort as an instructive example.

If you support the ability of future SoSs to serve both as party leader and SoS then I'm afraid there is a fundamental difference in principle between the parties. I am completely comfortable with making this difference public and allowing Talossans to give their verdict on who has the right approach here.

Therefore, Therxh, I too, would support a public announcement concerning these proceedings. And I would support including the offer just made by Miestra as it is also educational on what the FreeDems find acceptable. I do not support a joint statement promising further discussion because THIS discussion and that over several months in the Hopper has made it clear where each of us stands. Miestra, you even said yesterday that you thought you made your position clear multiple times. If Talossa's elected representatives are not to be allowed to render a vote on this proposal then it is time for the Talossan public to deliver one.

For the record, Therxh, these are my personal opinions. Not trying to speak on behalf of you or the party as a whole. :)

 

[þerxh Sant-Enogat]

A joint announcement seems very strange.
I would rather, as TNC representative in the Committee (cosigned by Breneir if you are fine with this) communicate something like (to be translated in a better english):
"The Freedem representatives in the committee did not agree to push to the Ziu any bill forbiding in the future the simultaneous holding of the position of SoS and the one of Party Leader.
Honouring its signature on the TNC-Freedem agreement, the TNC will withdraw the bill from the Hopper.
The TNC anyhow deeply regrets that the Freedem representatives did not allow the members of the Ziu discuss the bill, possibly amend it, and vote on it."
Miestra, do you agree that this is factual ? And what would be your announcement in response ?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

If you support the ability of future SoSs to serve both as party leader and SoS then I'm afraid there is a fundamental difference in principle between the parties. I am completely comfortable with making this difference public and allowing Talossans to give their verdict on who has the right approach here.

Yup, so am I, though I'd like Txec to chime in before we put this to bed. I would have no objection to Þerxh's statement above being released; we would knock up a corresponding statement of our own.

Not hearing an answer on whether you would be happy to collaborate on a bill specifically dealing with bias in the Chancery/Civil Service? If not, I'm happy to get that going in the Hopper sometime.

[King Txec]

I've already stated publicly that as SoS I would never again serve in a political leadership role. I don't believe my choices were improper, but I can see how it can look bad.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Not hearing an answer on whether you would be happy to collaborate on a bill specifically dealing with bias in the Chancery/Civil Service? If not, I'm happy to get that going in the Hopper sometime.

This was my answer, Miestra.
No, I do not support a general bill because the problem is not a general one. It is a specific precedent created by the actions of a specific individual. We need to act to prevent future individuals in that specific position from seeing this specific precedent as permission to do the same.

Also, there is no inciting event from other members of the Civil Service. Despite assertions to the contrary, there have been no plans to expand prohibitions on other members of the Civil Service. This bill is a reaction to an unacceptable precedent by the SoS not other members of the Civil Service. And the restricted positions authored by you in the 53rd (?) Cosa seem sufficient as an early alert against overtly political behaviour with respect to other members of the Civil Service. This is why I mostly copied them into the bill you all are currently opposing. Because I thought it would be non-controversial and demonstrate I was using your own earlier effort as an instructive example.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

A joint announcement seems very strange.
I would rather, as TNC representative in the Committee (cosigned by Breneir if you are fine with this) communicate something like (to be translated in a better english):
"The Freedem representatives in the committee did not agree to push to the Ziu any bill forbiding in the future the simultaneous holding of the position of SoS and the one of Party Leader.
Honouring its signature on the TNC-Freedem agreement, the TNC will withdraw the bill from the Hopper.
The TNC anyhow deeply regrets that the Freedem representatives did not allow the members of the Ziu discuss the bill, possibly amend it, and vote on it."
Miestra, do you agree that this is factual ? And what would be your announcement in response ?

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.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

A joint announcement seems very strange.
I would rather, as TNC representative in the Committee (cosigned by Breneir if you are fine with this) communicate something like (to be translated in a better english):
"The Freedem representatives in the committee did not agree to push to the Ziu any bill forbiding in the future the simultaneous holding of the position of SoS and the one of Party Leader.
Honouring its signature on the TNC-Freedem agreement, the TNC will withdraw the bill from the Hopper.
The TNC anyhow deeply regrets that the Freedem representatives did not allow the members of the Ziu discuss the bill, possibly amend it, and vote on it."
Miestra, do you agree that this is factual ? And what would be your announcement in response ?

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.

Therxh, this is problematic. Can we edit our statement to account for this?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Well, Þerxh? Any problem as far as you can see? Probably time is a factor

[þerxh Sant-Enogat]

Well, Þerxh? Any problem as far as you can see? Probably time is a factor

Presenting the situation to the TNC, give us a few more days

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Well, Þerxh? Any problem as far as you can see? Probably time is a factor

Presenting the situation to the TNC, give us a few more days

You can have as many days as you like for the statement, but I need it confirmed that you/Mximo will NOT Clark the bill