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. Why are we even discussing this bill here now, if that is still the case?

Edited to add the relevant statement in the Discord chat box, made by Miestra on December 2:

"Had to check which reform you meant, but I don't believe it would need an organic law amendment, simply a law such as El Lexh C.5. Therefore it is not on the OrgLaw committee's purview. I should also note that under El Lexh H.6.1, any citizen can propose bills to the Hopper, so I can only suggest that a certain citizen "go for it""

And what did I do? Lol, I went for it as encouraged.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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)

Therxh, I re-read this part of your comments and actually agree with you. This excellent distinction really is the crux of the issue. So I would be in agreement to remove the part of the definition containing "secretary, treasurer, or any other executive position."

This would hopefully would address concerns about political association satisfactorily and again reduce the restrictions so as to address concerns about future recruitment. Again I am still skeptical on both of those matters but entertain them as an attempt at cooperation here.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Right. Is that the TNC's final offer? That there can be no movement on the principle "the Secretary of State should be banned from leadership (defined narrowly) in a political party"?


The hand wringing about Txec taking our Party's leadership a few terms ago for a brief time has left him - and our party - confused and angry. On the subject, this is precisely why I wanted this Committee to operate in camera - because Txec didn't feel confident about exposing himself in public debates on this issue.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

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.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Right. Is that the TNC's final offer? That there can be no movement on the principle "the Secretary of State should be banned from leadership (defined narrowly) in a political party"?


The hand wringing about Txec taking our Party's leadership a few terms ago for a brief time has left him - and our party - confused and angry. On the subject, this is precisely why I wanted this Committee to operate in camera - because Txec didn't feel confident about exposing himself in public debates on this issue.

The problem here is that the FreeDems do not seem to see this as a serious issue. As evidenced by describing it as "hand-wringing." Txec's taking of a partisan position while acting as SoS created a very dangerous precedent. And now you are complaining about the effort to address the dangerous precedent you created. How is this confusing? And why would you be angry about efforts to fix a problem you created? Unless you don't think it is a problem or thought this was some anti-Txec operation.

If you do not believe this should be prohibited then we should just announce that publicly. As Mximo, Therxh, (Gluc) and myself have, in good faith, answered every single concern brought forward.

Can we please allow this bill to come for a vote?

[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]

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]

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?