[REJECTED] The Citaxhién Terpelaziuns Act

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Whereas, during the last Cosa term, former Seneschal Braneu Excelsio, without being obliged to do so, answered several citizen enquiries, and

Whereas, these answers in the absence of meaningful enquiries from the then-Opposition served the purpose of government accountability, and

Whereas, this is a new practice worth continuing for the same honorable purpose.

Therefore, be it resolved, that El Lexhatx Section H. Legislation is amended to add a new sub-section, as follows:

1.2.9 Any citizen, may at any time between the First and Last Clark of a Cosă Term, table in "The Lobby" board on Witt, or its equivalent, a "(CT)" or "Citaxhién Terpelaziun" in a new thread or its equivalent.
1.2.9.1 Any "(CT)" or "Citaxhién Terpelaziun," requires the sponsorship of a current member of the Ziu.
1.2.9.2 The "(CT)" or "Citaxhién Terpelaziun" may ask one question to a named Member of the Government or Civil Service, relating to Public Affairs connected with their Ministry or on matters of administration for which they are officially responsible.
1.2.9.3 A citizen is limited to one (1) active "(CT)" or "Citaxhién Terpelaziun" at a time. Active, in this context, is defined as an unanswered CT.
1.2.9.4 Any "(CT)" or "Citaxhién Terpelaziun" that is submitted, must be answered by the named Minister, Civil Service member, or other Government official within fourteen (14) days of the question being tabled. Should the Minister, Civil Service member, or other Government official be unavailable to answer the question within the fourteen (14) days, the question shall be redirected to the Seneschal or their appointed Deputy or the Minister responsible for oversight of the Civil Service member or other Government official who shall be granted a further seven (7) days to answer the aforementioned question. With the agreement of the questioner, there may be an extension of seven (7) days on top of this period. However, the period from the asking of the question to the answering of the question, shall in no circumstances exceed twenty-eight (28) days.

Ureu q'estadra så,
Breneir Tzaracomprada (MC-Open Society)

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Can this also be moved to the CRL? @Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

I believe I've moved your three bills. I take Sundays off so did not see any requests. I also don't usually move bills to the CRL so I may have missed your requests.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I believe I've moved your three bills. I take Sundays off so did not see any requests. I also don't usually move bills to the CRL so I may have missed your requests.

Thanks Txec, I'm not sure if the moderator list is accurate. Tgerxh should be a member as the new tuischach. And it appears Ian P. is currently serving in two different capacities as A-X (you still have the Baron as a moderator as the old A-X) and Mençéi until they reaffirm him or elect someone else.

[Ian Plätschisch]

I'm not sure if this comment belongs in the CRL or just in regular debate, but if CTs need to be sponsored by an MZ, then I fail to see why this bill is needed at all. Anyone could just as easily ask an MZ to post their question for them.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I'm not sure if this comment belongs in the CRL or just in regular debate, but if CTs need to be sponsored by an MZ, then I fail to see why this bill is needed at all. Anyone could just as easily ask an MZ to post their question for them.

Questions from MZs are directed toward members of the Government only. CTs have a broader set of officials. CTs allow citizens to question a broader set of officials (Government, Civil Service, or other officials) but to provide some kind of gatekeeping I added the sponsorship requirement.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Fair enough, approved

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I am a little concerned about this bill. According to its name and a lot of its provisions, it is supposed to be about citizens submitting parliamentary questions.

However, as already noted, an MZ has to sponsor each question. And that's a sensible requirement, although I think it means that the bill is adding an excessive amount of new law that's just going to be confusing to most people. The whole thing could probably be replaced by a single short provision explicitly notifying citizens that they can submit questions to an MZ who represents them. In the interest of keeping the law accessible to laypeople and as simple as possible, I would encourage that change to be made.

Because of that, I will note that the actual main effect of this bill will be to permit terps to any and all government officials, even those outside of the elected government and of any rank or standing. That is a very big change, not really addressed at all in terms of why it's happening, and is bound to be a headache for the Chancery in particular. Legally binding questions are a very big burden to slop on top of the shoulders of every appointed official we have, and we should be more thoughtful before we do that.

Because the main effect of the bill is is very different from its presentation, if I were still on the CRL, I would not approve this bill until that was fixed.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I don't foresee any difficulties for the Chancery, maybe more tracking needs for the Cosa Speaker though. I need to rewrite it I am happy to do so to address reasonable concerns but I do not support limiting the scope of CTs to the same as those of MZs which is what your editing suggestion would do.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Also @Ian Plätschisch does your approval count for one or two votes?

[Ian Plätschisch]

One

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

One

Drat, thanks Ian.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

MC @þerxh Sant-Enogat this bill still needs your review before clarking.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I identified three serious issues with this bill.

The first issue is that the stated purpose of the bill would be best accomplished with a single line added to the law, noting that citizens can submit questions to their representatives to be made into parliamentary questions. A whole lot of extra verbiage and a new section added is a bad idea, unless it's actually necessary.

The second issue is that it would subject every single member of the civil service in any office and at any level to the same level of scrutiny and legal obligations of parliamentary questions. That is an unreasonable thing to ask, especially without any input. How long are we going to continue piling obligations and tasks onto the office of the Chancery? They are all subject to elected officials, and those are the individuals to whom parliamentary questions to be directed. We should not be calling civil servants to the public carpet as a matter of routine. It's inappropriate.

The third issue is that the stated purpose of the bill and most of its wording is not the same as the main function of the bill. That is poor legislating and should be fixed.

While I appreciate the acknowledgment of my post, none of these issues have been addressed.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Baron, I again acknowledge your comments and assume you will vote Non on the bill when it gets clarked but I see no reason to reject this bill from a structural (or other CRL) point of view.