[ABANDONED] The Cabinet Records Stopgap Act

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

what provision of the law requires the Government to keep all prior communications private until seven years elapse?

Yeah, that's a question that has been puzzling the Govenrment

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

If I might jump in in front of my Ministers here: as I've said elsewhere, the Government is fully in favour of expanding the Civil Service and providing backup in case officials go AWOL. The only question is being *able* to recruit to such provisions. The problem with legislatively establishing Deputies is that it doesn't amount of a hill of beans if there's no-one available. As we've found out with PermSec Immigration.

So instead of legislating, in the first place, let's simply ask the Royal Archivist to appoint a Deputy.

@Miestră Schivă, UrN Are you officially asking your party counterpart the Senator and Royal Archivist @GV to do so?

I am delighted to see that the SoS appears to be the only case where the FreeDems are OK with members of the civil service serving in political positions. I would also note we found a Deputy SoS pretty quickly when pressed.

@Miestră Schivă, UrN ? Are you requesting this action of the Royal Archivist?

??

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

what provision of the law requires the Government to keep all prior communications private until seven years elapse?

Yeah, that's a question that has been puzzling the Govenrment

It's definitely not looking good that he's trying to pretend I didn't ask this.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

what provision of the law requires the Government to keep all prior communications private until seven years elapse?

Yeah, that's a question that has been puzzling the Govenrment

It's definitely not looking good that he's trying to pretend I didn't ask this.

I'm not pretending Baron. I responded that we should let the Corts decide which referenced the lawsuit concerning the Avocat-Xheneral's action. I am comfortable letting it be settled by the Corts whether that be a dismissal, a win for the A-X, or a win for my argument.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

If I might jump in in front of my Ministers here: as I've said elsewhere, the Government is fully in favour of expanding the Civil Service and providing backup in case officials go AWOL. The only question is being *able* to recruit to such provisions. The problem with legislatively establishing Deputies is that it doesn't amount of a hill of beans if there's no-one available. As we've found out with PermSec Immigration.

So instead of legislating, in the first place, let's simply ask the Royal Archivist to appoint a Deputy.

@Miestră Schivă, UrN Are you officially asking your party counterpart the Senator and Royal Archivist @GV to do so?

I am delighted to see that the SoS appears to be the only case where the FreeDems are OK with members of the civil service serving in political positions. I would also note we found a Deputy SoS pretty quickly when pressed.

@Miestră Schivă, UrN ? Are you requesting this action of the Royal Archivist?

??

Speaking of ignoring questions. :) It seems like there may be a breakdown in communication between the attempted broosker and the Seneschal. :)

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

what provision of the law requires the Government to keep all prior communications private until seven years elapse?

Yeah, that's a question that has been puzzling the Govenrment

It's definitely not looking good that he's trying to pretend I didn't ask this.

I'm not pretending Baron. I responded that we should let the Corts decide which referenced the lawsuit concerning the Avocat-Xheneral's action. I am comfortable letting it be settled by the Corts whether that be a dismissal, a win for the A-X, or a win for my argument.

Okay, but you're proposing a law here.  Maybe you want to withdraw this proposed bill until after the cort case is over?  Or you could edit your proposal to remove that bit about the requirement.  Or else just identify which provision of the law requires the Government to keep all prior communications private until seven years elapse.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

what provision of the law requires the Government to keep all prior communications private until seven years elapse?

Yeah, that's a question that has been puzzling the Govenrment

It's definitely not looking good that he's trying to pretend I didn't ask this.

I'm not pretending Baron. I responded that we should let the Corts decide which referenced the lawsuit concerning the Avocat-Xheneral's action. I am comfortable letting it be settled by the Corts whether that be a dismissal, a win for the A-X, or a win for my argument.

Okay, but you're proposing a law here.  Maybe you want to withdraw this proposed bill until after the cort case is over?  Or you could edit your proposal to remove that bit about the requirement.  Or else just identify which provision of the law requires the Government to keep all prior communications private until seven years elapse.

I am ok with letting it stew in the Hopper here. No hurry while the judicial wheels grind.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Okay, so you're not moving forward with this bill until after your cort case is resolved.  I'm glad to hear it.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Quick note, this bill will move forward to the CRL in mid-October should there be no action by the Judiciary by then.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

@Sir Lüc
@Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB
@Glüc da Dhi S.H.
@Ian Plätschisch
@þerxh Sant-Enogat

Folks, requesting this bill be moved to the CRL.

[King Txec]

Moved.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Moved.

Thanks Txec.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

Approved.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

@þerxh Sant-Enogat ?

[þerxh Sant-Enogat]

I don't understand this bill, and I think 1st Whereas clause is not correct.
The first Whereas tells about a "sealing of discussions" that I understand as a prohibition to disclose info.. this is not the case currently, may be it will be, but only if the Bill "The Second Talossan Government Transparency (Repair) Act" is passed.
I also don't understand why this bill is needed, if something happens to the Royal Archivist, he may not be in position to appoint anyone..I think someone else (SoS ?) should be able to appoint someone else as stopgap.

[Glüc]

I think the Túischac'h has a good point. Under the current law it looks as if there is already nothing preventing the archivist from enlisting the scribe to help. I also agree that if the point is to have a stopgap it shouldn't depend on the archivist appointing someone.

My recommendation would be to merge this proposal with "The Second Talossan Government Transparency (Repair) Act" and alter it to make sure a stopgap is always in place.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

My recommendation would be to merge this proposal with "The Second Talossan Government Transparency (Repair) Act" and alter it to make sure a stopgap is always in place.

Done.