[CLARKED] Terpelaziuns Reform Bill

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I have been in discussion with the Túischac'h, @Munditenens Tresplet , who - in light of recent events - has asked for more clarification of his role in administering Terps.

Here are the Túischac'h's comments:

I don't want to put any limits on what can be asked... What if we allow the Leader of the Opposition to ask unlimited questions per month, but limited backbenchers to just 3 max?

Next, I want to remove the section on MCs and Senators being able to "chime in" and ask their own follow-ups after the original submitter has completed supplementary questions. This to my mind hasn't ever happened, or when it did it happened on a more informal basis. I'm fine with threads continuing, but we don't need to make other party's questions their own semi enforceable Terps.

Removing that section allows for easier enforcement and makes it easier to excuse the Minister. As it stands, I think my locking the threads is on somewhat shaky ground, albeit one that may not be challenged.

Finally, the only reference to decorum is that questions should be asked "politely" and there is no reference to enforcement really, other than the presiding officer can suggest Contempt if a minister doesn't answer a proper question, for which an "impolite" question wouldn't be proper. I'm fine keeping the word polite, but decorum references should be throughout, and enforcement of decorum up to, say, ending further discussion should be clearer.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I don't want to put any limits on what can be asked... What if we allow the Leader of the Opposition to ask unlimited questions per month, but limited backbenchers to just 3 max?

What problem would this solve?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Here is El Lexh H.1.2 rewritten in accordance with the Túischac'h's suggestions. I don't necessarily endorse every amendment, but here they are for debate.

1.2 A Terpelaziun is a written enquiry to a named Member of the Government (henceforth, "the questioned Minister") relating to Public Affairs connected with their Ministry or on matters of administration for which they are officially responsible.[718]

    1.2.1 Any Member of the Cosă or Senator may pose a Terpelaziun at any time between the first Clark of a term and the subsequent publishing of a Writ of Dissolution.

        1.2.1.1 Terpelaziuns are posed by opening a new thread containing the questions on Wittenberg, in a single board jointly designated by the Túischac'h and Mençei.
        1.2.1.2 Terpelaziuns shall be politely phrased in the third person and addressed to the presiding officer of the questioner's House (e.g. "esteemed Túischac'h/Mençei") - or, if the Terpelaziun is being posed by a presiding officer, to the whole House ("esteemed Members of the Cosă/Senators").
        1.2.1.3 The presiding officer of the questioner's House - or, if the Terpelaziun is being posed by a presiding officer, the presiding officer of the other House - shall ensure compliance with the provisions of this article and oversee the question-and answering process. Henceforth in this article, the person so identified shall be termed "the presiding officer".
        1.2.1.4 There is no limit to the number of Terpelaziuns a Member of the Cosă or Senator the Leader of the Opposition may submit in any given Clark. Any other Member of the Cosă or Senator may submit a maximum of three (3), or such other maximum as the presiding officer of the questioner's House may explicitly permit for that Clark.
        1.2.1.5 There is no hard limit to the number of questions a single Terpelaziun may contain, except that the presiding officer may refuse Terpelaziuns that are unreasonably long, or that span overly different topics.
        1.2.1.6 Terpelaziuns may not be posed during Months of Recess, except by leave of the presiding officer and consent of the questioned Minister.

            1.2.1.6.1 Terpelaziuns still pending (at any stage) at the beginning of a Month of Recess, or at the Dissolution of the Cosă, shall be answered as normal.

    1.2.2 Once a Terpelaziun is submitted by a Member of the Cosă or Senator in accordance with the provisions of this article, it shall be answered by the questioned Minister within seven days, except for provisions extending the deadline as described below.

        1.2.2.1 Junior members of the questioned Minister's ministry may ask leave to reply to the Terpelaziun in the questioned Minister's stead, due to unavailability or due to the question falling under the junior member's purview.
        1.2.2.2 The questioned Minister, a junior member of the questioned Minister's ministry, or the Seneschal, may negotiate with the questioner any extensions to the deadline, as long as the total additional negotiated time does not exceed seven days. The presiding officer shall grant any such extensions upon ascertaining the questioner's consent.
        1.2.2.3 Should the questioned Minister be unavailable to answer the Terpelaziun within the initial or extended deadline, the question shall be redirected to the Seneschal, or to a junior member of the questioned Minister's ministry, who shall be granted a further seven days to answer the Terpelaziun.

            1.2.2.3.1 "Unavailable" shall be taken to mean an inability to access Wittenberg for an acceptable and reasonable reason. Having logged into, or visited Witt, or its equivalent, during the seven day period, and having not seen, or ignored the PQ or Terp, shall not constitute being unavailable.

    1.2.3 The questioned Minister, or other applicable official as described above, must answer the Terpelaziun in the same thread as the original question, and the questioner may ask a reasonable number of supplementary questions, as determined by the presiding officer.

        1.2.3.1 All provisions described in the previous section shall apply to the first (round of) supplementary question(s) as if they were a new Terpelaziun.
        1.2.3.2 Once the first (round of) supplementary question(s) have been answered, the floor shall be considered open to contributions from other Members of the Cosă and Senators. Any questions posed in this stage shall not be bound by any formal time constraints.

    1.2.4 Failure to answer a Terpelaziun or a supplementary question within the deadlines described in this article may be declared by the presiding officer to constitute Contempt of the Ziu, except in the cases outlined below.

        1.2.4.1 The questioner shall engage with the questioned Minister in answering the Terpelaziun, by providing any required clarifications within a reasonable timeframe.
        1.2.4.2 The questioned Minister is excused from answering Terpelaziuns that, as judged by the presiding officer: do not fall under the purview of their portfolio, or are not clearly labelled as a Terpelaziun; or are ambiguous, unclear, or poorly formatted; or do not otherwise comply with the provisions of this article.
        1.2.4.3 Terpelaziuns which refer to matters of Security or Defence of His Majesty's Realm and/or any project(s), correspondence, or activities, in which the Government has deemed, and classified as confidential, or which in its release may damage the Kingdom in any shape or form, may not be answered by any Minister.

1.2.5. The presiding officer of the questioner's House shall enforce decorum in both Terpelaziuns and answers to Terpelaziuns. The presiding Officer may require questioners to rephrase Terpelaziuns, or Ministers or their substitutes to rephrase answers to Terpelaziuns, to maintain decorum. In cases of continued violations, the presiding Officer may instruct the questioner or the Minister or their substitute to withdraw or apologise for a statement or comment, and remove any such statement or comment from the record in the absence of such withdrawal or apology.

Ideally I would love the Túischac'h/Mençéi to be able to ban a MC/Senator from voting on a Clark for being a real fora da ciol, but I don't think that'd be Organic.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

a real fora da ciol,

Or a verpa, right?

1.2.1.4 There is no limit to the number of Terpelaziuns a Member of the Cosă or Senator the Leader of the Opposition may submit in any given Clark. Any other Member of the Cosă or Senator may submit a maximum of three (3), or such other maximum as the presiding officer of the questioner's House may explicitly permit for that Clark.

My question wasn't answered. What problem is this attempting to solve?

[Munditenens Tresplet]

I think the problem is clearly evident. Sending a Terp every month for every minister to ask virtually the same question is not, in my opinion, the purpose of Terps. Terps are not a pulse check, and doing this not only diminishes the purpose of seeking an official answer on a specific topic, but in my personal opinion also discourages ministers from answering the questions completely (believing it to be somewhat harassing in nature) and could discourage other members of the Ziu from asking their own questions. I also don't want to see governments set official policies to decline to fully answer questions asked by some ministers over others, which degrades the power of the Ziu and its individual members.

When ministers are constantly declining to answer questions and deferring to the Seneschal to answer them, I think that shows how discouraged they feel. It's important to remember that Talossa's ministers are volunteers. No one is getting paid here, and to begin—for lack of a better word—pestering them for (as an example) detailed plans within days after a term beginning, is just not what official questions that could result in Contempt of the Ziu for a non-responsive answer should be used for.

I think a limit on the number of questions someone other than the leader of the opposition can ask (whether that be three or any other number) can ensure that well reasoned questions are asked and well thought out answers are provided. Notably, this bill allows for the presiding officer to recognize questions beyond the three official ones if they deem it appropriate to do so. And nothing would prohibit a minister from providing an answer to a non-official question. Additionally, this bill does not place a limit on what can be asked, so assuming an MZ wants to "waste" their three questions or so, that would continue to be their prerogative.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Thanks Dien for confirming we are revising law because the Government and the Speaker are annoyed by an active Opposition.

Dien: "I think the problem is clearly evident. Sending a Terp every month for every minister to ask virtually the same question is not, in my opinion, the purpose of Terps."

This hasn't happened repeatedly. It happened in the first Clark because the Government failed to announce a programme of action. I asked Miestra repeatedly outside of official channels before the Throne Speech and she ignored the question as a part of an apparent boycott. So, I then attempted to ascertain this programme of action through a standard question to each government minister. She, as was her right, referred me to the Throne Speech on behalf of all the ministers which was fine with me. I then used the Throne Speech as the basis of accountability reviews moving forward. This all seemed in line with the purpose of terpelaziuns.

Dien: "When ministers are constantly declining to answer questions and deferring to the Seneschal to answer them, I think that shows how discouraged they feel."

Discouraged by needing to report on their service to the Nation once a month? This is not an acceptable reason to reduce the capacity of Opposition members to hold the government to account. You are attempting to make it easier for the Government to avoid accountability and I'm concerned it will reduce the quality of service the Nation receives.

Sir Luc: "The current volume is honestly not annoying at all, since it amounts to a couple of questions per position per month; I think no minister should complain about having to answer a few questions."

I am referencing the quote above from our current Secretary of State as something I agree with. The comment was liked by Miestra at the time so I will assume she agrees.

One or two questions per month is not pestering. My standard has been and will continue to be that it is not unreasonable for government ministers to report to the Ziu at least once per month. No one is getting paid, you are correct. I am not getting paid for my consistent efforts to hold the Government to account either, Dien. But this is not pestering, it is a vital function which has helped each Government do better when necessary. It should not be whittled down because people are annoyed any more than the right of a free press should be whittled down because the Government or the Speaker is annoyed by uncomfortable and persistent questions.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

We're not talking about uncomfortable and persistent questions. We're talking about pointed, almost asked and answered questions that devolve into personal back and forths. And if you would prefer ministers to do what everyone else in Talossa often does, which is to disappear for long periods of time and avoid the very limited duties that they would otherwise have because they view the constant barrage of questions as a form of harassment, then I suppose a policy of enforcing official questions with Contempt of the Ziu is the appropriate way to fix this, in your view.

Those who aren't the Leader of the Opposition can ask up to three questions a month, which is a lot more than the average number of questions asked by each individual MZ, with outliers removed. Remember, ministers would be free to continue to answer any question they wished on a voluntary basis outside of this compulsory method. And if you want to campaign during the next cycle that ministers didn't want to answer your "simple" questions and be held to account, feel free.

I would note that I provided my thoughts to the Seneschal and requested her help in a writing some debatable reforms, and that when she posted the bill she made clear that the changes within do not necessarily reflect the government's position. This is my position as an individual MC who was selected to be the presiding officer of the Cosa (and if I had been monitoring fast enough, I would have declined the nomination). As I have already had to step in, twice, I felt that reforms are now needed. But this will not change how I enforce the current law, which is to try and ensure that government ministers respond fully and completely to every question asked, while I continue to remain in the position.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

We're not talking about uncomfortable and persistent questions. We're talking about pointed, almost asked and answered questions that devolve into personal back and forths. And if you would prefer ministers to do what everyone else in Talossa often does, which is to disappear for long periods of time and avoid the very limited duties that they would otherwise have because they view the constant barrage of questions as a form of harassment, then I suppose a policy of enforcing official questions with Contempt of the Ziu is the appropriate way to fix this, in your view.

As I quoted from Sir Luc in agreement it is a mischaracterization to say that ministers are receiving constant questions. One question per position per month is not unreasonable, Dien. And if they devolve into personal attacks then you should do what you have already done and lock the thread. And I add actually call out all parties but not make changes to terpelaziun policy to allow the Government to avoid uncomfortable questions. This is what your bill in its current form is doing.

This means calling out Miestra when she calls me a "verpa" as well as calling me out for too many supplemental questions. This means reminding Antaghla of her statutory duty to respond to appropriately filed terpelaziuns whether she respects the questioner or not. But it does not mean changing the rules every time someone is uncomfortable or annoyed.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Respectfully, I don't believe we have changed the rules every time someone feels uncomfortable. This bill reflects an effort to make changes to allow the presiding officer the ability to actually perform the actions taken in those two recent threads. (And where I did call out "both sides" in the first thread I came to, thank you.) And, with respect to the only clause currently being debated, I personally believe it would prevent these situations from arising again.

You've provided your opinion, I've provided mine. I'm not going to yield my position.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Respectfully, I don't believe we have changed the rules every time someone feels uncomfortable. This bill reflects an effort to make changes to allow the presiding officer the ability to actually perform the actions taken in those two recent threads. (And where I did call out "both sides" in the first thread I came to, thank you.) And, with respect to the only clause currently being debated, I personally believe it would prevent these situations from arising again.

You've provided your opinion, I've provided mine. I'm not going to yield my position.

I didn't read that as a both sides statement but may have missed something. Your comments throughout this thread though do not mention their behavior as a motivating factor rather you have focused on the quantity of my questions and stated your belief that they could be harassment which is something Miestra mentioned in one of her terpelaziun replies. Harassment has become a catch-all accusation for anything that bothers the Government now.

Please forgive me for believing you are not being even-handed and that these changes are predicated on responding to their concerns from being held to account then. I am debating that clause because it is the most significant reduction in the Opposition's ability to hold the Government to account.

As I stated when Luc suggested the most recent terpelaziun changes I am fine with someone else asking questions and have stepped back, for example, when Alexandreu asked about Immigration. But when other members of the Opposition continue to be silent I will ensure as I have for three or four terms now that Government ministers are at least trying to meet the obligations they signed up for.

The only thing this will lead to is fewer questions of the Government which will lead to less accountability for the Government. This is a solution in search of a problem, Dien. And you are cooperating with the Seneschal as our Speaker to allow for lessened scrutiny on Government activity.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

And you are cooperating with the Seneschal as our Speaker to allow for lessened scrutiny on Government activity.

I was discussing my thoughts on reform as a leader of a political party with the head of government. But if you're held up on the idea that I can't propose reform while I'm Speaker, that's easy enough to fix. I have no desire to craft some sort of fix whenever these threads devolve into personal attacks, for which current law does not provide for any guidance.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

And you are cooperating with the Seneschal as our Speaker to allow for lessened scrutiny on Government activity.

I was discussing my thoughts on reform as a leader of a political party with the head of government. But if you're held up on the idea that I can't propose reform while I'm Speaker, that's easy enough to fix. I have no desire to craft some sort of fix whenever these threads devolve into personal attacks, for which current law does not provide for any guidance.

No I am not held up on that Dien. What bothers me is your responding to Government concerns around devolving into personal attacks which also lessen the ability of the Opposition to perform its vital function. When you locked the thread I thought that was the perfect reaction but, as usual, the reaction then goes overboard. This is what is happening now. If you called out Miestra and myself and locked the thread then that is the system working. But now you are creating a solution to a problem that does not exist.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

The Túischac'h is telling the truth. The Government neither asked for any limit on the number of Terpelaziuns, nor necessarily agrees that one is appropriate. The Túischac'h's thoughts on how Terpelaziuns should operate are entirely his own. Although I do like the idea that the actual Leader of the Opposition, elected to that position by the voters, should have precedence over those who are only in the Cosa because it is physically impossible to unelect them. And I really appreciate having a Tuischac'h who is active in and reflective about his role in preserving order and administering Terp-time.

But I must jump into defend him when he is being politically monstered, in a way which is all too familiar to Talossans, by a tamberlan who thinks that yelling POLITICAL BIAS is a free pass for abuse and wild conspiracy accusations. This is yet another reason why we need to give not only the Chairs of the Ziu, but all Wittenberg moderators, real power to smack down all those who act like verpăs, forăs da ciol, or plain and simple raplamandeirs.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

The Túischac'h is telling the truth. The Government neither asked for any limit on the number of Terpelaziuns, nor necessarily agrees that one is appropriate. The Túischac'h's thoughts on how Terpelaziuns should operate are entirely his own. Although I do like the idea that the actual Leader of the Opposition, elected to that position by the voters, should have precedence over those who are only in the Cosa because it is physically impossible to unelect them. And I really appreciate having a Tuischac'h who is active in and reflective about his role in preserving order and administering Terp-time.

But I must jump into defend him when he is being politically monstered, in a way which is all too familiar to Talossans, by a tamberlan who thinks that yelling POLITICAL BIAS is a free pass for abuse and wild conspiracy accusations. This is yet another reason why we need to give not only the Chairs of the Ziu, but all Wittenberg moderators, real power to smack down all those who act like verpăs, forăs da ciol, or plain and simple raplamandeirs.

Here we go, again, with outlandish statements that only serve to heighten tensions from Miestra.

I have expressed my concern that the suggested reforms which you have posted after consultation from the Speaker will weaken the ability of the Opposition to hold the Government to account. This is not acceptable, Miestra. Especially when the Speaker did act quickly and effectively to lower the temperature by locking the threads where you used inappropriate language you continue to use.

There is no problem here the Speaker does not already have the tools to address which is why I say this is a solution in search of problem. The locked threads stand as a silent testimony to that fact. The bill as proposed will permanently weaken the Opposition's ability to hold the Government to account. This is not in the interest of future governments, future members of the opposition, or the voters.

This bill should be revised or withdrawn.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I support the proposed 1.2.5, but I sharply oppose the proposal to limit terps.