Florencian Constitutional Reform Committee

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

Under the provisions of Nimlet Resolution 2026-05, I hereby call to order the Constitutional Reform Committee.

This Committee shall consist of three members:
- Myself as Governor of Florencia, Committee Chair;
- @mximo (Mximo Carbonel), Pastour and Vice-Chair; and
- @Breneir Tzaracomprada , Pastour and Vice-Chair.

Each member shall possess equal voting rights. No other individuals shall be granted a vote, but the Committee may call on representatives from various Talossan organizations for advisory input.

The stated deadline for this Committee's proposed constitutional reforms is the beginning of the Sixth Clark of the 62nd and current Cosa session, which is expected to open on 1 June 2026.

If the Vice-Chairs have any agenda items they wish to see included or any specific areas they wish to address during the course of the Committee's work, the floor is open. I will put forth an agenda on Saturday, 28 February.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Yes, as I have stated before I think we should amend the constitution in whole (moving toward a system with elements from Fiova, Belacosta, and Vuode) but if we decide to restrict ourselves to spot amendments then we should certainly work on reforms to Article III (Government) and Article IV (Legislation). Recent experience shows critical need for reforms specifically to Sections 6 through 9 of Article III.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

I see no need to restrict the work of the Committee to "spot amendments", to borrow your phrasing. If the people of Florencia would prefer a new Constitution outright, it should not be withheld from them.

I do, however, think we should wait for Vice-Chair @mximo to weigh in. While he may have an equal vote on this Committee, any changes put forth will need his blessing if they are to pass through the Nimlet.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I see no need to restrict the work of the Committee to "spot amendments", to borrow your phrasing. If the people of Florencia would prefer a new Constitution outright, it should not be withheld from them.

I do, however, think we should wait for Vice-Chair @mximo to weigh in. While he may have an equal vote on this Committee, any changes put forth will need his blessing if they are to pass through the Nimlet.

You had mentioned putting forward an agenda today though. It might be good to proceed with that initial plan and allow him to comment on that?

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

If the Vice-Chairs have any agenda items they wish to see included or any specific areas they wish to address during the course of the Committee's work, the floor is open. I will put forth an agenda on Saturday, 28 February.

We appear to have missed getting the agenda out yesterday :(

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

Because I am trying to wait for S:reu Carbonel's input, as previously noted.

Please remember that I am trying to remain relatively hands-off in this process other than administrative functions, due to my not being a Florencian. A lot of "political questions" are things I am going to try and keep myself as uninvolved in as possible as a matter of propriety and respect for the local democratic will. As a result, in my view we are only properly, ethically quorate when both of you are present.

That said, in the interest of keeping things moving, here's what I propose: let's give @mximo until Wednesday (4 March) to provide input. Whether or not he has done so by then, I will put out some sort of agenda that evening. In the meantime, what I will ask you to do is put forward any specific recommendations on the sections you identified above.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Because I am trying to wait for S:reu Carbonel's input, as previously noted.

Please remember that I am trying to remain relatively hands-off in this process other than administrative functions, due to my not being a Florencian. A lot of "political questions" are things I am going to try and keep myself as uninvolved in as possible as a matter of propriety and respect for the local democratic will. As a result, in my view we are only properly, ethically quorate when both of you are present.

That said, in the interest of keeping things moving, here's what I propose: let's give @mximo until Wednesday (4 March) to provide input. Whether or not he has done so by then, I will put out some sort of agenda that evening. In the meantime, what I will ask you to do is put forward any specific recommendations on the sections you identified above.

Yes, as I have stated before I think we should amend the constitution in whole (moving toward a system with elements from Fiova, Belacosta, and Vuode) but if we decide to restrict ourselves to spot amendments then we should certainly work on reforms to Article III (Government) and Article IV (Legislation). Recent experience shows critical need for reforms specifically to Sections 6 through 9 of Article III.

Done, a few days ago, I proposed that those be areas for review but am not yet ready to submit specific proposals especially before you've even set an agenda.
In a few more days I will look forward to *some kind of contribution* from either you or the other member of this Committee.

Based on the frequency of his posts I am skeptical.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

Alright, while I would have liked to hear from Vice-Chair Carbonel regarding his thoughts, it is indeed Wednesday, so I think we should get going.

Broadly speaking, and keeping in mind the general suggestions provided above by Vice-Chair Tzaracomprada, I believe there are four main topics this Committee should address:

• Constitutional amendment vs. constitutional overhaul -- should the current constitution be amended in specific places, or replaced outright?
• Form of the Executive -- should Florencia keep the current method of choosing the provincial executive? Should some alternative -- direct election, collegiate executive, etc. -- be implemented instead? Is legislative confidence necessary, or would some other form of democratic mandate be preferred?
• Form of the Legislature -- is the current "Real Nimlet" method of partisan election still preferred, or would Florencians prefer something like the "citizens' assembly" model used in some other provinces?
• The Legislative Process -- from V-C Tzaracomprada's statement above regarding Article IV, it would appear that amendments to Florencia's legislative process may be worth examining in further detail. I invite him to expand on this point at his leisure.

As noted in the opening post, this Committee must deliver its proposed solutions, whatever form they may take, by 1 June. I will say that in my experience, settling on the methods is usually the more time-consuming part of the process -- actually choosing the wording is relatively simple, it's deciding on the goal of that wording that's the tricky part. To that end, I think we should devote the majority of our time to refining the answers to the above questions (along with any others that may be raised) and defining the goals of the proposal. Let's say that the debate period may extend no later than 30 April, with drafting the proposed amendment(s) to occur during May. Is this acceptable to either of the Vice-Chairs? If so, that will constitute a majority, as this is one sort of issue I feel comfortable voting on for myself, as opposed to sticking to my usual neutrality.