The August 2017 Clark

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

The August 2017 Clark is now here.


www.talossa.ca/files/clark.php?cosa=50&clark=6

Or here: www.talossa.ca/files/print_clark.php (this is the printer friendly version)


In PDF Form (which was made from the print_clark.php page):

www.talossa.ca/files/clarks/August2017Clark.pdf

or can vote online here: www.talossa.ca/files/clark_vote.php

Or in this thread, until the 21st of the month, at 19h30 TST.

Senators are allowed to create a single thread in the Senate chamber to post all of the Senate Votes that are not cast in this thread. Any votes not posted either using the form above, the current thread or the Senate thread might be ignored and void. Please do not vote by email or private messages.

When you vote, do not indicate any conditions which may make it sound like this vote isn't final: you can always change your vote later.

Please do not vote by email: We've had problems with email votes being caught in the spam filter.

All nominated Cosa Members and Senators have been emailed

Marti-Pair Furxheir
Secretary of State

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

2 bills were missing from the Clark and the clark was re-issued.

[Viteu Marcianüs]

FYI - the field for "Uréu q'estadra så:" for the Tiebreaker Act, and The Lannister Act + Sense of the Ziu are blank in the PDF. 

[Glüc da Dhi]

I would usually vote a bit later in the clark, but I will be away for slightly more than a week, with only mobile access, so my activity will be slightly limited and I didn't want to risk not voting. Voted using the database, but posting here as well.

RZ24 - PER

RZ25 - CON I don't think this will help much. Only decreases the time people have to vote, but it's too late for amendments and I don't think it would increase the chance mistakes are spotted.

RZ26 - PER

RZ27 - PER Though I would have liked to Bar to still be styled Royal. Hopefully this will help bring some new life into the Bar.

RZ28 - CON I very much appreciate the efforts of the author to respond to feedback and make changes based on comments, but my main point is still that it would make us even more legalistic. The government, or branches of the Royal Household will have to make interpretations of the law. They have to try to follow the law to the best of their abilities, but sometimes you have to make a call. If someone feels like a decision that negatively affects them is illegal that person obviously has the right to sue the government, but I don't think its good if government officials are saddled with a responsibility to step to the courts everytime they have the slightest doubt. What's even worse would be if other officials now have to feel responsible for going to court evertime they disagree with the decisions of someone else, even though no one feels negatively affected enough to sue. People need to have the option of going to court when they feel wronged, but not everything needs to be settled in court everytime, especially since it is a frustrating process that takes up a LOT of time and is hard to follow for anyone without legal training.

RZ29 - PER I don't neccesarily believe all bills require more hopper time, but I definitely think requiring at least one cosponsor might be helpful.

RZ30 - PER! (I should note Cézembre is currently voting on a bill that would enable us to elect our own Lord Warden. If that bill passes we wouldn't need this anymore. It would still be good to fix the system for the other provinces of course.)

RZ31 - PER! Again with many thanks to His Majesty for his generosity. However, we should not rely on a single person for our webhosting anymore.

VoC - Üc This government has been very effective, at least by Talossan standards.

Many thanks Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. for enabling parliamentary democracy to function yet another term. Where would we be without you? Also many thanks to my colleagues in the Ziu, especially those who proposed legislation or commented on the legislation of others. It was as usual a pleasure to work with all of you. Good luck to all parties and senatorial candidates during the elections. I hope to come back next term as an MC myself, but you never know, so goodbye for now.

[Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h]

RZ 24: Për
RZ 25: Për
RZ 26: Për
RZ 27: Për
RZ 28: Për

RZ 29: Për...barely. I wonder if 21 days is too long, and I have to wonder if it theoretically puts too much power into the hands of eight senators to stop a bill from even going to the Cosâ for debate.

Nevertheless, I see nothing that would preclude me from voting for this legislation.

RZ 30: Për
RZ 31: an enthusiastic Për - John has been paying these expenses, as nominal as they have been, out of his own pocket for a decade. It's long past time he get some help on this.

Many thanks as always to SoS Furxheir. The database pages continue to improve in usability, aesthetics, and in every other aspect. The Talossan civil service, of course, is more than the SoS, and in a long and unbroken line of leadership and brilliance going back to JJ himself, MPF and everyone else continue to provide our country with competence and quality that would make JJ proud.

- GV, Senator

[Alèx Soleighlfred]

RZ24: PER
RZ25: CON
RZ26: PER
RZ27: PER
RZ28: CON
RZ29: AUS
RZ30: PER
RZ31: PER
VoC - UC

I want to echo what others have said, I admire our Secretary of State's dedication to his duties and passion for Talossa.

I have no plans of serving as an MC the next term. Seems like I'm probably not a good fit for the job and I honestly turned out to be very unenthusiastic and forgettable about voting. That said, I'm forgoing any seats I could potentially have next Cosa in favor of my fellow partymates, the fresh blood that wants to actively participate in politics needs Cosa representation way more than I do.

I'm wishing everyone a good break and a nice general election season.

[Ian Plätschisch]

RZ24 - PËR

RZ25 - CONTRÂ: I don't see how this would help and it would give everyone less time to vote.

RZ26 - PËR

RZ27 - PËR

RZ28 - PËR: I have to disagree with my party-mate on this one: I don't envision this procedure being used very often precisely because it would be cumbersome.  I am naturally opposed to the Courts interfering with the proper role of the legislature, but this bill is OK because I can only see this being used in emergencies when a decision must be made to prevent someone from potentially breaking the law and the Ziu does not have time to legislate a solution.  It would also prevent the somewhat awkward "government-suing-itself" situation in the future.  Anyhow, I hope with bar reform and promised legal brief templates that even when this procedure is used it would not exclude the interested layperson (such as myself), but that said I would not be afraid to call for the repeal of this bill if I felt it was being overused.

RZ29 - PËR

RZ30 - PËR

RZ31 - PËR


VoC: ÜC ÜC ÜC ÜC ÜC ÜC ÜC

This is definitely the best government I have ever served in.  I know I have only been around for three of them, but, if I may say so myself, I think we commemorated the 50th Cosa with something more meaningful that a simulated parade; a government where every single member stayed active for the entire term and got things accomplished, and where the debates were about the issues rather than about personal character.

Electoral Commission reform
Monarchy reforms and referendum
Attendance at MicroCon 2017
COINS
Two proposals for Organic Law reform*
A better handle on our web presence
Legal reform
A Defence Minister who actually knows about Defence**
And way more...

*Two proposals is two proposals more than were put forward by the past two Committees combined
**Despite being a freshman MC, Deputy Minister Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu has put forward professional-quality military organization reform, way to go!

To be honest, when I was campaigning last election on the back of the accomplishments of the 49th Cosa, I couldn't have dreamed of having a list this long.  If there has been a more achievement-rich government in recent Talossan history, I have not heard of it.

I am honored to have had this opportunity to serve as your Distain.  I would like to commend the Free Democrats for being better coalition partners than we Moderate Radicals could have asked for, and Lüc da Schir for leading such a successful government.

Thanks to our tireless Secretary of State, may his retirement be long in coming, and good luck to all parties and candidates in the upcoming elections.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

RZ24: Per
RZ25: Contra
RZ26: Contra. I agree that the language needs to be fixed, but on reflection I am concerned that this proposal will weaken double jeopardy protections.
RZ27: Per
RZ28: Contra. I think this process is too cumbersome, and unlikely to be effective given how long we have been waiting for the Cort to issue outstanding decisions. Also, I have long opposed advisory opinions, and this will lead to too much precedent being set without opposing interpretations of the law being tested in a true adversary process.
RZ29: Aus
RZ30: Aus
RZ31: Aus
VoC: Üc

[Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu]

RZ24 - PER

RZ25 - CON

RZ26 - PER

RZ27 - PER

RZ28 - CON

RZ29 - PER

RZ30 - PER

RZ31 - PER

VoC - Üc

[Iason Bitxichë Taiwos]

Per on all, Üc on the VoC

[Viteu Marcianüs]

RZ24: PER
RZ25: PER
RZ26: PER
RZ27: PER
RZ28: PER
RZ29: CON
RZ30: PER
RZ31: PER
VoC - UC

[Viteu Marcianüs]

Aug 20, 2017 21:03:28 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

RZ24: Per
RZ25: Contra
RZ26: Contra. I agree that the language needs to be fixed, but on reflection I am concerned that this proposal will weaken double jeopardy protections.
RZ27: Per
RZ28: Contra. I think this process is too cumbersome, and unlikely to be effective given how long we have been waiting for the Cort to issue outstanding decisions. Also, I have long opposed advisory opinions, and this will lead to too much precedent being set without opposing interpretations of the law being tested in a true adversary process.
RZ29: Aus
RZ30: Aus
RZ31: Aus
VoC: Üc

Seriously? We barely have criminal law and you're more concerned with double jeopardy than due process? 

Like, the only due process we have is against double jeopardy, or rather the state CAN subject someone to double jeopardy if they follow due process and somehow this proposal weakens that when it outright bans double jeopardy? 

Seriously?