Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Aug 6, 2018 15:13:18 GMT -6
We can (and should) also make this change:
to;
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Aug 6, 2018 15:17:18 GMT -6
Just a note that the main problem with the independent Chancery is - who brings the SoS into line when they drop the ball? For example, no-one was in a position to reprimand the Chancery for taking more than 2 years between censuses, causing a number of citizens to drop off the rolls.
This would again not be a problem if we had a Monarch actively involved in Talossa on a day-to-day basis. I suggest to the staunch Monarchists that you can't have it both ways. Either you have a constitutional monarchy, where it honestly doesn't matter whether the King turns up on a day to day basis; or you have a monarchy with real power, which requires the King to turn up and perform oversight on a day to day basis. Choose, but choose wisely.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Aug 6, 2018 15:32:43 GMT -6
Being appointed by the President AND having to be confirmed by parliament is hardly the same as being directly responsible to the President. The SoS in Talossa is appointed by the PM, but still acts independently. Most (probably all) of those countries have other independent bodies than just the one responsible for elections. That one is just a particularly useful institution to be somewhat independent. Nobody wants the chancery to be without oversight by some democratic institution. That is why the SoS can be removed by law by a democratic institution. But it is good that important institutions are apolitical and not subject directly to the policy of partisan ministers. There seems to be a lot of confusion about what this bill would mean. The PM has suggested that it would essentially not change anything and all these officers are still as independent as they were. Then why have the law say basically the opposite? What would even be the purpose of this. To ease coordination? How? In what way? Elsewhere it has been suggested that the purpose is to have royal household officers write reports. Why should the chancery report to the minister of STUFF. Is the most important thing about election results that they are communicated to the person in charge of web maintenance. Should clarks be sent to the minister of STUFF as well? Is more formal reports even what Talossa needs right now? (FWIW, writing a more detailed election report is still on my to do list, but the reasons I havent gotten around to that yet have very little to do with there being no minister of STUFF to report to. I was planning to post it on witt anyway.) But none of these are really what is in the law. What is in the law is making the chancery responsible to the Ministry of STUFF, which I fear would mean having to follow government policy and turning another non political office into one directly controlled by the political government. Edit: I obviously started writing this a long time ago, but got distracted (by the shoutbox among other things ) , and now there have been a couple posts in between which I didnt read before posting this.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Aug 6, 2018 15:36:09 GMT -6
Just a note that the main problem with the independent Chancery is - who brings the SoS into line when they drop the ball? For example, no-one was in a position to reprimand the Chancery for taking more than 2 years between censuses, causing a number of citizens to drop off the rolls. Presuming that the SoS is still in the domain of the Royal Civil Service, they could be still be removed by the Commissioner. In fact, this bill currently would not allow anyone except the CSC to fire the SoS anyway.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Aug 6, 2018 15:38:57 GMT -6
It just took me 1 minute to create an alternative draft which excludes the Chancery from the Royal Civil Service, but includes the Scribery and the Royal Archives as responsible to the Minister of STUFF. Would that make anyone here happier? Happy? No. Happier? Yes. Edit: but then again I don't get to vote on bills anyway so yeah... (To be honest I was confused by the Scribery and Royal Archives part as well, because I'm understanding from the discussion and the PMs fancy graph that the idea was to put them under the chancery, but I didn't get that from reading the bill. Other than the numbering, nothing in the language seems to indicate it.)
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Aug 6, 2018 16:44:42 GMT -6
(To be honest I was confused by the Scribery and Royal Archives part as well, because I'm understanding from the discussion and the PMs fancy graph that the idea was to put them under the chancery, but I didn't get that from reading the bill. Other than the numbering, nothing in the language seems to indicate it.) That was, indeed, the idea, because I thought they belonged together. But no matter. Given all of that, here is the latest draft. Note that: - the Scribery is now responsible to Justice (appropriate, as Justice was originally responsible for the Scribery's job) and Archives are responsible to Interior rather than Stuff. - I have made it clear about the difference between Officers of the Royal Civil Service (who consult with and report to a particular Minister but cannot be ordered to carry out government policy) and Permanent Secretaries (who carry out government policy but are independent in how they do so).
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Aug 6, 2018 20:35:31 GMT -6
Presuming that the SoS is still in the domain of the Royal Civil Service, they could be still be removed by the Commissioner. In fact, this bill currently would not allow anyone except the CSC to fire the SoS anyway. Which is precisely what Glüc wanted me to amend the bill to remove. Would restoring the Chancery to the Royal Civil Service be acceptable - given the new language which specifies "reporting to" rather than "responsible to" the Ministers and not responsible for carrying out govt policy - if the SoS reports directly to the Seneschál? What has frustrated me was Glüc going off both here and in the Shoutbox based on what was plainly a problem with unclear wording in the bill, thinking it meant something completely different to what it meant. The latest wording, I think, is much clearer.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Aug 7, 2018 9:44:43 GMT -6
Picky edits (not touching the Chancery for the moment):
Reason; who can assign or impose additional duties?
Reason; "consulting" with the Minister is too vague
Reason; clarifies that not all Secretaries must be the administrative chief of an entire Ministry
Reason; this wording was included in the original draft but must have been forgotten at some point.
Reason; Why can't the CSC and the relevant Minister figure this out themselves?
Reason; fixed the wording
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Aug 7, 2018 9:50:39 GMT -6
Also, as I can find nowhere else to put the two remaining sections of the proposed Title L, you may as well put current sections C.6 and C.7 back into it.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Aug 7, 2018 10:01:59 GMT -6
Assuming we put the Chancery back in the realm of the Royal Civil Service, but do not require the SoS to report to any Minister, here is how the chart would look:
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Aug 7, 2018 19:16:24 GMT -6
If we take the Chancery out of the Civil Service, we would have to add a line explaining how the SoS is appointed - something like "in the same way as Officers of the R.Civ.Serv".
I would prefer the Chancery to remain in the Civil Service with the SoS reporting to the Seneschál, but the other option is fine too. I just need to know which has more support from MZs; I don't need to hear from people who won't support the reorganization either way.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Aug 7, 2018 19:23:05 GMT -6
I would prefer the Chancery to remain in the Civil Service with the SoS reporting to the Seneschál, but the other option is fine too. I just need to know which has more support from MZs; I don't need to hear from people who won't support the reorganization either way. We could instead have the SoS report to the Commissioner.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Aug 7, 2018 20:10:22 GMT -6
We could instead have the SoS report to the Commissioner. ... or to the Túischac'h and Mençéi, as representative of the Ziu?
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Aug 7, 2018 22:08:18 GMT -6
I agree with a lot of what this bill does. I think it makes sense to bring much of the royal household under the civil service. I would leave the College of Arms out as it is the one office with a function that is essentially personal to the monarch. In the UK, for example, the College of Arms is also part of the royal household. I've long thought the Scribery should be folded into the Chancery, as the maintenance of l'Anuntzia is basically an extension of the Clark process.
One thing that concerns me is how it concentrates so much responsibility in a single office--the civil service commissioner--which is essentially unproven. It makes this one office a single point of failure for much of our system, especially if the appointment of the SoS depends on the CSC and the administration of elections and the legislative process depends on the SoS. I'm also not sure I like the elimination of the civil service committee or the provision for a civil service administrative code.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Aug 7, 2018 23:43:31 GMT -6
I'm also not sure I like the elimination of the civil service committee or the provision for a civil service administrative code. Basically, these latter have proved cumbersome and have already not worked as advertised. I don't see what they offer that can't be established by ordinary law, or even by informal ministerial guidance as some others have suggested. The question of the power of the CSC is an interesting one - Ian Plätschisch was responsible for a lot of the ideas for beefing the office up, so I should let him comment.
|
|