The Bartholomew Cubbins Act

[Ian Plätschisch]

WHEREAS In most democracies, wearing too many hats is a bad thing, but

WHEREAS Conflicts of interest become less important when the alternative is that nothing happens at all, and

WHEREAS We are currently forcing separation between roles that, by themselves, do not see very much action


THEREFORE Lex.C.1.1.3, which currently reads:

An individual may not hold the offices of Seneschal, Distáin, Justice of the Uppermost Cort, Monarch, or any cabinet portfolio while simultaneously holding an active appointment to a secretary office. In addition, any Secretaries within the Ministry of Justice may not serve as a judge in any inferior court.

is struck in full.

Ureu q'estadra så:

Ian Plätschisch (Sen-MM)

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Jul 28, 2019 20:13:02 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

WHEREAS In most democracies, wearing too many hats is a bad thing, but

WHEREAS Conflicts of interest become less important when the alternative is that nothing happens at all, and

WHEREAS We are currently forcing separation between roles that, by themselves, do not see very much action


THEREFORE Lex.C.1.1.3, which currently reads:

An individual may not hold the offices of Seneschal, Distáin, Justice of the Uppermost Cort, Monarch, or any cabinet portfolio while simultaneously holding an active appointment to a secretary office. In addition, any Secretaries within the Ministry of Justice may not serve as a judge in any inferior court.

is struck in full.

Ureu q'estadra så:

Ian Plätschisch (Sen-MM)

I don't like it in principle precisely because the whole idea of Permanent Secretaries/a Civil Service was to create a cadre of non-Government administrators. People kept telling me that Talossa was too political, that if you didn't want to join a party you got no say in Government - so I wanted to create a category where government service was a career choice rather than a political gift, and in management speak, "to separate governance and management".

If we are to do this, I don't see why we don't just give up on the Civil Service altogether and go back to all appointees being political appointees.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jul 28, 2019 20:29:02 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

I don't like it in principle precisely because the whole idea of Permanent Secretaries/a Civil Service was to create a cadre of non-Government administrators. 

I don't think that is realistic at this time. The people aren't responding to the roles the Government has set aside for them.

I have recommended in the past encouraging citizens to come up with their own permanent secretariats and then making appointments to those. I still think this is a good idea.

People kept telling me that Talossa was too political, that if you didn't want to join a party you got no say in Government

No danger of that right now. Any government would take who they can get.

If we are to do this, I don't see why we don't just give up on the Civil Service altogether and go back to all appointees being political appointees.

The other aspects of permanent secretaries, like not being subject to political firings and being appointed by the King, would be retained. If the King believed that plenty of non-politicians were available, he could withhold assent from politicians as permanent secretaries.

Let's play this out the other way around. Suppose that I actually was the Permanent Secretary for Immigration (you often say that I am, but lacking an official appointment I am really just "guy who does immigration") and I wanted to join the cabinet. If no replacement for me could be found, either I could not join the cabinet, immigration would be left with no one to run it, or I could continue to run it but with no prestige (I admit this is what is happening now but I would have preferred more prestige).

[Iac Marscheir]

*head pops out of ground* Is there a way we could keep the position of Ladintsch Naziunal non-political no matter what?

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Suppose that I actually was the Permanent Secretary for Immigration (you often say that I am, but lacking an official appointment I am really just "guy who does immigration")

Ha ha, because of the King's indifference we're pretty much all "guys and chicks who do things" at the moment

and I wanted to join the cabinet. If no replacement for me could be found, either I could not join the cabinet, immigration would be left with no one to run it, or I could continue to run it but with no prestige (I admit this is what is happening now but I would have preferred more prestige).

If you wanted to join Cabinet, I would ask the Interior Minister if he wanted to appoint a new SecImm. If not, the position would be abolished and the duties of SecImm would return to being direct responsibility of the Interior Minister.

[Viteu Marcianüs]

I appreciate the Senator from M-M's thought in this, but I think this proposed bill may go too far. Perhaps unlocking the Senechal, Distain, and Justices from cross posts is okay, with the understanding that refusal is required when there is an actual or appearance of a conflict of interest.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jul 29, 2019 9:13:08 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

I appreciate the Senator from M-M's thought in this, but I think this proposed bill may go too far. Perhaps unlocking the Senechal, Distain, and Justices from cross posts is okay, with the understanding that refusal is required when there is an actual or appearance of a conflict of interest.

Why wouldn’t you include the King or other Ministers?

[King John]

For what little it may be worth, I can't think of any circumstances in which it would be a good idea for the King to hold any Governmental or civil office. But as long as the OrgLaw prevents the worst abuses — like the King's being on the Cort, or acting as Secretary of State, both of which actually happened back in the day —, maybe further restrictions needn't be codified? I think we can usually trust people's good sense on things like this.

— John R

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

So that the esteemed leader of the AMP doesn't waste his time questioning the various FreeDem MCs and Senators, I should let him know at this point that my opinion of this bill has not changed and I recommended to the FreeDem caucus a CONTRA vote on it. Clearly Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h trusts me.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Sept 5, 2019 14:33:48 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

So that the esteemed leader of the AMP doesn't waste his time questioning the various FreeDem MCs and Senators, I should let him know at this point that my opinion of this bill has not changed and I recommended to the FreeDem caucus a CONTRA vote on it. Clearly Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h trusts me.

Love this post. Going to have it framed.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jul 28, 2019 21:12:28 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

and I wanted to join the cabinet. If no replacement for me could be found, either I could not join the cabinet, immigration would be left with no one to run it, or I could continue to run it but with no prestige (I admit this is what is happening now but I would have preferred more prestige).

If you wanted to join Cabinet, I would ask the Interior Minister if he wanted to appoint a new SecImm. If not, the position would be abolished and the duties of SecImm would return to being direct responsibility of the Interior Minister.

Possibly, although I think this focuses too much on the particular example I used. If someone is happy to continue their Secretarial role but also wants to join the Cabinet (or vice versa), I think we would be missing out by making them give one up. I understand that there are benefits to separation of powers, but at this point I think the benefits of flexibility are much greater.