|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jul 25, 2009 14:03:39 GMT -6
The If you don't ask, you don't get act -------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS Transparancy in the government is essential for citzens to put their whole trust in the nation's leaders, and
WHEREAS Trust is the basis of every good relationship, and
WHEREAS if one does not ask something then one does not get something, now
THEREFORE be it resolved by the Ziu that the Túischac'h shall conduct 'Executive's Question Time' where the Seneschal and Cabinet Ministers shall take direct questions from members of the Cosa and Senäts and every effort to answer said questions in full must be made. The topic of said questions must be related to governmental affairs, including that of the cabinet ministries.
ADDITIONALLY A session of 'EQT' shall commence upon the opening of each clark and end with the conclusion of each clark. All questions should be answered prior to a session closing.
FURTHERMORE for questions to be included in an 'EQT' session, the questions must be sent directly to the Túischac'h for screening and selection as he sees fit.
Noi urent q'estadra sa:
Éovart Grischun (MC - FGP, PP) Breneir Tzaracomprada (MC - PP) Xhorxh Asmour (MC - ZPT)
|
|
Xhorxh Asmour
Talossan since 02-21-2003
Wot? Me, worry?
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by Xhorxh Asmour on Jul 25, 2009 14:23:53 GMT -6
That's perfectly OK with me! :-)
|
|
Óïn Ursüm
Posts: 1,032
Talossan Since: 3-10-2009
|
Post by Óïn Ursüm on Jul 25, 2009 14:36:05 GMT -6
Just thinking, Would this require an Organic redefinition of the Speaker's rôle? He seems like the best person to organize the questioning, but currently it is a Living Cosa-centric position, defined so that the PM can easily select one ready for TalossaFest.
E
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jul 25, 2009 14:57:10 GMT -6
Just thinking, Would this require an Organic redefinition of the Speaker's rôle? He seems like the best person to organize the questioning, but currently it is a Living Cosa-centric position, defined so that the PM can easily select one ready for TalossaFest. E This had crossed my mind. I don't think we need to tread over the OrgLaw on this. The OrgLaw defines who the Speaker is and by my reading of the OrgLaw there would be no need for amendment if we wanted to provide a 'funtion' for him to carry out. The problem I see though is that the Speaker of the Cosa will be conducting this on behalf of the Cosa and the Senats.... a little unfair on the Speaker of the Senats perhaps. Thoughts on this? I don't mind changing the person carrying out the 'EQT' as it does not affect the primary goal of the bill. --also edited to reflect Breneir Tzaracomprada as a co-sponsor.
|
|
Ieremiac'h Ventrutx
Former Senator of Florencia ~ Citizen of Talossa
Posts: 990
Talossan Since: 3-1-1997
|
Post by Ieremiac'h Ventrutx on Jul 25, 2009 16:40:19 GMT -6
*grumbles* ... more rules w/o consequences...
I would think this better not as an unenforceable law and more of tradition of the Cosa. A tradition based on the previously established patterns as brought to light these questions should be able to be asked.
We need a reminder not more legislation....
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 26, 2009 2:02:27 GMT -6
I think a Sense of the Ziu requesting two question-and-answer sessions per term would be better than this.
|
|
Óïn Ursüm
Posts: 1,032
Talossan Since: 3-10-2009
|
Post by Óïn Ursüm on Jul 26, 2009 2:12:15 GMT -6
I think a Sense of the Ziu requesting two question-and-answer sessions per term would be better than this. Or maybe the SoS could add an unofficial "Questions" section to every Clark. EDIT: Actually, that might not be a good idea. E
|
|
Ieremiac'h Ventrutx
Former Senator of Florencia ~ Citizen of Talossa
Posts: 990
Talossan Since: 3-1-1997
|
Post by Ieremiac'h Ventrutx on Jul 26, 2009 9:45:58 GMT -6
Who said "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." ?
|
|
Óïn Ursüm
Posts: 1,032
Talossan Since: 3-10-2009
|
Post by Óïn Ursüm on Jul 26, 2009 10:27:57 GMT -6
Who said "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." ? I don't remember, but you just said it again. E
|
|
|
Post by Iustì Carlüs Canun on Jul 26, 2009 12:58:21 GMT -6
George Santayana. {Thank you, Wikipedia.}
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Jul 26, 2009 15:45:54 GMT -6
[...]and every effort to answer said questions in full must be made. I'm not entirely comfortable with this. This clause would seem to make it impossible (or at least illegal) to conduct any governmental business in private, as long as any single MC or Senator asked a question about it. Maybe the Bill should just say something like "The Seneschal shall answer each such question as fully as he sees fit, on pain of public mockery and derision should his answer be deemed insufficient." Suppose the PM dodges a question. Then the opposition could say "The Right Honourable Senator from Swankadoola shares many of the more pungent and picturesque qualities of a baboon's butt!", and the Government could answer "Does not!, and besides you're a goop-head", and so on. Like other parliaments do. — John R
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jul 26, 2009 15:57:32 GMT -6
This clause would seem to make it impossible (or at least illegal) to conduct any governmental business in private, and your comfortable with this? I must say that I am seriously, seriously uncomfortable with any government that thinks that it is ok to conduct many a number of matters behind closed doors and refuse to answer questions on the same. This is the very nature of transparancy. It saddens me somewhat that as King you do not support a greater level of governmental transparancy. To put your comments against my view; YES, I believe it should be illegal for a government to not answer questions put to them. The freedom of information act in the UK was (at least to me) one of the most important pieces of legislation that the Tony Blair Administration passed.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jul 26, 2009 16:02:35 GMT -6
*grumbles* ... more rules w/o consequences... If a government dodges a question or gives a less than satisfactory answer the punishments are already in place, namely in the form of the VOC. For example, I ask Canun about a matter, if he fails to give me peace of mind on the subject I lose confidence in him as a leader as so on and so forth. The punishment that you seek already exists, sir.
|
|
Óïn Ursüm
Posts: 1,032
Talossan Since: 3-10-2009
|
Post by Óïn Ursüm on Jul 27, 2009 4:01:32 GMT -6
[...]and every effort to answer said questions in full must be made. I'm not entirely comfortable with this. This clause would seem to make it impossible (or at least illegal) to conduct any governmental business in private, as long as any single MC or Senator asked a question about it. Maybe the Bill should just say something like "The Seneschal shall answer each such question as fully as he sees fit, on pain of public mockery and derision should his answer be deemed insufficient." Suppose the PM dodges a question. Then the opposition could say "The Right Honourable Senator from Swankadoola shares many of the more pungent and picturesque qualities of a baboon's butt!", and the Government could answer "Does not!, and besides you're a goop-head", and so on. Like other parliaments do. — John R I agree with this. And sometimes, silence is as good an answer as any. E
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2009 7:36:58 GMT -6
This clause would seem to make it impossible (or at least illegal) to conduct any governmental business in private, and your comfortable with this? I must say that I am seriously, seriously uncomfortable with any government that thinks that it is ok to conduct many a number of matters behind closed doors and refuse to answer questions on the same. This is the very nature of transparancy. It saddens me somewhat that as King you do not support a greater level of governmental transparancy. To put your comments against my view; YES, I believe it should be illegal for a government to not answer questions put to them. The freedom of information act in the UK was (at least to me) one of the most important pieces of legislation that the Tony Blair Administration passed. Not to put words in the Royal mouth, however, I think you may have misunderstood the King's assertion, allow me to throw in my two cents. What if there is an ongoing criminal investigation and an MC asks a question about it, the government states that the investigation is ongoing and refuses to comment. Legislation like this could potentially make that sort of thing illegal. What about the fact that we have an intelligence gathering group. If the PIG shares all of its primary intelligence, they sort of become less effective, no? But a well placed question by an MC could force the PIG to release all pertinent records. Why shouldn't governments have some secrets? You have secrets. I have secrets. If those secrets are not there to cause harm or rob us of liberties, why can't a government keep a lid on some things?
|
|