|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jul 27, 2009 7:56:00 GMT -6
Perhaps then I stand alone in saying that when I hear government officials saying things like "the investigation is ongoing and refuse to comment" that I get sick to the stomach.
Perhaps I stand alone in saying that I am sick, fed up and tired of hearing the "in the name of national security", which to me is nonsense.
I have no doubt that this bill will fail, which I don't have a problem with. I do have a problem with certain viewpoints around here on how government should work. ie: no to humanitarian aid, no to greater levels of governmental transparancy and no to more legislation where reminders are preferred? I'm having difficulty fathoming whats going on, seriously!
|
|
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 Jul 27, 2009 8:06:23 GMT -6
I agree with this. And sometimes, silence is as good an answer as any. E But silence is not an option if the law says that "every effort to answer said questions in full must be made." I agree with S:reu Grischun that the UK's Freedom of Information Act is an important law (as is the United States' older FOIA), but both acts have many exemptions for the kinds of things Capt. Asmourescu points out: ongoing law enforcement investigations, foreign intelligence information, private personal information, etc. In my opinion, how to answer the questions should be left to the discretion of the government. Then it is up to the MZs to evaluate how forthcoming the government has been and use their own discretion to determine whether to give the government their vote of confidence. But it would be good to take up the issue of drafting a Freedom of Information Act of Talossa's own, along with the inverse, a Privacy Act.
|
|
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 Jul 27, 2009 8:17:27 GMT -6
Perhaps then I stand alone in saying that when I hear government officials saying things like "the investigation is ongoing and refuse to comment" that I get sick to the stomach. Perhaps I stand alone in saying that I am sick, fed up and tired of hearing the "in the name of national security", which to me is nonsense. I don't think you stand alone. Those kinds of responses are very much overused by government officials. But I can't say they are never appropriate. When they are overused, the legislature should hold the government's feet to the fire. The VOC is one tool to do that. And ultimately, lack of transparency should be an election issue.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jul 27, 2009 8:22:28 GMT -6
Perhaps then I stand alone in saying that when I hear government officials saying things like "the investigation is ongoing and refuse to comment" that I get sick to the stomach. Perhaps I stand alone in saying that I am sick, fed up and tired of hearing the "in the name of national security", which to me is nonsense. I don't think you stand alone. Those kinds of responses are very much overused by government officials. But I can't say they are never appropriate. When they are overused, the legislature should hold the government's feet to the fire. The VOC is one tool to do that. And ultimately, lack of transparency should be an election issue. Yes, I agree with you there. In fact, your comments have actually persuaded my own chain of thought on the whole matter. I'm going to let this bill go to vote for the sake of it, but I'm not even sure how I am going to vote on it now (thanks Cresti ) I'm going to look into publising a version of the Freedom of Information act as you mention. I'd like as many MZs as possible to contribute to such a bill though, something like this should really be a huge joint/ bi-partisan effort, yeah?
|
|
Óïn Ursüm
Posts: 1,032
Talossan Since: 3-10-2009
|
Post by Óïn Ursüm on Jul 27, 2009 9:06:30 GMT -6
I will vote in favour this Bill.
I support transparency, but I agree that it should be the VoC and not the law which ultimately stops governments from avoiding questions.
E
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jul 27, 2009 9:10:14 GMT -6
how about a re-wording of something like;
The government should attempt to answer questions when possible to do so; fully aware that insufficient answers and dodging of questions may result in losing confidence during a scheduled VOC.
? ?
This way all the law really does is gives us a statute mandate to hold the questions time session, but specifies punishment to the existing VOC laws in the Orglaw.
|
|
Ieremiac'h Ventrutx
Former Senator of Florencia ~ Citizen of Talossa
Posts: 990
Talossan Since: 3-1-1997
|
Post by Ieremiac'h Ventrutx on Jul 27, 2009 9:10:58 GMT -6
|
|
Óïn Ursüm
Posts: 1,032
Talossan Since: 3-10-2009
|
Post by Óïn Ursüm on Jul 27, 2009 9:14:09 GMT -6
That was because the questions were cluttering the Clark. Questions in the Wittenberg Ziu would be easier to deal with, and they would be screened by the Speaker before the questioner presents them. E
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jul 27, 2009 9:15:54 GMT -6
That was because the questions were cluttering the Clark. Questions in the Wittenberg Ziu would be easier to deal with, and they would be screened by the Speaker before the questioner presents them. E Pretty much what I was going to say.
|
|
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 27, 2009 9:33:20 GMT -6
My primary concern here is not that I oppose transparency in government, but rather that there are cases where less-than-complete transparency is probably appropriate; and this Bill, as worded, leaves no room for those cases.
We already have mechanisms in place by which a government can be replaced — the monthly VOC, the regularly recurring General Election, and (in case of some emergency) the King's power to dissolve the Cosa. So the government already has a strong motive *not* to incur the disapproval of the Cosa or the Electorate or the Crown.
What would happen, under the proposed Bill, if a Prime Minister answered a parliamentary question in a way that the MC asking it deemed incomplete? Maybe nothing much. But the MC would at least have the option of taking the issue to the Cort, asking the Cort to *require* that the PM comply with the law and answer fully. And presto!, rather than having the essentially political question (of whether the PM is justified in this case in maintaining some level of secrecy) decided by the Cosa or the Electorate, it will be decided by the Uppermost Cort — in my mind a Bad Thing. (Not the Cort, but the fact that they'd be deciding such questions.) We'd have the Cort ruling, from the bench, on whether in fact the PM's answer was "as full as possible". Talk about cans of worms.
It's best to avoid legislation, especially vaguely-worded broad-topic legislation, about how various officials should behave. It just hands responsibility to the Cort to decide things that *should* be decided by the officials themselves, or by the people who decide whether to remove them from, or return them to, office. Which process, ultimately, tends to replace representational government with a government by judiciary fiat.
— John R
|
|
Óïn Ursüm
Posts: 1,032
Talossan Since: 3-10-2009
|
Post by Óïn Ursüm on Jul 27, 2009 9:35:59 GMT -6
how about a re-wording of something like; The government should attempt to answer questions when possible to do so; fully aware that insufficient answers and dodging of questions may result in losing confidence during a scheduled VOC. ? ? This way all the law really does is gives us a statute mandate to hold the questions time session, but specifies punishment to the existing VOC laws in the Orglaw. I like this.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jul 27, 2009 9:41:29 GMT -6
My primary concern here is not that I oppose transparency in government, but rather that there are cases where less-than-complete transparency is probably appropriate; and this Bill, as worded, leaves no room for those cases. We already have mechanisms in place by which a government can be replaced — the monthly VOC, the regularly recurring General Election, and (in case of some emergency) the King's power to dissolve the Cosa. So the government already has a strong motive *not* to incur the disapproval of the Cosa or the Electorate or the Crown. What would happen, under the proposed Bill, if a Prime Minister answered a parliamentary question in a way that the MC asking it deemed incomplete? Maybe nothing much. But the MC would at least have the option of taking the issue to the Cort, asking the Cort to *require* that the PM comply with the law and answer fully. And presto!, rather than having the essentially political question (of whether the PM is justified in this case in maintaining some level of secrecy) decided by the Cosa or the Electorate, it will be decided by the Uppermost Cort — in my mind a Bad Thing. (Not the Cort, but the fact that they'd be deciding such questions.) We'd have the Cort ruling, from the bench, on whether in fact the PM's answer was "as full as possible". Talk about cans of worms. It's best to avoid legislation, especially vaguely-worded broad-topic legislation, about how various officials should behave. It just hands responsibility to the Cort to decide things that *should* be decided by the officials themselves, or by the people who decide whether to remove them from, or return them to, office. Which process, ultimately, tends to replace representational government with a government by judiciary fiat. — John R I think we stand on opposite sides of the fence on this one. I don't see what you say as a bad thing. Anyway, now I know for sure that if the bill does manage to pass both houses, I can look forward to your veto. Whey hey
|
|
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 27, 2009 9:59:01 GMT -6
Well now, a veto is another matter entirely.
In general, I think it's improper for an unelected and unremovable magistrate (like a King, for instance) to frustrate the will of the elected government. So, unless a piece of legislation is inOrganic, I won't veto it simply because it seems to me to be unwise.
I'm a *constitutional* monarch. As Lord Macaulay points out with regard to the British crown, the only justification for the Queen's having such great and arbitrary powers is that she almost never uses any of them.
— John R
|
|
Óïn Ursüm
Posts: 1,032
Talossan Since: 3-10-2009
|
Post by Óïn Ursüm on Jul 27, 2009 10:23:26 GMT -6
Quesziuns:
1. By what kind of method is the Tuischac'h's 'screening' conducted. Do people PM them to him so that he can give his thumbs up? Does he publish them all as a list? Do people submit their names to him so that he can call them to the floor during the Questions session? Is every MC allowed to ask questions without prior screening, with the Tuischac'h keeping everything in order?
2. Isn't it a bit unfair that the person who screens the questions for the Seneschal is currently selected by the Seneschal?...Actually, doesn't the US have a Speaker selected by the Majority Party?
E
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jul 27, 2009 10:49:14 GMT -6
Quesziuns: 1. By what kind of method is the Tuischac'h's 'screening' conducted. Do people PM them to him so that he can give his thumbs up? Does he publish them all as a list? Do people submit their names to him so that he can call them to the floor during the Questions session? Is every MC allowed to ask questions without prior screening, with the Tuischac'h keeping everything in order? 2. Isn't it a bit unfair that the person who screens the questions for the Seneschal is currently selected by the Seneschal?...Actually, doesn't the US have a Speaker selected by the Majority Party? E Again this is where this bill is vitally flawed. Another StatLaw out there somewhere repealed the position of the leader of the loyal opposition, a position that would probably have been better suited than the speaker. I am starting to go off this bill completley and do not wish to sponsor it any more. With permission from both co-sponsors I would like to withdraw this bill from being clarked at this stage. and to the King: That was my poor attempt at humour. I do apologize.
|
|