continuing the Chancery discussion...

[Flip Molinar]

talossa.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=ziu&thread=4529&page=3

Moving on to questions in the Ziu board again...

[Flip Molinar]

Continue arguments over the Chancery below...

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

Well, I think it necessary first to state that Mick is perhaps the best SoS that Talossa has ever had, and I congratulate him on his success in that position.

But let's be realistic, not everyone is as holy as our dear Captain. I think Mick does a good job of switching hats and necessary and keeping one job out of another. However, I don't think all SoS's in the future will be able to. Hence the need for this legislation to separate the Chancery from the Ziu.

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

We've actually already done this:

www.sciencenewsforkids.org/articles/20090128/Note2.asp

[Breneir Itravilatx]

Nov 14, 2009 8:31:08 GMT -6 Dréu Gavárþic'h said:

Well, I think it necessary first to state that Mick is perhaps the best SoS that Talossa has ever had, and I congratulate him on his success in that position.

Dreu, you kind of missed the point here. No one, not even me, has said that the good Captain did not do a good job in the past so these effusive defenses of his past performance seem unnecessary to me and also slightly self-serving politically. I commend you on your gamesmanship, though.

The issue is whether a Secretary of State even though he might also be an official member of a party and a member of the Cosa should be involved in partisan defenses of a sitting government. I do not think that you can say that the good Captain wears "each hat at different times by choice" he wears "each hat simultaneously" which means that he was speaking not just as a member of the Cosa and a member of the RUMP but also as Secretary of State when he attempted to "defend the government". And in my view that is an unacceptable situation which first should be recognized by our Secretary of State as not ideal and then be resolved through a multi-party effort of reforming the necessary articles of the Organic Law.

I have a problem with this one act not with his past performance which has led me to the view that Article IX must be reformed.

[Xhorxh Asmour]

I agree with you, Bren!

[Breneir Itravilatx]

Friends, this situation has now extended past the question of a "defense of the Government" by the Secretary of State and now also concerns the RUMP Senator from M-M using 'targeted malice' in a newly-professed system of malfeasance to oppose all PP legislation as political retribution. I am currently working on censure legislation to combat this abuse of office and would welcome any assistance on the legislation.

I am simply stunned by willingness to use a political office to exercise vengeance at the costs of all of his constituents.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

You are not a gentleman, sir, and I will not vote for legislation sponsored by you or by any party that stands behind your slander. I am waiting for a Progressive statement on whether or not they support your remarks; I suspect they do not. Very few people are going to be willing to accuse S:reu Preston of abusing his office for partisan purposes.

[Breneir Itravilatx]

The record clearly states what I said, Alexander. And a gentleman does not use political office for political retribution.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

In attempting to clarify, I said, "When he failed to remain nonpartisan? Are you suggesting that he has in some way favoured the RUMP in the execution of his duties as SoS? Because that sure sounds like what you're suggesting. If you are not suggesting that, I would strongly suggest you correct this and issue an immediate apology to S:reu Preston."

You said that what you had said stood and you would not retract any item. Accordingly, I can only reasonably interpret that you were saying that the SoS favoured the RUMP in the execution of his duties. This is an accusation of corruption and a slander on MC Preston. You did not contradict me or correct me, instead only marching into a merry attack on MC Molinar.

If you would now say that you were not accusing SoS Preston of corruption or abuse of his power, or apologize for doing so, then we would be quits on the matter. Until you do so, or your party says they do not stand behind you, I will maintain my stance.

[Breneir Itravilatx]

And you will be held responsible for the abuse of your office. But thanks for that clarification.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Outside of the argument if I was being "partisan"in that one comment...

IN the past 3 years I have been SoS, I held many positions in the RUMP party.

I have also made multiple statements supporting the RUMP Party.

While, by my actions as SoS, I think everyone agrees that as of yet, I have been bending over backwards to be neutral.

(I am also glad that everyone thinks there might me a SoS after me. I so do hope so. )

The SoS is appointed by a Political person. He is fired by an apolitical person. The SoS is appointed by a Sendchal . Once he is appointed , the King decides if he is doing a good job. The King can fire the SoS, without a vote.

Once Hired, the SoS serves the King.

If you remove the ability of the SoS to be a member of a Political Party, then he cannot be a MC.

If he cannot be a MC, then he cannot suggest laws.

If he cannot suggest laws, then he becomes nothing more than a bean counter, and a rule enforcer.

And that makes Jack a very dull boy.

Of, and the irony of all of this is ... every single person that has replied to this topic at one time or another ... has asked me to join as (or remain) a member of their party.

[Breneir Itravilatx]

Nov 14, 2009 23:09:19 GMT -6 Capt. Sir Mick Preston said:

And that makes Jack a very dull boy.

I prefer a dull Secretary of State then. Captain will you work with us to begin the work of codifying the non-partisanship of the office of Secretary of State?

[Istefan Lorentzescu]

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing but if you remove the ability of the SOS to be a party member or a member of the Cosa etc. Would we be likely to end up with
the SOS position unfilable a bit like the Magistracy and uppermost court.

[Eðo Grischun]

First off, MC Molinar was not merrilly attacked. It was merely pointed out that he performed a 360 turncoat in less time than it took to boil a kettle and then decided to sit upon a very tall fence.

Secondly, the SoS was not slandered or attacked either. Clarification was sought on whether it was proper for someone in the position of SoS to be acting in a partisan manner. It was said more than once that Mick has done a stellar job as SoS. However, is it really appropriate for the SoS to be a politician on a Monday while carrying out the duties of the Chancery on a Tuesday?

Lastly, for the Senator from M-M to act in what I can only describe as the most vile abuse of office since I joined here is beyond utterly disgusting. Did he actually say that he will actively block legislation authored not only by a person he holds a grudge with but the people associated with him? Zooks!