|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on May 29, 2014 7:00:53 GMT -6
Sure, sure! I vote for myself (Maritiimi-Maxhestic MRPT provincial party leader elections all over again!), and I even adopt the name "Figurehead Grand Poobah of the Civil Service Committee" for my position. Happy? This took longer than it should have! Okay, before I had intruded, you wanted to open nominations for the Civil Service Commissioner! If there are no objections, I am inclined to grant Alex's motion. Do we ask for CVs from interested citizens, or will our essential 3-person body (I have to talk to Glüc and Miestrâ about that) be nominating some random person?
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on May 29, 2014 9:07:55 GMT -6
Sure, sure! I vote for myself (Maritiimi-Maxhestic MRPT provincial party leader elections all over again!), and I even adopt the name "Figurehead Grand Poobah of the Civil Service Committee" for my position. Happy? This took longer than it should have! Okay, before I had intruded, you wanted to open nominations for the Civil Service Commissioner! If there are no objections, I am inclined to grant Alex's motion. Do we ask for CVs from interested citizens, or will our essential 3-person body (I have to talk to Glüc and Miestrâ about that) be nominating some random person? As far as I am aware, neither Miestra or Gluc are on the committee so I can only assume you are asking for their input as to why their parties members have been unresponsive? Also, I think it would be wise to ask prospective commissioners to post an application (not sure they will have a CV) and should state something in regards to qualifications, etc. Also, just because you are the chair of the committee doesn't mean you have the power to "grant a motion" as one would assume we would use parliamentary procedures in this committee.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on May 29, 2014 9:21:57 GMT -6
If we have a voting about whether to have a voting about having a voting about something, this would take endlessly long. This is the point of existence of a chair: to draft the order of business, D:r dal Nordselva.
Indeed, I will be asking them where the two other members of the Committee are. Maybe they can persuade them to finally, actually, well... be here?
Mh, mh. If we were to allow applications (and I am in favour of that), should we publish a uniform call for applications on Witt, as the CSC?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 29, 2014 9:37:37 GMT -6
Yes, I move that this committee resolve that: The chair shall go ahead and post the job opening on Witt's main board, and we revisit the issue in exactly one month, examining the applications and voting on which candidate we shall select.
I'd also ask that the chair please listen to me now and institute a week-long voting period on pretty much all motions, as we do in such places as the M-M Assembly.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on May 29, 2014 9:48:03 GMT -6
I grant and proceed this motion to voting, unless there are objections:
The chair shall go ahead and post the job opening on Witt's main board, and we revisit the issue in exactly one month, examining the applications and voting on which candidate we shall select.
Furthermore, as one week seems to be sensible, I'm inclined to keep any polls open until Thursday, 5th of June, 18:00 GMT, if there is no objection? Moreover, polls will close earlier, if and when every member has voted before the end of the deadline.
If the motion is adopted, I will act accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 29, 2014 9:52:33 GMT -6
I vote in favor.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on May 29, 2014 10:21:00 GMT -6
I vote favourably.
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on May 29, 2014 10:50:55 GMT -6
Works for me.
|
|
|
Post by Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on Jun 5, 2014 7:20:18 GMT -6
Im intrested!
|
|
|
Post by Sevastáin Pinátsch on Jun 5, 2014 8:58:26 GMT -6
Would the non-partisan provision of the Commissioner of the Civil Service role prevent the applicant from holding political office, or must the person simply demonstrate neutrality in their role as Commissioner?
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Jun 5, 2014 9:07:06 GMT -6
I would ask that persons not belonging to the Civil Service Committee refrain from posting in this thread. Any questions and notifications can be directed towards any member of the Civil Service Committee, I am sure, including me!
The polls will close in about two hours' time.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jun 5, 2014 9:49:35 GMT -6
Relevant law, which presumably applies to the Commissioner (not necessarily, but I expect that's a reasonable expectation!):
1.7.3. All Permanent Secretary positions shall exist within the civil service and shall be non-political appointments which shall be held until lawful dismissal, resignation or incapacitation. An individual may not hold the offices of Seneschal, Distáin, Justice of the Uppermost Cort, Monarch, an Officer of the Royal Household, 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.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Jun 5, 2014 15:31:36 GMT -6
Thank you, S:r Davinescu. Indeed, I would think it wise if this prohibition were extended to the Commissioner.
Furthermore, I note that the motion has been adopted with P:3-A:2-C:0.
I will post the job offer tomorrow, at the latest, on Wittenberg. The application time shall be concluded on the 6th of July, at which time we shall consider the applicants.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jun 10, 2014 20:20:25 GMT -6
I'd just like to publicly thank the head of this committee for doing a great job posting the job application and accepting applicants. It's being handled in a thoroughly professional matter. Well done.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jun 12, 2014 11:34:52 GMT -6
The issue has come up about whether or not subordinate positions and memberships within the Household are something that would exclude the holder. The relevant law in full:
1.7. The Civil Service, headed by the Commissioner of the Civil Service. The function of the Civil Service is to appoint and dismiss Permanent Secretaries within the cabinet ministries as well as other non-political appointees as may be appropriate. (45RZ15) 1.7.1. The Commissioner can appoint permanent secretaries to any ministry based upon their qualifications, willingness to work and taking into consideration the applicant’s performance in prior positions. The commissioner shall remove from office any secretary for professional misconduct, inability to perform ones duties due to incapacitation or failure to perform their required duties. 1.7.2. 1.7.2. Dismissed secretaries shall be entitled to an appeal of their removal. The dismissed party may contest their dismissal by bringing complaint before a Magistrate's Court. The court shall consider if any of the petitioner's rights, afforded by Organic, statutory, or civil law code, have been violated. The court shall have the authority to order reinstatement where appropriate or dismiss the complaint, thus sustaining the dismissal. 1.7.3. All Permanent Secretary positions shall exist within the civil service and shall be non-political appointments which shall be held until lawful dismissal, resignation or incapacitation. An individual may not hold the offices of Seneschal, Distáin, Justice of the Uppermost Cort, Monarch, an Officer of the Royal Household, 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. 1.7.4. Secretaries shall be styled “Honourable” during the course of their tenure. 1.7.5. Secretaries shall serve as the administrative chief of their respective ministries tasked with the day to day operation of the ministry’s work or for any other special role assigned to them while their position is created 1.7.6. Secretaries shall be empowered to appoint and dismiss non-political appointees within their ministry, including the Chiefs of Bureaus, with the approval of the Commissioner of the Civil Service. 1.7.7. Secretaries shall retain their offices through changes of government. 1.7.8. The precise duties, necessary qualifications and expected standards of each secretary shall be drafted by the cabinet minister and approved by a legislative civil service committee, consisting of five Members of the Cosa, appointed by the Túischac'h. The committee must not contain more than two members of a single party. If only two parties are represented in the Cosa, then the maximum number of members from a single party is raised to three. Once approved, these descriptions shall be considered to be part of civil service administrative code. Other portions of the code, including expanded procedures for appointment, dismissal and appeals, shall be approved in a similar manner. 1.7.9. Civil service administrative code can be amended by the Commissioner of Civil Service with the approval of majority vote of the civil service committee. 1.7.10. No portion of the civil service code may run contrary to the Organic or Statutory Law. Nor may any portion of the code restrict an individual or groups rights granted under the law.
As I noted early on, technically the law seems to indicate that the Commissioner personally does not fall under the same restrictions as the secretaries. The restrictions apply to "active appointment to a secretary office," and "secretaries" and "the Commissioner" are treated differently in every other instance. By the letter of the law, the Commissioner could be Seneschal at the same time, as far as I can see.
But we'd decided to hold the Commissioner to the same standard, which makes sense. So, assuming then that we do apply these restrictions, do all subordinate appointments within every Household office count as an "office" of an "Officer of the Royal Household?" Sir Cresti argued not, stating:
I am in whole agreement, and indeed I don't see any other way to read the law. I suggest that we consider only the heads of offices in the Royal Household to be "Officers of the Royal Household," which means membership in the College of Arms, the Bar, and other such appointments would not exclude the applicant from the Civil Service or from the position of Commissioner.
|
|