The April 2016 Clark

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

The April 2016 Clark is now here:




www.talossa.ca/files/clark.php?cosa=49&clark=1


Or here: www.talossa.ca/files/print_clark.php (this is the printer friendly version)


In PDF form (which was made from the print_clark.php page):



www.talossa.ca/files/clarks/April2016Clark.pdf



or can vote online here: www.talossa.ca/files/clark_vote.php



Or in this thread, until the 21st of the month, at 19h30 TST.


Senators are allowed to create a single thread in the Senate chamber to post all of the Senate Votes that are not cast in this thread. Any votes not posted either using the form above, the current thread or the Senate thread might be ignored and void. Please do not vote by email or private messages.


When you vote, do not indicate any conditions which may make it sound like this vote isn't final: you can always change your vote later.

All nominated Cosa Members and Senators have been emailed.

[Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h]

49RZ1 Për
49RZ2 Për
49RZ3 Contrâ

VOC: Non

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

I never received the Clark via email.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Neither did Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h, apparently. MPF, what's the status?

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Apr 2, 2016 20:52:29 GMT -6 Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă said:

I never received the Clark via email.

Wait, I do not see you as a member of the Ziu... let me check my mistake.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

I added Txec to the Ziu, and re-emailed the Clark to everyone who didn't vote yet, inluding G.V. Hopefully, G.V. got it this time.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Apr 3, 2016 3:27:22 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

Apr 2, 2016 20:52:29 GMT -6 Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă said:

I never received the Clark via email.

Wait, I do not see you as a member of the Ziu... let me check my mistake.

Well, now that you've added me as an MC, I've received the Clark via email.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

As to RZ1, "The Website Responsibility Bill," I vote per. It's a good bill that clarifies one aspect of the Scribery's responsibilities. And by the way, let me also again commend the new Scribe on his excellent work! He's going through the laws that weren't added and updating el Lexhatx, and he's doing a great job of it from what I have seen.

As to RZ2, "The Members of the Chancery Fix," I vote per. It's a simple language fix that doesn't change the intended meaning, only fixes it.

As to RZ3, "The Election Timing Amendment," I vote per. This should be uncontroversial and easy.

As to the Vote of Confidence, I am happy to be able to vote a confident Üc. It's great to be part of an active government, and it's great to be able to get in there and get things done for the people of Talossa. We're already accomplishing things -- the immigration form is now fixed, and forwarding official addresses all now work (like [e-mail]). We have a lot more planned, and I have every confidence in this government's ability to perform its statutory duties and get things moving for Talossa.

[Davíu Lundescu]

I wish to vote for this Clark as the following:

49RZ1: Per

49RZ2: Per

49RZ3: Per

VoC: Üc

[Óïn Ursüm]

49RZ1 Për
49RZ2 Për
49RZ3 Contrâ

VoC: Non

[Ian Plätschisch]

RZ1: PËR

RZ2: PËR

RZ3: PËR (It's not attacking the RCOR when I am on the RCOR)

VoC: ÜC

[Erschéveþ da Schir]

49RZ1 - Per
49RZ2 - Per
49RZ3 - Aus
VoC - Uc

[Glüc da Dhi]

RZ1: PER

RZ2: PER

RZ3: PER
So essentially I have seen two arguments against this bill.
First, that it would be offensive to the RCOR. I note that only a minority of RCOR members have voiced concern about this. I also thought the RCOR was a means to an end, namely to agree on important orglaw reform. But now the ROOR seems to have turned in to an end in itself, while its used as an argument against important orglaw reforms. This argument is based on power politics, not on substance. There is a whole new party with a substantial amount of seats here that's not represented in the commission. Are we going to tell them to vote against amendments they support, because a past Cosa in which they were not represented decided to create a commission they are not in? I'm not in the commission either, and I see it as my job to vote for legislation I support, so that's what I'm going to do.

Secondly, some have suggested it would be a bad idea, because it would let the King get away with not doing his job. That's not what happens however. There is no mechanism to punish the King. It is the people who currently get punished by the King not getting his job. I guess the reasoning here is that because of that the people will get angry and as a result become republicans or something like that? I would be fine with an amendment that introduces consequences for the King not doing his job, but these should be for him, not for the rest of us, like they are now.

The current orglaw has allowed the King to postpone the elections. This is not a power the King should have. This bill takes that power away from the King.

VoC - ÜC I'm very happy with the current government. The new PM is well respected by people from both sides I think. A lot seems to be happening already. My compliments to the government for that. There is a broad three party coalition supporting this government, a coalition that has also agreed to support real electoral reforms and real monarchy reform, which I also think would help Talossa forward. Let's hope that we can create a Talossa that's more active and more positive. (Of course, it would help a great deal if the King would be willing to contribute to that as well, which sadly does not seem to be happening, but it would be silly to blame the current government for that.)

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

RZ1: Për

RZ2: Për

RZ3: Aus

[Martì Vataldestreça]

I don't have a login for the TDS (although I requested one a few days ago), so I'll vote here on this occasion.

RZ1: Për

RZ2: Për

RZ3: Aus (the advantages of one over the other are not clear to me).

VOC: Üc

(This is my hundredth post, by the way).