53rd Cosa, 1st Clark - May 2019 - Results

[Glüc da Dhi]

Summary

53th Cosâ, Clark #1 results		Amendment?	Ziu	Cosâ				Senäts
Bill	Title		Result	Për	Contrâ	Abstain	Result	Për	Contrâ	Abstain	Result
RZ1	The Fantastic Fusion of Fiova and Florencia Bill	No (double majority needed)	Pass	164	33	0	Pass	4	1	2	Pass
RZ2	The Civil Service (Commissioner Abolition) Bill	No (double majority needed)	Pass	187	10	0	Pass	7	0	0	Pass
RZ3	The Hopper Needs a Sheriff Bill	No (double majority needed)	Pass	159	30	0	Pass	6	1	0	Pass
RZ4	The Holidays and Observances Amendment Act	No (double majority needed)	Pass	136	48	13	Pass	6	1	0	Pass
RZ5	The Parliamentary Contact Info Accessibility Act	No (double majority needed)	Pass	174	10	13	Pass	6	0	1	Pass
RZ6	The Trapped Dandelions Act	No (double majority needed)	Pass	167	10	20	Pass	6	1	0	Pass
RZ7	Mega-Amendment	Yes (2/3 Cosa needed, 2/3 Senäts)	Fail	48	136	13	Fail	1	6	0	Fail
RZ8	The Witt Moderation Act	No (double majority needed)	Fail	51	146	0	Fail	0	7	0	Fail
RZ9	The Nationalisation of a Peculiar Wittenberg Act	No (double majority needed)	Fail	10	136	51	Fail	0	5	2	Fail
VOC	Vote of Confidence		Pass	159	38	N/A	Pass

Cosâ Member Votes

#	Name	Province	Party	Seats	RZ1	RZ2	RZ3	RZ4	RZ5	RZ6	RZ7	RZ8	RZ9	VOC
182	Alexandreu Davinescu	Maritiimi-Maxhestic	RUMP	8	Për	Për	-	Contrâ	Për	Për	Për	Për	Abstain	No
317	Béneditsch Ardpresteir	Maricopa	RUMP	10	Për	Për	Contrâ	Contrâ	Për	Për	Për	Për	Contrâ	No
256	C. Carlüs Xheraltescù	Fiova	FREEDEMS	16	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Contrâ	Contrâ	Contrâ	Yes
519	Cresti da Ion Nouacastra-Läxhirescu	Maritiimi-Maxhestic	AMP	13	Për	Për	Për	Abstain	Abstain	Për	Abstain	Për	Abstain	Yes
330	Eiric Börnatfiglheu	Benito	FREEDEMS	17	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Contrâ	Contrâ	Contrâ	Yes
254	Éovart Grischun	Vuode	RUMP	10	Për	Për	Contrâ	Contrâ	Për	Për	Për	Contrâ	Contrâ	No
282	Eovart Xhorxh	Maricopa	RUMP	10	Contrâ	Contrâ	Contrâ	Contrâ	Contrâ	Contrâ	Për	Për	Për	Yes
412	Erschéveþ (Ely) da Schir	Benito	MODRADS	20	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Contrâ	Contrâ	Abstain	Yes
538	Gödafrïeu Airignha	Vuode	MODRADS	3	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
174	Ián da Bitoûr	Cézembre	RUMP	10	Contrâ	Për	Për	Contrâ	Për	Për	Për	Për	Abstain	No
493	Jordan Placie	Maritiimi-Maxhestic	AMP	13	Contrâ	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Contrâ	Contrâ	Contrâ	Yes
101	Martì-Paír Furxhéir	Atatûrk	FREEDEMS	16	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Contrâ	Contrâ	Contrâ	Yes
114	Miestrâ Schivâ	Fiova	FREEDEMS	20	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Contrâ	Contrâ	Contrâ	Yes
315	Munditenens (Dien) Tresplet	Maricopa	FREEDEMS	20	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Abstain	Contrâ	Contrâ	Contrâ	Yes
494	Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu	Maricopa	AMP	14	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Contrâ	Contrâ	Contrâ	Yes

Number of Cosâ Members : 15

Senator Votes

Province	#	Name	RZ1	RZ2	RZ3	RZ4	RZ5	RZ6	RZ7	RZ8	RZ9
Atatûrk	432	Sevastáin Pinátsch	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Contrâ	Contrâ	Contrâ
Cézembre	527	Thor Deyaert	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Contrâ	Contrâ	Contrâ
Florencià	63	Ieremiac'h Ventrutx	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Maricopa	140	Cresti Matáiwos Siervicül	Contrâ	Për	Contrâ	Contrâ	Abstain	Contrâ	Për	Contrâ	Contrâ
Maritiimi-Maxhestic	466	Ian Plätschisch	Abstain	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Contrâ	Contrâ	Contrâ
Benito	328	Lüc da Schir	Abstain	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Contrâ	Contrâ	Abstain
Vuode	187	Viteu Marcianüs	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Contrâ	Contrâ	Abstain
Fiova	96	Gödafrïeu Válcadác'h	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Contrâ	Contrâ	Contrâ

The following members did not vote and risk losing their seats if they miss the next vote:
Gödafrïeu Airignha (MC, MODRADS)
Ieremiac'h Ventrutx (Senator, Florencia)

[King John]

With respect to 53RZ2, I have a serious concern with paragraph 3.1, which reads "The Secretary of State is appointed by the King on the recommendation of the Seneschál, and removed by the King on the recommendation of the Seneschál, the Túischac’h or the Mençei for professional misconduct, inability to perform their duties due to incapacitation or failure to perform their required duties."

I can easily picture a situation in which a Mençei and Seneschal cannot agree on the appointment of a Secretary of State, and start going around in circles with the Seneschal recommending a candidate (and the King necessarily appointing him), then the Mencei alleging his inability (and the King necessarily dismissing him), and so on and so on. This would be ugly and frustrating, and impede the work of the government. I think we should allow the Seneschal and nobody else to dismiss a Secretary of State, and not require any allegation of misconduct, disability, or nonfeasance to do so.

That said, I will not veto the Bill. I will strongly recommend that this clause be fixed by a further Bill, either by giving the Seneschal full power to recommend appointment and dismissal of the Secretary, or by permitting the King the discretion not to dismiss a Secretary of State when the Mencei or Tuischac’h recommends dismissal.

El Regeu niac'hatnéumint en volt,

— John R

[King John]

With respect to 53RZ4, I cannot see how this comports with the Crown's Organic "right to declare national holidays". I have no objection to the changes proposed and approved here, but the Ziu simply has no power to enact this law.

So the Crown, happy as always to have the advice of the Ziu, will gladly make the proposed changes by Royal Proclamation. Perhaps not today, but soonish.

Ça el Regeu non piaça.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

May 22, 2019 9:51:38 GMT -6 King John said:

With respect to 53RZ4, I cannot see how this comports with the Crown's Organic "right to declare national holidays". I have no objection to the changes proposed and approved here, but the Ziu simply has no power to enact this law.

So the Crown, happy as always to have the advice of the Ziu, will gladly make the proposed changes by Royal Proclamation. Perhaps not today, but soonish.

Ça el Regeu non piaça.

If I can urge reconsideration of this: the bill in question explicitly discusses the holidays "recognised and observed by the government," which probably falls under the Ziu's ennumerated power to regulate cultural events. I think it is pretty reasonable to assume that the Ziu can dictate how holidays are treated, even if they cannot declare new ones nor abolish them. There is also enormous precedent here. One of the oldest laws on record is the one declaring the official list of holidays, and that was sponsored by a former sovereigh: wiki.talossa.com/The_Official_Holidays_Act

If we were to adopt your interpretation, then there are basically no holidays at all, unless I am mistaken. Maybe Reunision Day, since that's the only one of which I am aware of a royal declaration.

[Viteu Marcianüs]

May 22, 2019 9:36:19 GMT -6 King John said:

With respect to 53RZ2, I have a serious concern with paragraph 3.1, which reads "The Secretary of State is appointed by the King on the recommendation of the Seneschál, and removed by the King on the recommendation of the Seneschál, the Túischac’h or the Mençei for professional misconduct, inability to perform their duties due to incapacitation or failure to perform their required duties."

I can easily picture a situation in which a Mençei and Seneschal cannot agree on the appointment of a Secretary of State, and start going around in circles with the Seneschal recommending a candidate (and the King necessarily appointing him), then the Mencei alleging his inability (and the King necessarily dismissing him), and so on and so on. This would be ugly and frustrating, and impede the work of the government. I think we should allow the Seneschal and nobody else to dismiss a Secretary of State, and not require any allegation of misconduct, disability, or nonfeasance to do so.

That said, I will not veto the Bill. I will strongly recommend that this clause be fixed by a further Bill, either by giving the Seneschal full power to recommend appointment and dismissal of the Secretary, or by permitting the King the discretion not to dismiss a Secretary of State when the Mencei or Tuischac’h recommends dismissal.

El Regeu niac'hatnéumint en volt,

— John R

I partially agree with John here. Such a scenario that he describes requires the monarch to agree with the Mencei.  Does this bill not provide for the requisite discretion of the monarch to decline to dismiss? I would hope that a Senechal recommends someone appropriate for the position that wouldn't warrant an immediate allegation of some type of misconduct or other reason for removal.  I can see an instance where a person who is qualified suddenly does something that would disqualify them. Even if that did happen, I would hope the monarch would decline to appoint or the Senechal would withdraw the nomination. In a sense, I think John's scenario a bit remote but plausible and warrants some discussion.  Perhaps we should accept his invitation to clarify the Monarch's discretion. 

I partially disagree with John here. I do think some type of allegation of misconduct should be given.  If we do not require a reason given, then it would forestall the ability of the citizens to recognize an overtly political dismissal. That's not to say that there would not be circumstantial evidence of same, but requiring a reason provides additional information for Talossan to make a judgment call.  On the other hand, these are very broad and subjective reasons. It would help if we defined them (or, as I've said elsewhere, perhaps we can start including some type of legislative intent in bills (not published to el Lex but provided in a separate wiki entry) for guidance if these questions arose). 

[King John]

With respect to 53RZ5, I draw the Ziu's attention to the clause, "8.7.1.4. Each presiding officer may not share the information with anyone not entitled to the information." We seem to be establishing, by statute, a sort of "classified information" — an exception to the Organic protection of free speech — but the only exception recognized in the OrgLaw is libel ("every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the libelous abuse of that right"). I'm not sure this is wrong, or even inOrganic, but it has something of that flavour to it. Perhaps this should say something like "The presiding officer shall promise not to share the information ..." Before deciding what to do here, I welcome input.

— John R

[King John]

With respect to 53RZ6, this, if we want to do it, will have to be done by Organic Amendment. The children in question are Talossan citizens (Article XVIII, section 7: "Children born after 1 January 1989/X, one (or both) of whose biological or adoptive parents is a Talossan citizen at the time of the birth, are native-born Talossan citizens"), and the 12th Covenant says: "Talossan citizenship can only be lost by a citizen's voluntary renunciation of citizenship, or as punishment for a crime determined by the Uppermost Cort, or as a result of relevant electoral or census law", none of which conditions applies here.

Ça el Regeu non piaça.

[King John]

With respect to 53RZ3,

El Regeu en volt.

— John R

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

May 22, 2019 9:51:38 GMT -6 King John said:

With respect to 53RZ4, I cannot see how this comports with the Crown's Organic "right to declare national holidays".

Can you be more specific, sir, about what "this" you're referring to? If "this" is the entire bill, does this mean that you were wrong to assent to - to give just one example - 41RZ6, and you now believe that Law - and indeed, the entirety of El Lexhátx F.2-F.4, to be inorganic? If so, I think we're going to have to take this to Cort to get it sorted out.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

May 22, 2019 9:36:19 GMT -6 King John said:

I think we should allow the Seneschal and nobody else to dismiss a Secretary of State, and not require any allegation of misconduct, disability, or nonfeasance to do so.

With respect, Sir, when the Civil Service law was being drafted there was a lot of opposition to the Seneschál and their government being allowed to exercise any check or oversight role over the Chancery/SoS at all. The argument was that it was creeping republicanism (!!!) to have the independent Chancery subject to any kind of oversight from the elected government; that the SoS was in fact the servant of the Ziu. Thus, I suggested as a compromise that the leaders of the Ziu (the Túischac'h and the Mençéi) should perform the oversight role, and that would be accepted.

I am not minded to carry out this amendment without a further and full public debate over which elected official or body is best to carry out an oversight role on the Secretary of State.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

May 22, 2019 11:10:27 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

If I can urge reconsideration of this: the bill in question explicitly discusses the holidays "recognised and observed by the government," which probably falls under the Ziu's ennumerated power to regulate cultural events.

Nowhere in OrgLaw III.2 that I can see does it say that the King has the sole right to declare public holidays, only the right to do so unilaterally if he so chooses. But if the Ziu passes a law on holidays and the King assents to it, surely the King has still "declared" the holiday.

The uncharitable might think this is a re-occurrence of the Proclamation Crisis - that the King is attempting to test the limits of his power to thwart the Ziu under the Organic Law, and is happy to toss aside settled Talossan tradition to do so, and has chosen a "harmless bill" to make his stand on. To do this while a new Organic Law is being drafted seems... ill-advised.

[King John]

OK, a bunch of smallish points. The Official Holidays Act, 6RC15, predates the OrgLaw. I believe I did err in assenting to 41RZ6. I'm not trying to test anything here, but rather to be careful to do things correctly. (For instance, I'd have no problem at all with a resolution of the Ziu requesting that I declare or suppress a holiday; and I'd almost certainly comply, unless there were something seriously objectionable about it.) I vetoed a bill once, many years ago, on exactly this ground, that it was attempting to establish a national holiday by statute. I'm not sure this grab bag of mixed-up examples constitute "settled Talossan tradition". I respectfully disagree with the Seneschal's idea that if the OrgLaw gives one person or body "the right" to do something, that others can do it too. And I'm very glad we have no uncharitable people among us.

— John R

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

May 22, 2019 16:12:58 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

May 22, 2019 11:10:27 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

If I can urge reconsideration of this: the bill in question explicitly discusses the holidays "recognised and observed by the government," which probably falls under the Ziu's ennumerated power to regulate cultural events.

Nowhere in OrgLaw III.2 that I can see does it say that the King has the sole right to declare public holidays, only the right to do so unilaterally if he so chooses. But if the Ziu passes a law on holidays and the King assents to it, surely the King has still "declared" the holiday.

While I disagree with the king, this isn't quite how I'd characterize it. All legislation must go before the king, but it doesn't mean that all legislation are royal proclamations. We're talking about two separate functions. Further, the Ziu only has ennumerated rights -- there is a single, concrete list about what the Ziu is permitted to do. However, I do think that there is a ton of precedent about this that disagrees with the king.

May 22, 2019 17:43:40 GMT -6 King John said:

I'm not sure this grab bag of mixed-up examples constitute "settled Talossan tradition".

The list of laws that were passed by the Ziu and endorsed by a monarch is very long, and an incomplete list would include 16RC28, 41RZ6, 20RC35, 20RC34, 13RC25, 25RZ67, 34RZ1, 37PD1, 40RZ7, 41RZ1, and 48RZ13. Three or four of these bills bear the endorsement of the House of Lupul. The holidays created by these bills constitute almost all of our holidays.

And I would again press the issue that, even if the above might have passed a bar that has now been raised, the current bill under consideration explicitly describes government treatment of existing holidays, rather than creating any new ones.

May 22, 2019 16:12:58 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

The uncharitable might think this is a re-occurrence of the Proclamation Crisis - that the King is attempting to test the limits of his power to thwart the Ziu under the Organic Law, and is happy to toss aside settled Talossan tradition to do so, and has chosen a "harmless bill" to make his stand on. To do this while a new Organic Law is being drafted seems... ill-advised.

This is a bit silly, I think. Not every legal disagreement is a clash of civilizations. We just disagree about this and we're discussing it.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

May 22, 2019 17:43:40 GMT -6 King John said:

I believe I did err in assenting to 41RZ6.

Then I believe we have a ready-made case to take to the CpI to sort this out, and I look forward to seeing documents from Attorney-General Viteu Marcianüs at his earliest convenience.

Parenthetically, I'm on the record as saying that I am very opposed to the Royal Assent being used to stop legislation that the King considers might be inOrganic. This makes the King a de facto court of first instance on issues of Organicity, and - the RUMP leader might be interested in this one - a Court in which decisions can be handed down unopposed, with no arguments, not on the basis of preponderance of evidence, but on the basis of "I've got a bad feeling about this". I would much prefer that this be replaced with the following power of the head of state of Ireland:

The president may refer a bill, in whole or part, to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality. If the Supreme Court finds any referred part unconstitutional, the entire bill falls. This power may not be applied to a money bill, a bill to amend the Constitution, or an urgent bill the time for the consideration of which has been abridged in the Senate.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

The king can veto things on any basis, so actually this one probably can't go to cort yet. What is the damage that's been done to the Ziu interests? The king may veto bills on any basis... we don't have to agree with his reasoning. There's no basis for a suit.

The way this would go to cort would be that it gets passed again over the royal veto, and then the throne would need to bring suit for the Ziu's encroachment of what His Majesty considers to be exclusive holiday-related powers.

The basic idea, D:na Seneschal, is that you can't bring a suit just because you don't like something that someone did or because you think they had a bad reason. You can bring a suit because they broke the law or because you or yours suffered damages.

I hope His Majesty comes around on this one. I can see both sides of the issue, and I agree with other actions (like the Dandelion bill veto, that was a good catch!), but this one seems pretty solidly to be a good law on firm ground of precedent.