54th Cosa, 2nd Clark - February 2019 - Results

[Glüc da Dhi]

Summary

54th Cosâ, Clark #2 results		Amendment?	Ziu	Cosâ				Senäts
Bill	Title		Result	Për	Contrâ	Abstain	Result	Për	Contrâ	Abstain	Result
RZ5	The Valencia Immigration Act	No (double majority needed)	Pass	147	0	0	Pass	6	0	1	Pass
RZ6	The Lexithree Modernisation Act	No (double majority needed)	Pass	147	0	0	Pass	6	1	0	Pass
RZ7	The Fair Warning Act	No (double majority needed)	Fail	62	85	0	Fail	2	4	1	Fail
RZ8	The Lexifore Leeway Act	No (double majority needed)	Pass	137	0	10	Pass	6	1	0	Pass
RZ9	The 54th Cosa Budget	No (double majority needed)	Pass	132	15	0	Pass	6	1	0	Pass
RZ10	The Fixing The Fixing The Judicial Deck Clean-Up Bill	No (double majority needed)	Pass	117	0	30	Pass	6	0	1	Pass
RZ11	The Vth Member of the Uppermost Cort Bill	No (2/3 Cosa needed, Majority Senäts)	Pass	127	0	20	Pass	5	1	1	Pass
RZ12	The When Do We Want It? Now! Act	No (double majority needed)	Pass	125	10	12	Pass	6	0	1	Pass
RZ13	The Talossa is Not Wittenberg Act	No (double majority needed)	Pass	113	34	0	Pass	5	2	0	Pass
VOC	Vote of Confidence		Pass	132	15	N/A	Pass

Cosâ Member Votes

#	Name	Province	Party	Seats	RZ5	RZ6	RZ7	RZ8	RZ9	RZ10	RZ11	RZ12	RZ13	VOC
541	Andy Park	Fiova	AMP	11	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
210	Audrada Rôibeardét	Fiova	NPW	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
208	Breneir Itravilatx	Florencià	AMP	11	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Yes
519	Cresti da Ion Nouacastra-Läxhirescu	Maritiimi-Maxhestic	AMP	12	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Yes
330	Eiric Börnatfiglheu	Benito	NPW	10	Për	Për	Për	Abstain	Contrâ	Abstain	Për	Contrâ	Contrâ	No
254	Éovart Grischun	Vuode	PNP	13	Për	Për	Contrâ	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Yes
298	Iason Taiwos	Benito	NPW	3	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
493	Jordan Placie	Maritiimi-Maxhestic	AMP	12	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
277	Litz Cjantscheir	Cézembre	PNP	12	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Contrâ	Yes
101	Martì-Paír Furxhéir	Atatûrk	FREEDEMS	20	Për	Për	Contrâ	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Yes
114	Miestrâ Schivâ	Fiova	FREEDEMS	20	Për	Për	Contrâ	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Yes
315	Munditenens (Dien) Tresplet	Maricopa	FREEDEMS	12	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Abstain	Contrâ	Yes
61	Mximo Carbonel	Florencià	MTGA	5	Për	Për	Për	Për	Contrâ	Për	Për	Për	Për	No
386	Txec Róibeard dal Nordselva	Maricopa	FREEDEMS	20	Për	Për	Contrâ	Për	Për	Abstain	Abstain	Për	Për	Yes
494	Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu	Maricopa	FREEDEMS	12	Për	Për	Contrâ	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Yes

Number of Cosâ Members : 15

Senator Votes

Province	#	Name	RZ5	RZ6	RZ7	RZ8	RZ9	RZ10	RZ11	RZ12	RZ13
Atatûrk	432	Sevastáin Pinátsch	Abstain	Contrâ	Për	Contrâ	Contrâ	Abstain	Contrâ	Abstain	Contrâ
Cézembre	539	Amada Eleonora Merþedes	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Florencià	525	Açafat del Val	Për	Për	Contrâ	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për
Maricopa	317	Béneditsch Ardpresteir	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Abstain	Për	Për
Maritiimi-Maxhestic	466	Ian Plätschisch	Për	Për	Abstain	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për
Benito	328	Lüc da Schir	Për	Për	Contrâ	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Contrâ
Vuode	187	Viteu Marcianüs	Për	Për	Contrâ	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për
Fiova	96	Gödafrïeu Válcadác'h	Për	Për	Contrâ	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për	Për

The following members did not vote and risk losing their seats if they miss the next vote:
Andy Park
Audrada Rôibeardét
Iason Bitxichë Taiwos
Jordan Placie

Amada Merþedes was not allowed to vote and has now lost her seat, which means the Cézembre senate seat is vacant.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Feb 24, 2020 9:14:02 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

Amada Merþedes was not allowed to vote and has now lost her seat, which means the Cézembre senate seat is vacant.

King John and Amada Merþedes, this is the time to sue if you want to

[King John]

The Secretary of State's interpretation of the OrgLaw is leading him to an absurd conclusion, that a duly-elected Senator who is Organically not permitted to vote yet, has "failed" to vote. He is certainly permitted to state his opinion, even when it contradicts one of the first rules of legal construction, that laws should not be interpreted as having absurd effect. But it is only if the Secretary attempts to prevent the Senator from voting (by, for instance, not accepting or not counting her votes) that he will have done something justiciable.

We could certainly ask the Uppermost Cort for an advisory ruling, but as of now, nobody has done anything illegal. Rash and confusing yes, illegal no. Still, the Cort might be willing to clarify things even without an actual case before them.

The Secretary isn't under my authority; but he is under the Seneschal's authority in the sense that she could remove him at any time. If friendly persuasion fails, that might be something to think about. Meanwhile, I'd advise the Senator to ignore the Secretary's assertion.

Incidentally, I'm the author of the provision in the OrgLaw that's being misinterpreted here; for what it's worth, I can testify that I didn't intend it to have any such perverse effect.

If the Seneschal would like me to address the Cort on this issue, even before anything illegal has been done, I'd be happy to do so.

— John R

[Lüc da Schir]

Can I just say that removing a dutiful and dedicated civil servant, who has merely applied the letter of the law in this and many other instances, is one of the most ill-advised courses of action I could think of. Especially since the Government has already - thankfully - decided to proceed through the Ziu.

Not to beat a dead horse, but incidentally, I suspect the absurdity principle did not apply to your own interpretation of the OrgLaw in the Proclamation Crisis.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

If we were to make a principle of removing Talossan civil servants for doing something absurd and contrary to common sense, then that would have implications for those who are complaining about the decision of the UC in re: "Sebastian Panache". But on the other hand, I fear that honestly none of us would be safe.

I would be interested in seeing the King address the Cort, but I can't make that happen, I suppose he would have to be invited by a UC Justice. Or maybe he could just make a legal speech without the Cort?

I should also note that Amada Merþedes has been very busy with extra-Talossan duties and has barely participated in Talossa over the last month or two. The proper course of action here depends on whether she is prepared to fight the SoS over this.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Feb 27, 2020 14:27:49 GMT -6 King John said:

The Secretary isn't under my authority; but he is under the Seneschal's authority in the sense that she could remove him at any time. If friendly persuasion fails, that might be something to think about

Interesting. I will say that while of course if someone brings up a great argument I hadn't considered I'm always willing to change my mind (maybe not that likely since a pretty extensive discussion has already been held earlier) and while of course I will follow the instructions of the CpI, regardless of whether I agree with them or not, what I won't do is ignore the law as I interpret it out of fear of being fired.


I also object to my actions being described as "rash". Right or wrong, this is and always has been the moment where I announce who has lost their seats. Earlier people were pushing me to tell what I was going to do as soon as possible and were on the verge of getting annoyed by my slow response (I did say in advance, but maybe not as soon as possible).

Meanwhile, I'd advise the Senator to ignore the Secretary's assertion.

That would be very unwise, from both you and the former Senator, because either or both of you also may have a role to play in appointing a succesor, allowing the province of Cézembre to be represented again. A new Sénéchal not having been elected yet makes things somewhat complicated here, so I'm not 100% sure what the best way forward is.

Incidentally, I'm the author of the provision in the OrgLaw that's being misinterpreted here

From what I could find the bill that created the current situation was sponsored by the late Sir Fritz. Are you saying the record is wrong on this or is this a case where the author and the sponsor are not the same person?

[Viteu Marcianüs]

Without stating my position on the issue, the SoS has discretion to act within a reasonable interpretation of the law. If that interpretation is determined wrong, but reasonable, then the SOS acted, IMO, properly. That is to say, a wrong interpretation of the law can still be reasonable. We should encourage reasonableness, and we should also permit the SOS some latitude on how to perform their duties. Removing an SOS for wrongly, but reasonably, interpreting a law, without any final guidance from the Ziu or Organic Law or Corts, for me, would severely hurt Talossa. The State functions and grows positively when we are not drones, but permitted to perform our jobs with the latitude necessary for reasonable disagreement, provided there are channels for remedy and final resolution.

Nothing above indicates my thoughts on the issue, only that I think Glüc, without stating whether I think any interpretation is reasonable, does an excellent job at trying to perform his duties reasonably, even when I have disagreed with him in the past. He's also, generally speaking, really good about raising potential issues or stating how he will perform a duty in advance. I do not get the impression the Seneschal intends to remove him, but I just wanted to publicly state that, from what I can tell, he performs his job timely, to the best of his ability, and within how he understands the Law, the latter of which he tends to explain well beforehand. So maybe some of us could reflect a little bit, consider the full picture, and reconsider advising, implicitly or otherwise, for his removal?