Your changes in the rules may well have some merit, Tzaracomprada. Unfortunately, you accompanied them with an implication that the Secretary of State abused his power. Inasmuch as I can see, all he did was express an opinion about a political matter... and it had absolutely nothing to do with his job.
Because I think your behavior was unbecoming to a gentleman and a member of the Ziu, I will be voting against every Progressive Party bill now and in the future until either the PP or you apologize to a public servant who has behaved in an irreproachably correct manner from the start of his time in office. Every bill sponsored or co-sponsored by the Progressive Party will be anathema in my eyes until such a time as this party makes amends for this slander. If a member of the PP wishes to do so on Tzaracomprada's behalf, that will of course be immediately accepted.
All right, this has gone on long enough.
Alex, are you serious? You'll vote against every PP bill because of this? Please.
To begin with, the PP party never "slandered" anyone. No party statement was ever issued. What happened was that in the course of a "Questions to the Executive" (who has yet to personally respond, by the way, and has opted to answer said questions through other individuals), a respected member of our party pointed out a very interesting point. That is that the Secretary of State, an apolitical position, was taking a political stance WITHIN THE CHAMBERS OF THE ZIU.
Nobody has accused Capt. Mick of misconduct. Were any unfounded accusations made toward a man I respect and count among my friends, I would take swift action against said party member. This, however, falls into the broad category of political opinions and discourse. While nobody has accused Capt. Mick of misconduct (and no one has "slandered this public servant") an interesting point has been brought up.
What if, somewhere down the line, an SoS DID allow their political views to interfere with their non-political position? We do not allow UC Justices to hold legislative seats because we aim to uphold that fragile balance of power. Yet, the individual who tallies the legislative votes can be a legislator themselves.
So, as I see it, this is a matter of discussion now. Not a discussion of Capt. Mick, past, present or future. This is a discussion about the post of Secretary of State and what, if any, changes need to be made to it in order to preserve that balance of power and preserve our system of checks and balances.
As I see it, there are two schools of thought on the matter. One being that the Secretary of State is apolitical just like a UC Justice and we need to prevent that individual from being an MC or Senator.
The other side of the coin is that the position itself is apolitical in that it sets no policy, but that significant checks and balances are in place to prevent any abuse by partisan views. The votes are tallied publicly, anyone can (and people frequently do) notify the SoS or the Deputy SoS with corrections because they are inserted in the table erroneously.
I would view a proposal from either camp with an open mind, and I am certain that the PP will be discussing the matter in great depth in the party hopper for some time. Naturally, that doesn't mean we wish to shut out the opinions of our fellow citizens. The more input on the matter, the better.
This conversation has taken a particular slant toward the nasty, and I have to say, I am quite surprised that Senator Davis, long the voice of reason here was one of the individuals to make inflammatory statements that seem to have fanned the fires.
Somehow, everyone here forgot that it is possible to critique a position without critiquing the individual who holds that position.
Somehow, Senator Davis forgot that just because someone proposes a change, does not mean that a personal attack is being launched.
To say that you will vote against any bill with a PP sponsor on it because you disagree with this particular discussion, a statement which aided quite a bit in escalating this talk from discourse to argument, is neither professional nor appropriate.
What you have basically said is that if a bill has a PP sponsor, you will vote against it. It doesn't matter what the bill is. You will not review the legislation. You will not weight its merits. You will not, in fact, listen to your constituents to determine if this is something they support. By sheer virtue of it being a PP proposed piece of legislation, you will vote against it.
I have seen in many instances individuals attempting to assert that they mean no disrespect to Capt. Mick in criticizing the vague boundaries of the SoS's authority. And Mick, let me say, that I and everyone I know hold you in the most sincerest respect. I count you among my friends and it is a privilege to work with you as Deputy Secretary of State. I hope that you take no personal offense to any of this discussion. Something I will PM you on after I am done posting this to discuss further.
However, the members of the PP are progressives. And progressives look for areas of our government that need improvement. Not "change for the sake of change" but change that will ensure our dandelions never face the sort of oppression that Talossans once endured. Changes not meant to punish Capt. Mick, but changes to stop the activities of a future, perhaps yet to be born SoS.
We need to keep things civil, and we need to keep things professional. We can propose, we can debate and we can discuss. We should not be threatening, we should not be insulting and we absolutely should not be withholding votes.
I will say that this discussion has digressed far enough. We are no longer ever discussing Questions to the Exec.
Members of the PP, this discussion may not be over, however, it may require a bit of a cool down, as it was a particularly hot debate. Those who wish to propose legislation, I would encourage you to utilize the PP Hopper to draft your basic legislation and get the feedback of your fellow progressives, and afterward, take it to the Kingdom's hopper for further discussion. Otherwise, I fear this thread may now be taking a dreadful turn, I encourage all involved to step back from it and return to it at a later date.
T.M. Asmourescu
P.P. Chairman
