Revision to County loan program law.

Persuant to the edict by LJS on this matter I believe we can waive the required discussion.

Quote :

I just learn that many counties have laws that doesn't allow people with a criminal record to serve on councils or as mayors. This laws aren't respecting the game rules. People are free to vote for whoever they want.

Condamned people have already paid for their misbehavior. Every laws that gives less rights to people with a criminal record have to be removed.
Thank you.

LJS

Quote :

Art. 4.1.2.: The Clerk is voted into office by a simple majority vote of the duchy council. The candidate must have a clean criminal record for the past 6 months in all English Duchies and Counties.

This needs to be revised to:

Art. 4.1.2.: The Clerk is voted into office by a simple majority vote of the duchy council.

Quote :

Art. 4.2.1.: The county loan program for leveling up is open to any citizen of the duchy that has had no criminal record in the past 6 months in England.

This needs to be repealed.

Yes

yes

[quote=Allikath]

Quote :

Art. 4.2.1.: The county loan program for leveling up is open to any citizen of the duchy that has had no criminal record in the past 6 months in England.

This needs to be repealed.[/quote]

No. It needs to be revised to something like this, for we don't wish to make loans outside the county!

Quote :

Art. 4.2.1.: The county loan program for leveling up is open to any citizen of the duchy.

I cannot vote for the proposal as stated, for it would open up Somerset as bank for all the surrounding counties. That may or may not be a good thing, but it is certainly something which should be debated on its own merits, and not something that should happen because we were incautious in our language.

I therefore vote NO

I don't know if it even needs to be repealed? Is the loan a right? It is something we offer, but it is not a right? The criminal can apply, but we have a right to deny the claim. This is a service not a right.

Good point Greg.

Leave it to Chardonnay to twist everything into a negative and oppose everything she doesn't propose.

I vote no.
It would be fine to change 4.1.2 as suggested to

Art. 4.1.2.: The Clerk is voted into office by a simple majority vote of the Duchy Council.

I believe this law does give citizens of Somerset an additional right, the right to apply for a loan. The Council should be at liberty to deny the loan though not on the grounds of past criminal activity. We don't have a clause to allow denial of the application nor to put any conditions on the loan.

So I'd like to see 4.2.1 become

Art. 4.2.1.: The County Loan Programme for levelling up is open to any citizen committing to reside in the Duchy for the duration of the loan and three months after that. A penalty in the form of interest payable may be incurred if this condition or the terms of the loan are not satisfied by the applicant.

Allikath, i don't know why you're suddenly so hot to paint anything i say as twisting your words. I felt the first portion that you posted was fine, that there were flaws in your thought of repealing that second portion. I pointed out what i thought those flaws were, along with a suggested wording to overcome them. That's a far cry from "twisting everything into a negative" or "opposing everything" i don't propose. To restate my last post in this thread:

Quote :

I concur with the wording:

Art. 4.1.2.: The Clerk is voted into office by a simple majority vote of the duchy council.

I believe that repealing Art. 4.2.1 would be a bad thing, for it would require that we grant loans to citizens of other counties, and instead suggested this wording:

Art. 4.2.1.: The county loan program for leveling up is open to any citizen of the duchy.

Vana, why the penalties? If someone has gotten a loan from the county, and later decides to move to a colony, why worry, as long as they've paid off their loan? And there are already penalties in the law for persons who don't meet the terms of their loans. I don't think we need to add more, and harsher, ones.

I cast my vote "no." I have two concerns:

1) The king's decree dealt with who can run for elected office. His reasoning appears to be that it is up to the people to decide whether a person's criminal conviction is relevant or not, their choice should not be restricted. I don't believe the king's decree says anything about appointed positions, to which this rationale would not apply. I think we should seek clarification from the royal authorities on this before we act. I think it makes sense for a sensitive position like the loan officer to have a clean record, but of course I will defer to the king's judgment on this matter.

2) I don't see how the king's decree applies at all to the eligibility for loans. When the county grants a loan, it is taking on a credit risk that the person will not repay. That risk greatly increases when the applicant has a past criminal conviction. Obviously it depends on the crime, but say the person has defaulted on a previous loan -- would it make sense to loan to them again? Consideration of a loan application is, to my mind, in a totally different category than who can run for elected office. To have a functioning loan program, the county must be allowed to deny loan applications for high-risk individuals.

I had thoughts along those same lines, Garraway, but after reading and re-reading what LJS actually said,

Quote :

Condamned people have already paid for their misbehavior. Every laws that gives less rights to people with a criminal record have to be removed.

That seemed pretty cut and dried to me.

As we have generally agreed the loan program is more of a priviledge then a right what if we vote to remove it from the legal corpus and maintain it ias a program offered by the county like the SAS meat subsidy?

That way we could keep the restrictions pertaining to criminal records and try to ensure the program is not abused.

That, I think, would be doable. We do need to have something for a fourth book; perhaps simply establishing the loan program without specifying how the clerk is chosen, and then moving the rules out of the legal corpus would satisfy that requirement.