[SENATOR] 48th Cosă, Fifth Clark. Discussion

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Wow, is it already the fifth Clark?! Crazy, how time flies us by. Crap my exams!

Anyway, let's tend to business.

Find the Clark here, please. Find my opinions hereunder:

RZ21:
About relinquishing the closure of provinces. I am in favour.

RZ22:
Changing a little mistake about the way a Scribe can change errors in a Clarked bill. I am in favour.

RZ23:
Introducing (semi-)mandatory list of Cosămembers, which is what most other countries already do. I am in favour.

RZ24:
Telecomuna, and something. No idea about that, any ideas yourself? I mean, the abeyance seems to make sense, since the Lexhatx says that the Title with the Telecomuna goes into effect not before August 2015, which has already passed us.

RZ25:
How did I miss this in the Hopper? The changes seem very sensible, and it is a good job of decluttering. I am in favour.

RZ26:
As much as I hate that the Magistracy is gone, it makes no sense to keep referring to it in the Lexhatx. I am protestingly in favour.

RZ27:
Seems an interesting proposal. I will remain being open-minded, until I hear your thoughts about this.

RZ28:
Do we need this? I will not stand in its way if we do, but I specifically do not understand the second sentence in the THEREFORE-part.

---

Alright, as y'all know, you have until Friday the 13^th of this month to give an initial reply, or to contact me with your thoughts and concerns about this month's clark.
As always, you can contact me via twitter @epicdalhiun, or via PM on Witt, or on this thread.

May the best win! I look forward to hearing from you!

— Sen. da Lhiun

[Ian Plätschisch]

On RZ21-RZ26, I am wholeheartedly per

On RZ27, It sounds like a good idea, but I don't really know enough about finances to make a judgment.

On RZ28, I share your opinion. I don't really know how useful or necessary it is, but then again, it seems like MPF would be more than happy to make the necessary changes himself given permission. I don't really care one way or the other, so I suppose per because I generally dislike needless obstructionism.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

On 27, I'm the sponsor, but let me say here that we're talking about small amounts of money, and there's really no danger from letting this go forward and giving new parties a chance. We want some barrier to entry for parties, so people don't get frivolous with it, but $20 just seems excessive. $10 still makes people take it seriously, and we get a chance to make up the difference with stamps, merchandise, and donations. That latter bit is also important: for years now, the Government has been sitting on our stock of stamps -- hundreds of dollars worth! -- and this may nudge them to get off their butts and at least make them available to be sold.

[M.T. Patritz da Biondeu]

RZ21:
Per. This is a great way to make sure people are treated fairly with their placement.

RZ22:
Per. I'd love to start correcting these small errors.

RZ23:
I am undecided. I can see the good and bad in this bill.

RZ24:
Per. We need to stop leaving things 'in progress'. Let's get it done, or undo it.

RZ25:
Per. This would help streamline the code and make it easier for everyone.

RZ26:
Per. Defunct parts of the law should be removed.

RZ27:
Against. Party registrations are our primary source of income unless someone is prepared to do a massive coin and stamp sale. I don't see this bill bringing in a strong fundraiser as proposed. I also feel that if someone wants to be a component in the legislation - $20.00 isn't a big deal. Especially if we start toying with the idea of a smaller cosa.

RZ28:
Against. Re-writing history on a few technicalities doesn't seem fair. It almost seems as if the writer of the bill is trying to strike records from history in order to bolster his own grandeur. I don't know... it feels egotistical versus an actual need of the Kingdom.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

We're talking about $40 total when it comes to the funding changes of RZ27, and we really should be bringing in that much in seven months with coins, stamps, and fundraising. That's like... one or two donations, a few stamp sales, or whatever. And more importantly: that fundraising that was put into law is not being done, and coins aren't being done, and stamps aren't being sold. This is a gentle nudge to encourage at least one or two of those things to be done.

If we're talking about financial responsibility, it is downright irresponsible to have these alternate revenue sources and do nothing with them, right?

[M.T. Patritz da Biondeu]

This sounds like a problem that should be resolved via the Minister of Finance; not by changing a law because someone isn't doing their job.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

If we weren't in the third term straight with these problems, I'd agree. This change is good for democratic participation, good for encouraging responsible financial decisions from the Government, and good for promoting Talossa.

[M.T. Patritz da Biondeu]

I disagree on this execution of this desired change. It just creates more bureaucracy and another position for someone to fail at. I am for holding the individuals accountable for the current failures versus making new laws in order to circumvent the failures.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

What bureaucracy? I'm not sure what you mean... although I do agree with holding the Government accountable!

[M.T. Patritz da Biondeu]

Additional bureaucracy:

2.1.10. The Seneschal, or his appointed deputy, shall take such actions as might be necessary to create, manage, and promote a voluntary fundraising campaign to the citizens of Talossa and other interested parties each year. The targeted amount for this campaign shall be the amount given in D.2.1.5.4. Unless otherwise authorized by the Ziu, the fundraising campaign will be concluded in a given term once that targeted amount is reached. Unless otherwise authorized by the Ziu, no more than one fundraising campaign per term will be conducted. The Seneschal may, if he so chooses, count the proceeds from any seigniorage, sales of stamps, contributions from official Supporters of Talossa, or other moneymaking schemes up to and including exciting business opportunities from former Nigerian government officials.


I still think we should just vote this act down, and fix the problem we have - versus making additional offices/positions/responsibilities on existing positions because someone is slacking.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

But the fundraising stuff is already in the law... it's not new. It's just not being done, so we're providing guidance as to how it should be done. We're not putting in new offices or structure.

How else could we fix this?

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Nov 4, 2015 7:23:55 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

How else could we fix this?

At the ballot box!

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I guess if this gets rejected, that will be the best recourse.

[M.T. Patritz da Biondeu]

It's honestly not my vote. If the province feels strongly for the bill - then so be it. However, I will attempt to get answers from the Minister and try to get some action or replacement.