The Men in Black Act

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

The Men in Black Act

WHEREAS 34RZ21 (The Burgermeister of Inland Revenue Act) creates a position called "The Burgermeister of Inland Revenue" who is supposed to make and maintain a Talossan bank account, and

WHEREAS there has definitely been money going into said account from political parties and interest accumulating, and

WHEREAS it would probably be good to know how much money was actually in that account, and

WHEREAS it is especially necessary to know how much money is in that account due to the fact that we want to try to mint some coins relatively soon, and

WHEREAS we should also know how we'd like to spend this money, and

WHEREAS the Newer Numismatic Naming Act (36RZ2) calls for the MiniFinn to give a sort of speech like this, and

WHEREAS this means a budget should be drawn up every Cosa, and

THEREFORE be it enacted by the Ziu that:

1. The Office of the Burgermeister Revisted. The Burgermeister of Inland Revenue must issue a financial report to be presented to the Ziu exactly one week after the Cosa assembles detailing the amount of money in the treasury and the amount of interest collected.

2. The Minister of Finance's Speech on the State of Our Monies. The Minister of Finance, must, within a week of the Burgermeister's report, deliver a speech incorporating the following elements:

• How much money there is to spend.
  
• How this money should be invested.
  
• The rate of exchange for our currency and stamps.
  

3. The Prime Minister's Budget. Before the second clark (after the Burgermeister and Minister of Finance have submitted their reports) of every Cosa session, the Prime Minister must draft a budget to be presented to the Ziu. The budget must cover all expenses that may come up.

4. Emergency Spending. If a project should go over budget, the Prime Minister may issue a PD to provide emergency spending.

5. Ziu Counters Emergency Spending. Should the Ziu disagree with the Prime Minister's emergency spending PD, they may, in the next clark pass a bill saying that they disagree, and this will lead to the money that was to be spent for that over budget project being returned to the treasury. If the money has already been spent, then the Prime Minister is responsible for getting a refund and getting that money back into the treasury.

Uréu q'estadra sa:
Alexandreu Gavárþic'h (LRT-Vuode)
Mha la Mha, Baron Hooligan (RUMP-Florencia)

[EM Vürinalt]

There's not much to say to this. It makes complete sense from a logistical standpoint and would make the finances (however small they may be) of this nation much more managable.

I think the official song of this office should be the Pink Floyd classic- Money.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

This bill is going to be rather hard to discuss in current form. Could the sponsor perhaps reorganize it, so that the substantive parts are in one section and numbered or labeled in a sequential form?

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Btw-

Dreu, I got $100 (American) for the last General Election.
I didn't spend any of it on my out of pocket expenses to run the Election.

I'll send it ti Al Simmerman, as soon as he is willing and able to receive it.

There is no need to pass an Act of the Ziu to get me to turn over the cash. I'm not hiding it, I'm not denying it, and I'm not spending it on Lawyers, Guns, Booze or Babes.

I also imagine that by the time this Bill winds it way from out of the Hopper, into the Clark, and into Law, it will be a moot point anyway.

But thanks for deciding I'm not trustworthy enough to hold the Monies until Al asks me for it -so much so that you had to publicly demand I do so.

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

Senator Davis,

I'm a bit confused as to you request. Could you be more specific? Which are the 'sustantive parts'?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

This is another good point. Mick was holding it out of goodwill to help out the country. This part of the bill should be immediately removed.

EDIT: "Substantive parts" are those parts of the bill with legal effect. This would ordinarily be simply described as those parts which follow the "therefore", but your bill is so structured so as those are in two sections.

It's just not a very well-written bill, I guess is what I am saying.

[Flip Molinar]

Once that is done I will have no problem supporting this act.

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

mick said:

Btw-

Dreu, I got $100 (American) for the last General Election.
I didn't spend any of it on my out of pocket expenses to run the Election.

I'll send it ti Al Simmerman, as soon as he is willing and able to receive it.

There is no need to pass an Act of the Ziu to get me to turn over the cash. I'm not hiding it, I'm not denying it, and I'm not spending it on Lawyers, Guns, Booze or Babes.

I also imagine that by the time this Billwinds it way from out of the Hopper, into the Clark, and into Law, it will be a moot point anyway.

But thanks for deciding I'm not trustworthy enough to hold the Monies until Al asks me for it -so much so that you had to publicly demand I do so.

Mick! I meant no disrespect at all! I'm sorry you took it that way!

I meant in no disrespect and I'm extremely distressed that you have seen it in this light!

I will take that right out of the bill.

The reason it was in there was simply because I believed that the King had decided to direct all registration fees to you from now on*. Obviously I see my error.

*not that there would be anything wrong with that. It is just simply not your job. If anything I was trying to lighten your workload!

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Fair enough. No harm, no foul.

Might I suggest that before you "believe" something to be true, you double check to make sure it is true?

Fact checking is a wondrous thing.

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

mick said:

Fair enough. No harm, no foul.

Might I suggest that before you "believe" something to be true, you double check to make sure it is true?

Fact checking is a wondrous thing.

I feel really bad now . I'm really sorry about this!

AD: The whole bit about the "Therefore's" not being together is now moot right?

[Hooligan]

We do indeed have a situation where the Royal Treasurer (Burgermeister of Inland Revenue) has been in a bind and not able to devote himself to the King's business. The government, as you know, has been collecting funds not only from the sales of merchandise (and very soon from the sales of coinage and postage) but also for the sponsorship of the X Prize Lunar Lander, and the Minister of Stuff has been empowered by the government to hold the funds until the Royal Treasury is able to receive it.

It has been my hope since taking office as Seneschal that the Burgermeister would be an active officer who would invest funds delivered to him from the government in interest or dividend-bearing accounts as directed by the Minister of Finance, who sets the investment and economic policy of our nation.

This bill (and the debate on it) is welcome in that it will hopefully alert His Majesty of the need for an active Burgermeister, since we are ready to kick-start this beer-based economy of ours.

Hooligan

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Will this annual statement be "annual", or presented each Cosa? When shall it be presented? What shall be on it?

What form would the proposed "budget" take? What responsibilities are inherent upon the Burgermeister within it to meet? Is there any further process involved? Does this put upon the Burgermeister the whole of the responsibility of deciding where money goes, subject to the Ziu?

These are not problems, but they are questions that need be answered, I think, even if that answer is "I don't want to spell that out" (although I think much of it should be).

[Vit Caçeir]

agbdavis said:

Will this annual statement be "annual", or presented each Cosa?

Senator Davis brings up a good point. Presenting each individual Cosa with such a statement is far more logical than a yearly statement.

Additionally, I'd like to mention, this budget is intended to fund the whole of the Talossan government, correct? If so, shouldn't the whole of the Talossan government have (to some degree) a say in what it entails? If I comprehend the statement "subject to the Ziu" correctly, this means that the Ziu will vote to approve it... therefore, it would I be correct in guessing that in this bill's current for, the Ziu cannot propose changes, additions, or removals to the budget, merely just vote yes or no?

I do not mean to sound aggressive, I just want to ensure that all potential loopholes are avoided, and that the document is as descriptive as usefully possible. Leaving little "blurry areas" in such a bill may result in possible problems in the future, something I'd very much like to avoid.

EDIT: Clarification.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Article V: Composition of the Senäts

Section 6. The Senäts shall have equal powers with the Cosâ in respect of all proposed laws except that:

* bills appropriating revenue or moneys shall not originate in the Senäts:
* the Government shall require the confidence of the Cosâ only, to remain in office.

In the event of the Senäts twice rejecting a bill appropriating revenue or moneys, the King may call a joint sitting of both houses of the Ziu which shall vote on the bill as one body. In voting in the joint sitting each member of the Ziu shall vote only once. The bill shall be passed in the joint sitting if it receives the support of a majority of members of the Ziu. If the votes are equal, the bill shall not have passed. If the bill appropriating revenue or moneys is not passed in the joint sitting, the Cosâ shall be dissolved by the King and go to a general election. Bills for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other monetary penalties, or for the demand or payment or appropriation of fees for licences or services, shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or moneys.

===========================================

I'll have more , later... when I think of it.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Another sticky wicket. MC Preston is the rocky road down which every bill must trundle to have a chance at passing

The organic question is a good one to begin with. Is this even legal? Presuming "stare decesis" within the Ziu on the matter of dispensation of money (since the law mandating the formation of the Burgermeister's office has been considered entirely Organic), point one of the bill is fine. There is no problem with the Ziu calling for a report of monies.

But as to the second point, a "budget." This seems to be at the moment, unanswerable. The bill is far too vague. If we interpret it as saying that the Ziu will be approving the investment of money, it still appears to be organic. The money is not being appropriated in a tax or spent from the coffers, only managed. But it could just as easily be interpreted to say that the Ziu will be approving the use of the money. This would in fact be the reasonable interpretation of "spending bill." Upon due consideration, even this latter interpretation would be organic and in keeping with law, as far as I can tell. So we should dismiss those concerns.

But there are other concerns. All of these questions that we are plodding through, and the dozen I asked earlier, are the hallmark of a poorly written bill, as I first noted in this discussion. It is making a huge change, yet provides previous little detail or guidance. That is the exact opposite of what is needed with large changes, since if we are testing the will of the people, we must know it with certainty. We can't play dice with Talossa's future.

Further, I don't even like the way this is being handled in the bill, so even if it is clarified, I still think we can do better. This seems an imitation of the "budgets" of other countries. I suspect, in fact, that the release of President Bush of the U.S.A.'s budget a couple of days ago is what prompted this bill, and accordingly I frown on yet another example of "make Talossa more like everywhere else."

We have, by our good graces, permitted our neighbor to the north, south, east, and west to run a variety of services for our people. We have even permitted them to gather revenues to pay for these services. Accordingly, we have no DMV, paid police, or the like. The Seneschal doesn't even get paid! What need do we have of budgets or spending bills? The occasions we have to pay for things with our funds come few and far between. They can be handled on a case by case basis. We don't need more busy work, when Talossa needs every productive hour she already receives and much more.

I call for the entire second provision of this bill to be removed. It is badly written, vague, and entirely unhelpful. It attempts to mimic our big neighbor as an end, rather than a means. And it is a waste of valuable time.