Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Apr 23, 2008 11:38:52 GMT -6
Right. So I sense that it doesn't need to be Clarked. But the list of historic RCs and RZs is full of such "suggestions." It's traditional for the Clark to contain everything that the whole Ziu is expected to vote on. Let's not put a damper on legislative activity.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Apr 23, 2008 15:18:31 GMT -6
No, a Sense of the Ziu neeeds voting on, or it is the Sense of Owen and Alexander. As Cresti says, there is broad precedence. What odd logic you've brought to the table
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 23, 2008 22:14:42 GMT -6
However, I should add that we are not Clarking it, since we believe it merits further discussion before we can be confident of its passage. In fact, I am personally going to contact Senators and MCs and make sure it has support. If it doesn't have support, we're going to work with those who are opposed until we have their vote. I will sell it at their doorsteps if I have to - and that's a long route - but I will make sure that people recognize that this RUMP-Independent bill meets the needs of the nation and addresses the concerns of the citizens.
...I just need another month to do that, is all.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Apr 24, 2008 2:05:25 GMT -6
Agreed - people have failed to debate this and that's worrying. We care about the process working and want people to respond now, rather than bitch later when they vote NON. Let's work together on this, kids.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Apr 24, 2008 8:28:05 GMT -6
It sure would be nice to see more members of the Ziu speaking up about these proposals.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on May 17, 2008 13:57:27 GMT -6
Still no extra discussion? I'm assuming then we have unanimous consent, and the inactive Senators won't embarass themselves by voting against this?
*sighs*
|
|
Brad Holmes
Cunstaval to Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Atatürkey, and flying by the seat of my RUMP
Posts: 1,014
Talossan Since: 3-16-2006
|
Post by Brad Holmes on May 18, 2008 5:35:51 GMT -6
Inactive? Embarrass ourselves? How so? By not supporting your idea?
So silence isn't an opinion?
Personally, I think that using our limited national funds outside the nation is foolish. I think that these outside concerns are best dealt with with voluntary fund drives similar to the lunar booster project.
I don't like this sense of the Ziu. It definitely doesn't have my support, but I'm holding back my condemnation for the time being.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on May 18, 2008 10:23:04 GMT -6
Brad, I wasn't particularly talking about you, but if you'd prefer to be a prickly cactus, you have that right.
And no, silence isn't an opinion. It denotes, I suppose, indifference to the Sense (so surely AUS would be your vote) or indifference to the process.
As for your individual objections - and thankyou for them, it is appreciated that you have at last expressed them - you'll note two key things in the words themselves:
1) the optional nature of the SUGGESTION - it is up to the Minister how to administer and if to create it, etc, this is merely an outline for how the Ziu would be advising it be run (and so forth);
and
2) the description of how the Fund would be "funded"; through POTENTIAL earmarks (outside of the purview of the Sense, so strictly speaking that cannot be an objection to it - though I imagine you'll continue to be concerned about the very mention of it, as if encouraging it) and through, as you have indeed mentioned, voluntary funding drives - effectively, a Talossan charitable fund.
The Sense is not binding, but it does outline to the Minister presiding how they might go about the creation of the suggested Fund - how it might be funded (by the Minister or his appointee running charitable drives in the way you describe, and through budgetary earmarks as determined by the government or by individual statute).
I hope that clears up the intention of the Bill.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 18, 2008 15:35:37 GMT -6
This nonbinding resolution recommends the creation and administration of a voluntary charity fund. I am hard-pressed to see any reasonable objections to it, since it does not spend any of the people's money unless they deliberately choose to donate to that cause, does not particularly increase the burdens of the Minister of Finance beyond a marginal amount, and would demonstrate a humanitarian approach that is (I think) well in keeping with Talossan generosity.
S:reu Edwards was not expressing condemnation of any individual, Senator Holmes, but I do think he was right to express frustration at the prospect of this resolution being sent to the Senate and failed, without its sponsors having the chance to address objections. It's a reasonable frustration, and one I share. Luckily, the Senate, of which I am proud to be a part, is not being so lacksadaisical, thanks to your contribution. For which I thank you, incidentally. I hope we have addressed the concerns that might keep you from voting for this bipartisan and innocuous bill?
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 5, 2008 2:02:33 GMT -6
I take it, then, that Senator Holmes' concerns - whether assuaged or not by mine and AD's responses - form the entirety of criticism for this Sense?
I suggest, Senator Davis, we put this forward for the next Clark when the Ziu returns to business.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jun 5, 2008 2:51:54 GMT -6
Agreed.
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Jun 6, 2008 11:52:18 GMT -6
I wish to cosponsor this SOTZ please.
|
|
|
Post by Nic Casálmac'h on Jun 8, 2008 18:29:00 GMT -6
I have a question about this matter. Firstly, I must admit my feeling is of discomfort with the idea. Of course one may make the argument that it is voluntary and therefore really is of consequence only to those who wish it. My discomfort is with it being the government's fund. Now, at this point I suppose it is not truly fair to compare Talossa to other nations of the world, but it does seem that putting such a fund in the hands of the government is not necessarily the most efficient means. Furthermore, it seems a good thing to me (perhaps because of my position as Minister of Culture) that it is good for there to be things in Talossa that are not primarily the government's responsibility. It seems to me a Talossan non-profit charity might be another option.
So my question is this: what do you hope to accomplish by placing this under the responsibility of the government as opposed to say an organization for that purpose?
I do hope that we may have a good discussion about this matter. I have had this in mind for some time and have been considering it, but had not until now gotten a chance to bring these matters up.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jun 8, 2008 23:57:19 GMT -6
I wish to cosponsor this SOTZ please. While the sentiment is much appreciated, MC Edwards and I want to keep this motion sleek and mobile for the time being. But I hope you'll be the first to vote for it! I have a question about this matter. Firstly, I must admit my feeling is of discomfort with the idea. Of course one may make the argument that it is voluntary and therefore really is of consequence only to those who wish it. My discomfort is with it being the government's fund. Now, at this point I suppose it is not truly fair to compare Talossa to other nations of the world, but it does seem that putting such a fund in the hands of the government is not necessarily the most efficient means. Furthermore, it seems a good thing to me (perhaps because of my position as Minister of Culture) that it is good for there to be things in Talossa that are not primarily the government's responsibility. It seems to me a Talossan non-profit charity might be another option. So my question is this: what do you hope to accomplish by placing this under the responsibility of the government as opposed to say an organization for that purpose? I do hope that we may have a good discussion about this matter. I have had this in mind for some time and have been considering it, but had not until now gotten a chance to bring these matters up. Thank you for your comments and questions, Mencei. I'm glad MC Edwards and I gave this another month in addition to the previous two to give legislators a chance to read it, so we can address your concerns. I understand your concern about government-administrated aid funds like this one. I feel like I should point out, however, that such a fund is not entirely without precedent in the world, since an overwhelming preponderance of countries maintain such funds for the relief of their citizens or for foreign humanitarian aid, administered by their governments' designated entities. Our purpose for making this the responsibility of the government is to help ensure that it occurs. You will note that there are many Talossans and there has been ample opportunity for them to create such funds on their own, and yet one does not exist. And not to disparage such individual efforts, but one should note that such efforts have a tendency to fizzle out after the initial interest of people has passed. It is true that such a fund might not be the most efficient dispensation of such monies. But in this, we feel the government should lead the way, as befits a nation of our austerity. Thus, this nonbinding declaration will hopefully spur efforts on the part of the government towards this end. Further, this provides accountability for the donated monies. Out of interest of exploring all the options, is there a different channel through which you would like to gather such monies? I am not aware of any other Talossan humanitarian aid fund, be it efficient or government or not.
|
|
|
Post by Nic Casálmac'h on Jun 13, 2008 21:32:54 GMT -6
I understand your concern about government-administrated aid funds like this one. I feel like I should point out, however, that such a fund is not entirely without precedent in the world, since an overwhelming preponderance of countries maintain such funds for the relief of their citizens or for foreign humanitarian aid, administered by their governments' designated entities. No, indeed, but we need not choose our course based on what other countries have done. Well, now I understand better the intentions behind it anyway. There is no current fund to my knowledge; my point was merely that if we are to set up such a fund, it might be best to consider other options such as setting up a non-profit charity, but I do not know what would have to go into that. I understand your point about wanting to make sure it happens. You say that no citizens have created such a fund up to this point, but I do not think there has been much interest until now. This is the point where there is enough interest, so this is the point to decide on the best course. I am not saying I know what that is. Nor am I saying this necessarily isn't it. I am just still not sure, though I will give it further thought. Still, things done through the government have been abandoned and really might be just as much as if begun through private individuals. It seems to me the best way to ensure that something happens is to have several people who really feel strongly about it take it on. Those are all the thoughts I have for the moment. Perhaps some other people will join in on the discussion.
|
|