The Every Where We Go-o!... Act

[EM Vürinalt]

The Every Where We Go-o! People Wanna Know-o! Who We A-are! Act

[/center]

WHEREAS our military is steadily growing, and

WHEREAS soldiers tend to like knowing their own and their comrade’s rank, and

WHEREAS soldiers also like identifying themselves with little groups called regiments, and

WHEREAS you can’t tell any of this without actually having rank insignia and company symbols, and

WHEREAS it’s hard to distinguish friend or foe without these symbols, and

WHEREAS you can’t tell someone who you are if you don’t even know who you are, and

WHEREAS there is no standard military body for the creation, maintenance, and implementation of these symbols,

THEREFORE we proclaim that:

I. The Defense Institute of Heraldry be created as a heraldic body for the:

A. Authorisation of heraldic items for all branches of the Talossan military.


B. Creation of distinctive unit insignia, regimental distinctive insignia, and shoulder sleeve insignia for our armed forces.

i. The current branches with active service men and women shall organize into divisions and regiments as to the number of officers to enlisted personnel. Each regiment shall then decide on a general logo and motto for that regiment to be used to create distinctive unit insignia and regimental distinctive insignia.


C. Establishment of military flag code.


D. Development of branch, rank, and unit seals, medals, badges, and flags.

i. Each branch shall have a flag to signify all members of that branch, akin to the US Navy, Army, Marine, Air Force, and Coast Guard flags.

ii. Flags and guidons similar to the flags and guidons hosted by US military battalions during drills are created.

iii. Regipäts Talossan pay grades O-9, O-10, and E-9 have respective flags, similar to the current flags for generals and E-9 officers in the US military.

iv. Rank is developed for all branches of the Talossan military. Pay grades are to go from Enlisted-1 to Enlisted-9, Officer-1 to Officer-10, and Warrant Officer-1 to Warrant Officer-5. Not all pay grades need be filled with rank at a given time, and new ranks (but not new pay grades) may be added when deemed fit by the Minister of Defense. Ranks must be easily distinguishable within each branch and within the militaries of our allies. Current pay grades in use:
1. Zouaves: E-1 to E-7, O-1 to O-7
2. Navy (and all subsidiaries including the Marines and Air Corps): E-1 to E-6, O-1 to O-5, WO-1 to WO-2
*Note-pay grade simply refers to the international organisation of rank. It is synonomus with "level." This does not mean our military is payed.*

v. Medals and badges shall be created by the institution and may only be created after a majority vote on the creation of a new medal. Current medals, as distinguished by 37RZ13- The Military Honours Act need not be voted on.


II. The Defense Institute of Heraldry (DIH) be made up of at least one member from each branch and no more than five members from each branch. If a branch does not have one member, that member spot is vacated and members from other military branches will preside over heraldic items for the unfilled branch. The Minister of Defense will preside over the DIH.


III. The DIH be semi-independent of the College of Arms. As a wing of the College, it can implore upon non-military members of the College questions as to proper heraldic charges; however, this wing must be made of only active military personnel in Talossa’s military.


IV. All heraldic charges be approved by the Minister of Defense and presented to the nation with the Minister of Defense’s monthly address. The charge must be heraldically legal with the exception of the colour limit in badges and medals.


V. The DIH is to be the standard governing body for all military formalities including uniforms, the wearing and awarding of medals, salutes, songs, and other military formalities not listed.


VI. The DIH is to be the official statistics keeper for all branches of the armed forces including: members, ranks, date joined, years of service, veterans, medals awarded, and other statistically important data.

VII. Talossan Statute 34RZ13-The College of Arms Act be rewritten to say:

current text:Therefore the Ziu hereby establishes the College of Arms, which shall be referred to, in case of ambiguity, as the Talossan College of Arms, with the following mandate:


1.The maintaining of records of all coats of arms and crests in use throughout Talossa
2.Granting new arms and crests to individuals, organizations, and government departments that make a request to the College.
3.The fostering of a greater knowledge of and appreciation for heraldry in Talossan.

new text:
Therefore the Ziu hereby establishes the College of Arms, which shall be referred to, in case of ambiguity, as the Talossan College of Arms, with the following mandate:


1.The maintaining of records of all coats of arms and crests in use throughout Talossa
2.Granting new arms and crests to individuals, organizations, and government departments that make a request to the College.
3.The fostering of a greater knowledge of and appreciation for heraldry in Talossan.
4. Developing military related heraldry including rank, badges, medals, unit insignia, flags, formalities, and serving as the military's recordkeeping body through an semi-independant wing of the College known as the Defense Institute of Heraldry.

Uréu q'estadra så: Matáiwos Vürinalt (CCCP, Benito)

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

An interesting proposal, MC Vurinalt. I would suggest you check up on the law incorporating the College of Arms, as I suspect you will have several conflicts with their legislated purview. And in fact you might want to examine if this is something that should be put into law... should the Ziu always be in charge of designating ranks, military formalities, and the like? Maybe these are simply regulations we can institute via the chain of command.

I have a few other initial points, as well.

"Pay grades are to go from Enlisted-1 to Enlisted-9, Officer-1 to Officer-10, and Warrant Officer-1 to Warrant Officer-5. Not all pay grades need be filled with rank at a given time, and new ranks (but not new pay grades) may be added when deemed fit by the Minister of Defense. Ranks must be easily distinguishable within each branch and within the militaries of our allies. Current pay grades in use:"

This would seem, by definition, to require pay. Our volunteers are unpaid (and thank you for your service, Corporal), so this section should be removed or altered to reflect that.

"WHEREAS our pacifistic military is steadily growing, and"

Only our own branch of the military, the royal bodyguards, are pacifists at this time.

[EM Vürinalt]

Thank you for the advice Senator Davis. As to the answer of your questions:

Jul 6, 2008 18:55:22 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

should the Ziu always be in charge of designating ranks, military formalities, and the like? Maybe these are simply regulations we can institute via the chain of command.

No sir. This legislation is only for the institution of a wing of the College of Arms that creates defense related heraldry. It is very similar to the function of the US Army Institute of Heraldry. If this legislation is passed, all military rank, award, and otherwise heraldic related items are passed in control to the Defense institute of heraldry.

This function is very similar to the College. If a citizen asks for a Coat of Arms, a member of the College does not have to write a bill asking for Ziu approval of those arms.

Now-to actually answer the bulk of your question- yes, chain of command will always be the birthplace of these ideas. However, if a branch does change/make something (say...a branch song), just drop a note over at the DIH and as the official military recordkeeping institute (as section VI points out), the DIH will...um...keep record.

Jul 6, 2008 18:55:22 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

This would seem, by definition, to require pay. Our volunteers are unpaid (and thank you for your service, Corporal), so this section should be removed or altered to reflect that.

Yessir, changed. I added a bolded section reflecting the fact that pay grade reflects "level and rank" in our military. However, since the phrase "pay grade" is the international standard, it will remain in the bill for ease in understanding.

Jul 6, 2008 18:55:22 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Only our own branch of the military, the royal bodyguards, are pacifists at this time.

Edited.

[EM Vürinalt]

Jul 6, 2008 18:55:22 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

An interesting proposal, MC Vurinalt. I would suggest you check up on the law incorporating the College of Arms, as I suspect you will have several conflicts with their legislated purview.

As according to Talossan Statute 34RZ13-The College of Arms Act there are no conflicts.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Are you sure? The law states that the College shall be entrusted with,
"# The maintaining of records of all coats of arms and crests in use throughout Talossa
# Granting new arms and crests to individuals, organizations, and government departments that make a request to the College. "

Since you are instead assigning military rank and arms, and a new office to maintain the records, it would seem a direct conflict. The OrgLaw requires that any laws whose effect would be modified be mentioned in the text of the bill, and customarily they are given a new form by that text.

[EM Vürinalt]

Understood.

Now, let me ask this? What if I rephrase the bill to make it independant of the College. Thus, no connection whatsoever (compared to the very limited connection as currently proposed)?

As long as we have some heraldically knowledgable military people, all the charges coming out of the office would be heraldically legal.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

A few points:

1. What Alexander said. In most countries that have a general heraldic authority, that authority deals with military heraldry. So, for example, RAF squadron badges are created by the Royal College of Arms in the UK, CDF squadron badges are created by the Canadian Heraldic Authority in Canada, and SADF badges are registered with the National Herald of the Republic of South Africa.

2. Laws should not have hyperlinks in them.

3. The stuff about pay grades, regiments, and divisions goes beyond what is necessary to deal with the issue of badges and insignia. For one thing, some of the details about pay grades and ranks contradict 35RZ32, the Naval Reorganization Act. For another, the Navy has always been Talossa's primary military service, and regiments and divisions are for landlubbers.

4. The format of this bill is confusing, because it looks like it uses the standard I.A.1.a.i heirarchy of sections, but the order is all switched around (to I.i.a.1 instead).

[EM Vürinalt]

Jul 7, 2008 11:59:02 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

A few points:

1. What Alexander said. In most countries that have a general heraldic authority, that authority deals with military heraldry. So, for example, RAF squadron badges are created by the Royal College of Arms in the UK, CDF squadron badges are created by the Canadian Heraldic Authority in Canada, and SADF badges are registered with the National Herald of the Republic of South Africa.

Yes, which is why the current bill offers a connection between the DIH and the College. However, it would be a seperate wing and only deal with military related heraldry.

Jul 7, 2008 11:59:02 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

2. Laws should not have hyperlinks in them.

I'll get those out of there ASAP, I couldn't think of the appropriate wording at the time I was writing this.

Jul 7, 2008 11:59:02 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

3. The stuff about pay grades, regiments, and divisions goes beyond what is necessary to deal with the issue of badges and insignia. For one thing, some of the details about pay grades and ranks contradict 35RZ32, the Naval Reorganization Act. For another, the Navy has always been Talossa's primary military service, and regiments and divisions are for landlubbers.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Jul 7, 2008 11:59:02 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

4. The format of this bill is confusing, because it looks like it uses the standard I.A.1.a.i heirarchy of sections, but the order is all switched around (to I.i.a.1 instead).

I'll edit this as well.

[EM Vürinalt]

All the proposed edits have been made.

[EM Vürinalt]

What do others think about this?

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

My point #3 above still applies. If you intend to override the Naval Reorganization Act, you should make that clear. Personally, I kind of like how the Naval Reorganization Act was structured (as one of its cosponsors).

Regarding my point #1, if I were writing this bill I'd make it much more limited in scope. Maybe creating a new officer of arms in the College of Arms with the responsibility of creating military insignia, decorations, flags, etc, in consultation with and subject to the approval of the Minister of Defence and the Squirrel King of Arms. He could be named a fellow or pursuivant of the College, but maybe you could require that he be a military officer seconded to the College. I wouldn't have this official also responsible for maintaining personnel records, just as the U.S. Army Institute of Heraldry doesn't maintain the Army's personnel records.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Jul 9, 2008 10:17:53 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Regarding my point #1, if I were writing this bill I'd make it much more limited in scope. Maybe creating a new officer of arms in the College of Arms with the responsibility of creating military insignia, decorations, flags, etc, in consultation with and subject to the approval of the Minister of Defence and the Squirrel King of Arms. He could be named a fellow or pursuivant of the College, but maybe you could require that he be a military officer seconded to the College. I wouldn't have this official also responsible for maintaining personnel records, just as the U.S. Army Institute of Heraldry doesn't maintain the Army's personnel records.

Gee. I wonder who Sir C. was looking at when he wrote that....

[EM Vürinalt]

Jul 9, 2008 10:17:53 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

My point #3 above still applies. If you intend to override the Naval Reorganization Act, you should make that clear. Personally, I kind of like how the Naval Reorganization Act was structured (as one of its cosponsors).

I agree with your point on the Naval Reorganisation Act. I'll certainly change the wording there.

Now, about the Zoauves. You're right again. I wonder now why Mick approved the ranks if they were not as the "It Seemed A Bit Daft Me Havin' To Guard Him When He's A Guard" Act said. I'll change these points having reflecting these changes.

Jul 9, 2008 10:17:53 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Regarding my point #1, if I were writing this bill I'd make it much more limited in scope. Maybe creating a new officer of arms in the College of Arms with the responsibility of creating military insignia, decorations, flags, etc, in consultation with and subject to the approval of the Minister of Defence and the Squirrel King of Arms. He could be named a fellow or pursuivant of the College, but maybe you could require that he be a military officer seconded to the College. I wouldn't have this official also responsible for maintaining personnel records, just as the U.S. Army Institute of Heraldry doesn't maintain the Army's personnel records.

Agreed again. However, what if we keep the semi-autonomus-ness written in the bill now (with certain members of each branch being party of this) and simply, after creating a new thing- be it anything mentioned above- asks for the Squirrel King of Arms' approval and then the MoD can comment on it- making it official or sending it back for more change.

That way we still keep the independance of the military/civilian aspect, include the College more, and keep it under the final authority of the MoD.

[Deleted]

Mmmk....let me take a crack at this...

While I admire the good Sergeant's initiative, I think it would be much appreciated if a draft of this type of thing went up the chain of command BEFORE it hit the hopper. Now, understand I am not saying I wish to restrict any MC's ability to propose legislation, however, as the Acting MoD I seem to be the last person to see this bill. In addition, had Lt. Davis, Capt. Preston and myself been able to look at it first, we might have been able to put forth a cleaner version of this proposal.

I'm not mad, but if we could do that in the future, that would be great.

Next, let me say that I actually support the idea of "paygrades" being separate from "rank" as is the case with the U.S. Military. (In the Army, for example, Corporal and Specialist are both ranks that hold the paygrade of E-4). It allows for some fancy maneuvering with billets, such as temporary promotions and the like. It is something I think we should all put our heads together on and see if it is much more trouble than it is worth, however.

Next, about the heraldry items. In my own mind, if something is for strictly internal use, it shouldn't have to go through the College HOWEVER...because the lines separating what is used internally and externally, I'd rather not get us into a spot where we are stepping all over that line. The rules that are in place are working for everyone else, no need to try to separate the military too much from civilian affairs. I like the idea, however, of a military liaison at the College who handles things for the military so that we don't tie up the college with unit crests and the like.

It is also possible to create a division or bureau which is separate from the College but does most of the legwork and works closely with the college to get the proposed crests and insignias approved. These are all things we can discuss.

As for record keeping of active service members and veterans, we can create a unit that performs that function without the Ziu. Again though, I'm not stopping you from proposing legislation, I would encourage you, however, to see what we can do without legislative action and try to act on that first.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I think this steps on the toes of the College of Arms and needlessly complicates things in order to establish new positions that would have to be filled by an overstrained citizenry, even with the amendations.