SENSE OF THE ZIU: Humanitarian Aid Fund, Redux

[Owen Edwards]

WHEREAS Talossa exemplifies in extraordinary ways the true nature of nationhood; and

WHEREAS Talossa has a conscience, and a will to act on that conscience; and

WHEREAS Talossa consists of friends, countrymen and lovers, whose communal existence defines them; and

WHEREAS Talossa consists of humans - a species to which a high calling is to aid those in grave need; and

WHEREAS Talossa recognises, with its conscience, as a community, as humans, that it has a duty to its fellow man;

THEREFORE, the sense of the Ziu is that, under the auspices of the Ministry of Finance, a Humanitarian Aid Fund should be created, with the follows points of operation:

I. The fund shall consist of voluntary contributions held by the Ministry of Finance and accounted for in its regular reports; of budgetary earmarks, if the government operates under budgeting legislation; or of individual legislative earmarks, if the government does not operate under such.

II. The Ministry of Finance shall form a Guiding Committee to direct funding, consisting of
(i) the Minister of Finance;
(ii) the Seneschal;
(iii) and an "opposition" MC or Senator, not elected
from the governing party (or coalition), selected by
the Minister of Finance.

If this "opposition" committee member should become a member of the governing party (or coalition) at any point, they shall be replaced by another "opposition" member, selected by the Minister of Finance. Non-governing parties who have members in the Cabinet are not disbarred in this manner, but those members within the Cabinet are.

III. All funding decisions must be announced, including full details of recipient(s) and funds assigned, at least 7 days before the planned date of donation.

Noi urent q'estadra sa:
MC Owen Edwards, Cez and Senator Alexander Davis, M-M

[Deleted]

It has my vote. However, I think it may be good practice not to specify potential initial recipients. Perhaps a committee could work on aid dispersals?

Simple reason being, while I acknowledge the plight of Tibet and the other charities you have mentioned, I also feel funds would be of use in the fight to end genocide in Darfur, for example.

[Owen Edwards]

Perhaps that article could be edited to provide for a committee to recommend recipients, but it's certainly not meant to be binding; it's meant to express (in part) the non-exclusive support for those causes, and act as initial suggestions.

Perhaps a mixture of both - the initial suggestions and the provision for a committee - the Seneschal, MinFin and an opposition MC or Senator, perhaps? I'll talk to Senator Davis about it.

[Deleted]

I'm thinking of it like the International Memorial Day Act, Owen. Remember in the initial drafts when I included a list of past events for us to reflect on? We were afraid that naming specific events would imply that we were not remembering non-listed events.

I think this is a good bill and want to see it pass, but I don't want to see it hit the same resistance that the International Memorial Day and the Saffron Act faced because people worry about it being TOO specific.

Maybe I'm looking too far into it. I'm just tossing out a suggestion, I'd vote for it in its present form.

[Owen Edwards]

I do think one key difference between this and the IMD Act is that the text doesn't prioritise in terms of "what should be remembered" but only in terms of "causes dear to the heart of Talossa" - however, I think adding in a committee to direct funds is a good idea, and I'll have a think about how best to treat the issue of "first wave" recipients. It would certainly be a shame if people ended up voting against it because of the suggested recipients, and it would be better to eliminate that section if that would be the end result.

[Deleted]

That is my main concern. But I'm voting because I know you, Alex and JP have no intention of only ever supporting those particular causes. I would vote for the bill as a whole. I just worry that some might vote for the suggested recipients rather than the entire concept.

Again, though, it has my vote.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I would be absolutely okay with adding in a suggestion about the Ministry of Finance creating a guiding committee. I would also be absolutely okay with removing the suggested charities if that is considered to be a problem, although I would be surprised if it was.

Again: it bears repeating and reminding, just to drive home the point to legislators reading this: this is a nonbinding sense of the Ziu, that will serve to express the desire of the Ziu for these measures. We are not locking ourselves into anything present or future, but only officially putting Talossa among the ranks of those countries that are blessed with good fortune and a charitable spirit, by creating a way to utilize both that is best suited for our small but mighty nation.

[Owen Edwards]

No further discussion? I guess everyone's been convinced then! Fully expect this to pass unopposed.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

It occurs to me, Owen, that if people who have not bothered to comment on this still vote against it, it might be wise to create an organization which tracks such activity, and makes public which legislators are so unproductive as to sit in silence but still vote against a bill.

[Flip Molinar]

I promise that, if I vote against a bill. I will voice my objection long before my vote is cast.

[Brad Holmes]

Still better off as a personal initiative.

[Owen Edwards]

Brad, I separate my personal charity giving from my tithe giving which I expect to be partly used for charitable actions, which I again separate from my tax giving which I know will be used to assist others via provision of services and aid money. I might debate the efficacy of my government's aid progams (or not), but it doesn't mean I don't see the purposes as different.

And Alexander, that's a fantastic idea. Consider it done.

[Xhorxh Asmour]

Jan 4, 2009 9:42:54 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

I would be absolutely okay with adding in a suggestion about the Ministry of Finance creating a guiding committee. I would also be absolutely okay with removing the suggested charities if that is considered to be a problem, although I would be surprised if it was.

I support the bill if these changes above are made.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Spiffy!

[Owen Edwards]

As this will hopefully be clarked for next month, I would add the additional argument that we are different from other nations. We do not, or are not able to, do a number of things a traditional nation does; we can hardly compare ourselves in terms of classic conservative ideology to the United States, where your pre-Buckley conservative (and indeed most neo-cons) would say the government was around to protect its citizens and run courts, and any taxation would be for those purposes. So how do these same principles apply to a Talossa-like nation?

I'd say that they apply by - rather then providing military and metropolitan security for its people - having the government represent the interests of the people. Where, in America, it is meaningful for an individual, as an American, to do charity work, Talossan identity is more fluid, less concrete; the government acts to improve the security of identity by acting on behalf of its people.