The Ailing BHAID Act

[Ian Plätschisch]

WHEREAS Not much has been done with BHAID since it was created in the 48th Cosa, and

WHEREAS If it were streamlined significantly it might be able to work, or at least replace TalossAID (which is confusingly operated out of the Ministry of the Interior despite not being defined by law anywhere) as Talossa's premiere humanitarian aid organization


THEREFORE Lex.D.2.6.6, which currently reads:

2.6.6 The Bureau for Humanitarian Aid and International Development (The Bureau) shall serve as the hub for the Kingdom of Talossa's support for disaster and poverty relief and other forms of humanitarian assistance, emergency response and the promotion of efforts towards socioeconomic development.
2.6.6.1 The Bureau shall operate under the auspices of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Bureau shall be administered by an Administrator to be appointed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs with the approval of the Seneschal.
2.6.6.1.1 The Bureau shall be funded by contributions from individuals, nonprofit organizations and where deemed appropriate by the Ziu, legislative appropriations.
2.6.6.1.2 With respect to legislative appropriations its funding should be determined as a component of an approved Budget covering expected expenditures for an entire government term, with additional expenditures approved by the Ziu. For the purposes of funding decisions, additional expenditures includes disbursements composed of monies derived from private individual and organizational contributions.
2.6.6.2 All funding decisions should follow an internal approval process consisting of an affirmative review by the Bureau’s Board of Governors to include the Administrator, the Minister of Foreign Affairs or a delegated official, two representatives of the Ziu (one from the Government and one from the Opposition) and a representative of the King.
2.6.6.2.1 If the internally approved funding decision allocates funds not included in current legislative appropriations then the proposal will be submitted as a standalone bill for consideration by the Ziu.
2.6.6.3 To ensure transparency and accountability, the Administrator or a delegated official shall be responsible for the development and maintenance of an agency website providing the total amount of funds at the Agency's disposal, a history of all agency funding decisions and information on the donation/appropriation process. (48RZ15)

is hereby amended to read:

2.6.6 The Bureau for Humanitarian Aid and International Development (The Bureau) shall serve as the hub for the Kingdom of Talossa's support for disaster and poverty relief and other forms of humanitarian assistance, emergency response and the promotion of efforts towards socioeconomic development.

2.6.6.1 The Bureau shall operate under the auspices of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Bureau shall be administered by an Administrator to be appointed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

2.6.6.2 The Bureau shall be funded by contributions from individuals, nonprofit organizations and where deemed appropriate by the Ziu, legislative appropriations.
2.6.6.3 The Administrator shall make every effort to ensure that Bureau's funds are donated to humanitarian organizations in a timely manner, and shall notify the public when outgoing donations are made. This notice shall include at least the amount, date, and beneficiary of the outgoing donation(s).

2.6.6.3.1 Other provisions of el Lexhatx notwithstanding, outgoing donations made with money contributed by private parties shall not require the approval of the Ziu.

Ureu q'estadra så:
Ian Plätschisch (Sen-MM)

[Munditenens Tresplet]

BHAID expenditure bills must be passed by the Ziu because BHAID funds are technically government funds. I have no problem with getting rid of the Board of Governors. But the Administrator must place a bill before the Ziu before making any donation.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Oct 5, 2018 20:53:16 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

BHAID expenditure bills must be passed by the Ziu because BHAID funds are technically government funds. I have no problem with getting rid of the Board of Governors. But the Administrator must place a bill before the Ziu before making any donation.

But if the Ziu approved a donation to BHAID in the budget, why would the Ziu also have to approve when BHAID donated the money?

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Oct 5, 2018 21:03:55 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Oct 5, 2018 20:53:16 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

BHAID expenditure bills must be passed by the Ziu because BHAID funds are technically government funds. I have no problem with getting rid of the Board of Governors. But the Administrator must place a bill before the Ziu before making any donation.

But if the Ziu approved a donation to BHAID in the budget, why would the Ziu also have to approve when BHAID donated the money?

The Ziu approving a transfer of funds from the central fund to BHAID funds is one thing. BHAID authorizing the expenditure of government funds without legislative authorization is another. BHAID funds are government funds; as BHAID is created legislatively, it could just as easily be dismantled completely with all funds held transferred to the central fund. (And this "transfer" of funds is just on paper anyway, as all government funds are held in the same two accounts by the Burgermeister--bank and PayPal.) I believe there was a lengthy discussion about this in the Cabinet just before the Humans Act was introduced way back when.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Dien, doesn't the budget act as authorization for this expenditure? I thought that the administration needed to notify the legislature that they had actually spent the funds, but I don't think I knew bill needs to pass, does it? Honestly can't remember.

I do remember that the board seem like a really good idea at the time, but a little complex, and now I think it has probably come on workable. As our active citizens continue to dwindle, we will have to streamline things like this. If the funds are spent unwisely, then the ballot box will have to be the remedy.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Oct 6, 2018 6:15:31 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

Oct 5, 2018 21:03:55 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

But if the Ziu approved a donation to BHAID in the budget, why would the Ziu also have to approve when BHAID donated the money?

The Ziu approving a transfer of funds from the central fund to BHAID funds is one thing. BHAID authorizing the expenditure of government funds without legislative authorization is another. BHAID funds are government funds; as BHAID is created legislatively, it could just as easily be dismantled completely with all funds held transferred to the central fund. (And this "transfer" of funds is just on paper anyway, as all government funds are held in the same two accounts by the Burgermeister--bank and PayPal.) I believe there was a lengthy discussion about this in the Cabinet just before the Humans Act was introduced way back when.

Why would appropriations to BHAID be any different than any other appropriation in the budget? No other budget-authorized appropriation needs to be approved by another bill.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Oct 6, 2018 7:40:54 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Dien, doesn't the budget act as authorization for this expenditure? I thought that the administration needed to notify the legislature that they had actually spent the funds, but I don't think I knew bill needs to pass, does it? Honestly can't remember.

I do remember that the board seem like a really good idea at the time, but a little complex, and now I think it has probably come on workable. As our active citizens continue to dwindle, we will have to streamline things like this. If the funds are spent unwisely, then the ballot box will have to be the remedy.

No, because BHAID is just a conduit for collecting funds and disbursing them to outside non-profit organizations. If the budget includes an appropriation for, say, $20 to BHAID, it would not specify where the funds are going. Is BHAID going to be the direct recipient of the funds? No.

Moreover, if BHAID takes in donations (which are just earmarked donations going into the central fund), then BHAID might have a $20 legislative appropriation along with another $50 in earmarked donations. All of these funds are within treasury funds. Unless BHAID is just going to keep the funds and never spend them, then a bill specifying how the funds are going to be distributed is necessary.

Oct 6, 2018 8:58:11 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Oct 6, 2018 6:15:31 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

The Ziu approving a transfer of funds from the central fund to BHAID funds is one thing. BHAID authorizing the expenditure of government funds without legislative authorization is another. BHAID funds are government funds; as BHAID is created legislatively, it could just as easily be dismantled completely with all funds held transferred to the central fund. (And this "transfer" of funds is just on paper anyway, as all government funds are held in the same two accounts by the Burgermeister--bank and PayPal.) I believe there was a lengthy discussion about this in the Cabinet just before the Humans Act was introduced way back when.

Why would appropriations to BHAID be any different than any other appropriation in the budget? No other budget-authorized appropriation needs to be approved by another bill.

Talossa takes in outside donations. BHAID takes in outside donations. If someone decided to earmark a donation to the Kingdom to the Ministry of Interior, would that place the donation outside the scope of the Ziu's authority? Would the Ministry of Interior automatically have the right to determine how those funds are spent and where as if they weren't treasury dollars, simply because they were earmarked for that purpose?

Furthermore, by allowing BHAID to disburse funds outside of the normal process, it would seem they could be sidestepping around D.2.1.10. Any allocation for BHAID in the budget might be noticed in the proper manner, but outside donations earmarked for BHAID are not spending allocations and as such the Ziu would be powerless to stop disbursements.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Oct 6, 2018 9:14:36 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

Oct 6, 2018 7:40:54 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Dien, doesn't the budget act as authorization for this expenditure? I thought that the administration needed to notify the legislature that they had actually spent the funds, but I don't think I knew bill needs to pass, does it? Honestly can't remember.

I do remember that the board seem like a really good idea at the time, but a little complex, and now I think it has probably come on workable. As our active citizens continue to dwindle, we will have to streamline things like this. If the funds are spent unwisely, then the ballot box will have to be the remedy.

No, because BHAID is just a conduit for collecting funds and disbursing them to outside non-profit organizations. If the budget includes an appropriation for, say, $20 to BHAID, it would not specify where the funds are going. Is BHAID going to be the direct recipient of the funds? No.

Moreover, if BHAID takes in donations (which are just earmarked donations going into the central fund), then BHAID might have a $20 legislative appropriation along with another $50 in earmarked donations. All of these funds are within treasury funds. Unless BHAID is just going to keep the funds and never spend them, then a bill specifying how the funds are going to be distributed is necessary.

Not if the appropriations bill specifies that BHAID shall donate the funds is it sees fit.

This argument is the same as saying that because reimbursing the King for webhosting needs a separate appropriations bill because the Ministry of STUFF is not the final recipient of the funds, or that a disbursement to replace the Chain of Office needs another bill because the Prime Ministry is not the final recipient of the funds.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Oct 6, 2018 9:23:52 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Oct 6, 2018 9:14:36 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

No, because BHAID is just a conduit for collecting funds and disbursing them to outside non-profit organizations. If the budget includes an appropriation for, say, $20 to BHAID, it would not specify where the funds are going. Is BHAID going to be the direct recipient of the funds? No.

Moreover, if BHAID takes in donations (which are just earmarked donations going into the central fund), then BHAID might have a $20 legislative appropriation along with another $50 in earmarked donations. All of these funds are within treasury funds. Unless BHAID is just going to keep the funds and never spend them, then a bill specifying how the funds are going to be distributed is necessary.

Not if the appropriations bill specifies that BHAID shall donate the funds is it sees fit.

This argument is the same as saying that because reimbursing the King for webhosting needs a separate appropriations bill because the Ministry of STUFF is not the final recipient of the funds, or that a disbursement to replace the Chain of Office needs another bill because the Prime Ministry is not the final recipient of the funds.

See above, and no, it is completely different.

D.2.1.8 All withdrawals from the Royal Treasury (except as provided for by D.2.1.8, below) must be authorized by action of the Ziu approving the expense for which the withdrawal is made, either in the omnibus Budget and Financial Planning Bill required by D.2.1.5, above, or through approval of supplemental budgeting legislation. In accordance with such authorized budgeted expenses, the Government of the day is empowered to requisition such funds from the Royal Treasury (said withdrawal to be performed in fact only by the Royal Treasurer or an authorised deputy).

BHAID would not be allowed to expend any funds outside of what might be legislatively appropriated. And, if I'm not mistaken, this would defeat the main purpose of The Humans Helping Other Humans Act which is to act as a conduit for donations from Talossans to other humans. ("2.6.6.1.1 The Bureau shall be funded by contributions from individuals, nonprofit organizations and where deemed appropriate by the Ziu, legislative appropriations.")

This was discussed in the 48th Cosa Cabinet before the bill to bring about BHAID was Hoppered.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

And exactly why is the current system unworkable? Is it because there isn't anyone currently appointed as BHAID Administrator or as a member of the Board of Governors?

Because it seemed to work before:

48RZ34: Whereas, the Bureau for Humanitarian Aid and International Development (BHAID) conducted its first fundraising drive on the issue of refugee and internally displaced persons assistance. From 1 October 2015 to 14 November 2015, BHAID raised $130 in donations via IndieGogo, and

Whereas, the donations raised minus processing fees totaled $118.17 and were transferred to the Burgermeister of Inland Revenue for deposit into the Kingdom’s Treasury on 17 November 2015, and

Whereas, pursuant to 48RZ17, the Humans Helping Other Humans Act, the Board of Governors convened starting on 22 November 2015 to determine which organization would receive donations. BHAID Governors selected UNICEF due to its work with Syrian refugees.

Therefore be it resolved that the Ziu authorizes the Bureau of Humanitarian Aid and International Development to contribute $118.17 to the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) as a part of Talossa's response to the Syrian refugee crisis.

49RZ7: Whereas, the Bureau for Humanitarian Aid and International Development was transferred the outstanding contributions in the amount of $192.56 from its now-defunct predecessor, Talossa AID, and

Whereas, BHAID also conducted a turnout prediction contest during the 49th Cosa General Election raising a total of $20, and

Whereas, pursuant to 48RZ17, the Humans Helping Other Humans Act, the Board of Governors convened and resolved to donate these funds to GiveDirectly.org and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, respectively, as a part of BHAID’s international development mandate.

Therefore be it resolved that the Ziu authorizes the Bureau of Humanitarian Aid and International Development to contribute $192.56 (128.37 Louise) to GiveDirectly.org and $20 (13.33 Louise) to the International Foundation for Electoral Systems.

I'm fine with getting rid of the board of governors for simplification's sake. But I'm hesitant to donate to an organization with no clear picture of how my donation would ultimately be spent, and one without any outside checks on its power.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Ok, now I see your point, but seeking the Ziu's approval to donate funds that private citizens have already given to BHAID for the purpose of those funds being donated still seems very bureaucratic. Perhaps there should be an exception to this requirement for funds BHAID has received from private sources.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Oct 6, 2018 10:22:51 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Ok, now I see your point, but seeking the Ziu's approval to donate funds that private citizens have already given to BHAID for the purpose of those funds being donated still seems very bureaucratic. Perhaps there should be an exception to this requirement for funds BHAID has received from private sources.

I agree. Maybe it would be possible to spin off BHAID into a government-backed but private charity setup with funds that aren't commingled with treasury funds?

[Ian Plätschisch]

I think I have gotten around the problem by adding 2.6.6.3.1

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Works for me. When it talks about "donations" from BHAID, can we add the word "outgoing"?

So it would say:

2.6.6.3 The Administrator shall make every effort to ensure that Bureau's funds are donated to humanitarian organizations in a timely manner, and shall notify the public when outgoing donations are made. This notice shall include at least the amount, date, and beneficiary of the outgoing donation(s).

2.6.6.3.1 Other provisions of el Lexhatx notwithstanding, outgoing donations made with money contributed by private parties shall not require approval by the Ziu.