Contingency Preparedness Act

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

FOD -- Mild or Significant (suggestions on Strength welcome)

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that nations must at times take extraordinary measures to ensure the smooth running of the government in the event of severe localized or national emergencies,

Seeking further assurances that national emergency funds, as a public investment, are not improperly handled, and that the promised monies will still be there should a serious emergency occur;

1. Mandates that member nations make public accounts of all funds earmarked for emergency purposes,

2. Further requires that member nations take all necessary measures to make sure that emergency funds are not raided during non-emergency periods, and that all officials charged with handling said funds keep detailed accounts on all activities undertaken in managing them,

3. Insists that member nations hire independent firms to audit emergency funds regularly, to ensure their vitality,

4. Establishes the WA General Fund Contingency Account (GFCA), which shall be managed by the General Accounting Office as a separate fund, to only be tapped into for WA spending should regular funding for the WA be ceased for whatever reason,

5. Strongly encourages member nations with the means to do so to contribute to the GFCA; additionally, the GAO shall be authorized to incentivize members to contribute to the GFCA, on top of the annual assessments they already pay.

---

This is something Excidium suggested in the Repeal WAGF thread; I only intend on seriously pursuing this if members think it is a good, and above all legal, idea. So go on, tear it to shreds; I dare you.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Sounds like a good idea. What exactly are these emergency funds?

[Dooom35796821595]

OOC: For some reason this reminds me of the American House of Cards, especially that bit about not raiding the emergency funds during a non-emergency.

IC: our two objections are thus; firstly the question of public accounts, we assume you don't suggest we make the amounts public? Second, we would like to clarify that the part about independent firms is not mandatory, since insist doesn't seem binding.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Sounds like a good idea. What exactly are these emergency funds?

Like a rainy day fund, monies kept aside for government operations should the state experience a sudden budgetary shortfall, or to bolster emergency response in the case of a major crisis, like a natural disaster or an attack on the homeland.

OOC: For some reason this reminds me of the American House of Cards, especially that bit about not raiding the emergency funds during a non-emergency.

Yeah, that happened last season I think; I honestly wasn't thinking about it when I wrote it.

IC: our two objections are thus; firstly the question of public accounts, we assume you don't suggest we make the amounts public?

Why shouldn't we? It's the public's money, presumably; they deserve to know what it's being spent on.

Second, we would like to clarify that the part about independent firms is not mandatory, since insist doesn't seem binding.

Right, not mandatory. I don't see any reason to make it mandatory right now, but if you are a different mind, I'm open to persuasion.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Sounds like a good idea. What exactly are these emergency funds?

Like a rainy day fund, monies kept aside for government operations should the state experience a sudden budgetary shortfall, or to bolster emergency response in the case of a major crisis, like a natural disaster or an attack on the homeland.

I know that. But it ought be defined.

[Dooom35796821595]

Sounds like a good idea. What exactly are these emergency funds?

Like a rainy day fund, monies kept aside for government operations should the state experience a sudden budgetary shortfall, or to bolster emergency response in the case of a major crisis, like a natural disaster or an attack on the homeland.

OOC: For some reason this reminds me of the American House of Cards, especially that bit about not raiding the emergency funds during a non-emergency.

Yeah, that happened last season I think; I honestly wasn't thinking about it when I wrote it.

IC: our two objections are thus; firstly the question of public accounts, we assume you don't suggest we make the amounts public?

Why shouldn't we? It's the public's money, presumably; they deserve to know what it's being spent on.

Second, we would like to clarify that the part about independent firms is not mandatory, since insist doesn't seem binding.

Right, not mandatory. I don't see any reason to make it mandatory right now, but if you are a different mind, I'm open to persuasion.

Perhaps I should have been more clear, I was balking at the Idea of making the accounts public to the WA, our own citizens already have wide access to such information.

[Bears Armed]

What about stockpiled emergency reserves of other kinds, such as shelters & blankets, preserved foods, fuels, steam locomotives, and so on? Shouldn't the same "don't raid these" and "publish accounts" rules apply?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Perhaps I should have been more clear, I was balking at the Idea of making the accounts public to the WA, our own citizens already have wide access to such information.

Presumably if the information is "public," it's available to everyone. It's not like fb privacy settings; you don't get to decide which groups can access your feed.

[Dooom35796821595]

Perhaps I should have been more clear, I was balking at the Idea of making the accounts public to the WA, our own citizens already have wide access to such information.

Presumably if the information is "public," it's available to everyone. It's not like fb privacy settings; you don't get to decide which groups can access your feed.

Then we must stand against this legislation, for we shall not reveal our emergency funds, nor what emergencys we plan for to other WA nations.

[Separatist Peoples]

Presumably if the information is "public," it's available to everyone. It's not like fb privacy settings; you don't get to decide which groups can access your feed.

Then we must stand against this legislation, for we shall not reveal our emergency funds, nor what emergencys we plan for to other WA nations.

"Fill up a fund and slap a "Discretionary Emergency Spending" label on it. Some parts of an emergency fund have to be discretionary, as no emergency falls in neat, controlled parameters for long. Then it's public and vague."

[Wallenburg]

Why shouldn't we? It's the public's money, presumably; they deserve to know what it's being spent on.

"In many countries, government funds are not the public's money. A fair number of monarchies consider such funds the property of the king, and plenty of other authoritarian regimes give private ownership of funds to their principal figures.

"As to this draft, I cannot imagine why an honest, benevolent government should oppose it. Consider our delegation in your favor."

[Excidium Planetis]

5. Strongly encourages member nations with the means to do so to contribute to the GFCA; additionally, the GAO shall be authorized to incentivize members to contribute to the GFCA, on top of the annual assessments they already pay.

"So would I be correct in saying that these additional contributions really are voluntary? And how exactly would the GAO incentivize GFCA contributions?"

OOC:
Also, by using the word pay, are you attempting to force the mandatory interpretation? After all, donate is "render without payment".

This is something Excidium suggested in the Repeal WAGF thread; I only intend on seriously pursuing this if members think it is a good, and above all legal, idea. So go on, tear it to shreds; I dare you.

OOC:
I had hoped to do this myself, but I wasn't motivated enough to do it immediately. I guess you beat me to it. Well, at least you acknowledged my contribution!

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Why shouldn't we? It's the public's money, presumably; they deserve to know what it's being spent on.

"In many countries, government funds are not the public's money. A fair number of monarchies consider such funds the property of the king, and plenty of other authoritarian regimes give private ownership of funds to their principal figures.

Even monarchs must embrace some level of accountability to their subjects. Obviously nations do not have to be democracies for the Furtherment of Democracy category to apply to them. We are grateful for your support.

5. Strongly encourages member nations with the means to do so to contribute to the GFCA; additionally, the GAO shall be authorized to incentivize members to contribute to the GFCA, on top of the annual assessments they already pay.

"So would I be correct in saying that these additional contributions really are voluntary? And how exactly would the GAO incentivize GFCA contributions?"

Presumably the only thing they could do is forgive debts or reduce annual assessments, or possibly exercise more flexibility when it comes to the powers granted them by other resolutions. The GAO really doesn't have the statutory authority to do anything else. Are you saying we need stronger language to assure the GAO doesn't starting doling out favors for cash?

OOC:
Also, by using the word pay, are you attempting to force the mandatory interpretation? After all, donate is "render without payment".

The wording can be changed; there was no specific intent in choosing the word "pay."

OOC:
I had hoped to do this myself, but I wasn't motivated enough to do it immediately. I guess you beat me to it. Well, at least you acknowledged my contribution!

You're free to post your own version; I'm not so wedded to this one; it's only being posted as a trial balloon. If yours is better I'd certainly support it.

[Wallenburg]

Even monarchs must embrace some level of accountability to their subjects.

"'L'État, c'est moi' does not demonstrate accountability, Ambassador, nor does accountability really have any relevance to this discussion."

[Araraukar]

it's only being posted as a trial balloon.

OOC: Now I want to find a needle to pop the balloon as much as I want something like this to pass...

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Even monarchs must embrace some level of accountability to their subjects.

"'L'État, c'est moi' does not demonstrate accountability, Ambassador, nor does accountability really have any relevance to this discussion."

"Why not? Didn't you read it?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Even monarchs must embrace some level of accountability to their subjects.

"'L'État, c'est moi' does not demonstrate accountability, Ambassador, nor does accountability really have any relevance to this discussion."

OOC: Of course it does. The monarchs of France were certainly accountable to their public. That's why France is now a republic.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Of course it does. The monarchs of France were certainly accountable to their public. That's why France is now a republic.

OOC: I think you mean "certainly weren't accountable".

And in any case, accountability and financial accounts are not the same thing.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

OOC: Of course it does. The monarchs of France were certainly accountable to their public. That's why France is now a republic.

OOC: I think you mean "certainly weren't accountable".

Nope, the guillotine sort of forced accountability on them.

And in any case, accountability and financial accounts are not the same thing.

Requiring political leaders to keep public records of every tax dollar collected and every dollar spent is a form of accountability. Do you even know what the word means?

[Wallenburg]

"'L'État, c'est moi' does not demonstrate accountability, Ambassador, nor does accountability really have any relevance to this discussion."

"Why not?

"Why don't absolutist political philosophy and disinterest in the opinions of anyone else other than oneself constitute a lack of accountability to the public? Are you really asking me such a ridiculous question?"

Didn't you read it?"

"Yes, I did. What a foolish question to ask."

OOC: I think you mean "certainly weren't accountable".

Nope, the guillotine sort of forced accountability on them.

OOC: You'll have to remind me when Louis XIV was executed.

[Araraukar]

And in any case, accountability and financial accounts are not the same thing.

Requiring political leaders to keep public records of every tax dollar collected and every dollar spent is a form of accountability. Do you even know what the word means?

OOC: Yes, I do. And "accountability" has more meanings than just financial accounting. One can be accountable for their actions and decisions that have nothing to do with money, after all, and when we're talking about monarchs and other tyrants, they generally aren't accountable to their people for their actions.

Note: I'm not talking about RL European monarchies, those are more democracies than monarchies, but in NS we do in fact have monarchies ruled by monarchs who actually are the true leaders and indeed owners of their nations.

OOC: You'll have to remind me when Louis XIV was executed.

OOC: I think he may mean Louis XVI, who was indeed executed. However, technically Louis Philippe I was the last French king, and he died of old age in 1850.

Unless you count Napoleon III who died of, or at least after two surgeries to remove gallstones in 1873.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: You'll have to remind me when Louis XIV was executed.

OOC: I think he may mean Louis XVI, who was indeed executed. However, technically Louis Philippe I was the last French king, and he died of old age in 1850.

Unless you count Napoleon III who died of, or at least after two surgeries to remove gallstones in 1873.

OOC: Ara, that wasn't quite my point. My point was that the execution of Louis XVI does not demonstrate any sort of accountability in his many predecessors that were not executed. Louis XIV, for instance, whom my ambassador quoted in a moment of RP/RL ambiguity, didn't give half a shit about his people.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

And the repeated sidebars about French royalty have been especially helpful to this draft, let me tell you.

Note: I'm not talking about RL European monarchies, those are more democracies than monarchies, but in NS we do in fact have monarchies ruled by monarchs who actually are the true leaders and indeed owners of their nations.

I couldn't care less. They still have to abide by Furtherment of Democracy resolutions, even if they are ruled by imperialist cousin-loving space aliens who have no concept whatsoever of human democracy, or incest.

[Tinfect]

And the repeated sidebars about French royalty have been especially helpful to this draft, let me tell you.

Note: I'm not talking about RL European monarchies, those are more democracies than monarchies, but in NS we do in fact have monarchies ruled by monarchs who actually are the true leaders and indeed owners of their nations.

I couldn't care less. They still have to abide by Furtherment of Democracy resolutions, even if they are ruled by imperialist cousin-loving space aliens who have no concept whatsoever of human democracy, or incest.

OOC:
I still hold that half the Furtherment of Democracy Resolutions would be a better fit for Human Rights. And yes, I will continue to bang on about it so long as I can find an opportunity to continue banging on about it.
IC:

Seeking further assurances that national emergency funds, as a public investment, are not improperly handled, and that the promised monies will still be there should a serious emergency occur;

"Of course, this discounts the existence of states in which the State and private industry is inseparable. The Imperium has no objections to this, of course, I simply intended to bring it up."

1. Mandates that member nations make public accounts of all funds earmarked for emergency purposes,

"Do keep in mind that monetary resources are not the only resources set aside for emergency usage, especially considering Socialist Member States."

5. Strongly encourages member nations with the means to do so to contribute to the GFCA; additionally, the GAO shall be authorized to incentivize members to contribute to the GFCA, on top of the annual assessments they already pay.

"This clause contains a reference to Resolution 17, this would best be removed going forward so as to ensure safety from any legality challenges.

In any case, the Imperium can support this draft, both as written, and on concept."

[The United Universe]

I think this might be Significant. Other than that, this sounds really good.