Contingency Preparedness Act

[Wallenburg]

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

You were the one who brought up accountability, my friend. Of course, you still have not demonstrated why the use of privately owned funds must be published.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

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

You were the one who brought up accountability, my friend.

By writing a resolution about financial accountability? Why yes, in hindsight, that was a grievous error.

Of course, you still have not demonstrated why the use of privately owned funds must be published.

To be perfectly blunt, as long as relative funds are earmarked for public use, I couldn't give a flying flip who technically owns those funds.

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

Perhaps you or someone else more knowledgeable than I could help in this. Are there standing resolutions (since the repealed Topid law circa '09) that relate to emergency response, and how would they overlap with keeping public records of what non-monetary resources exist for emergency purposes? (Adding "and resources" to the clause would be an easy fix, but I want to make sure there are no conflicts.)

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

As the clause is only included in case #17 were repealed, we do not think this is HoC. The provision certainly does not rely on the existence of #17 in order to work.

[Wallenburg]

You were the one who brought up accountability, my friend.

By writing a resolution about financial accountability? Why yes, in hindsight, that was a grievous error.

In that case, you have no reason to complain about me highlighting cases where leaders are not held accountable to their people.

Of course, you still have not demonstrated why the use of privately owned funds must be published.

To be perfectly blunt, as long as relative funds are earmarked for public use, I couldn't give a flying flip who technically owns those funds.

So if a private citizen creates a private foundation to fund public works, their private funds and how they are used ought to be published, despite that citizen's often guaranteed right to privacy?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I'll change it to "government funds."

Although private foundations are expected to be transparent as well in modern society - that is not the subject of this resolution.

[Excidium Planetis]

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

As the clause is only included in case #17 were repealed, we do not think this is HoC. The provision certainly does not rely on the existence of #17 in order to work.

"I believe the Ambassador Markhov is referring to 'on top of the annual assessments they already pay'. If GA#17 is repealed, they won't be paying any annual assessments. That would be your house of cards. I suggest changing it to 'in addition to any payments required by international law' or something."

[Normlpeople]

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."

"This is exactly how we would do such a thing" Clover said "Attempting to earmark money for every single contingency would get messy quick. As long as donations remain voluntary and the audits are encouraged and not required, I do not see a problem supporting this in its current form."

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

As the clause is only included in case #17 were repealed, we do not think this is HoC. The provision certainly does not rely on the existence of #17 in order to work.

"I believe the Ambassador Markhov is referring to 'on top of the annual assessments they already pay'. If GA#17 is repealed, they won't be paying any annual assessments. That would be your house of cards. I suggest changing it to 'in addition to any payments required by international law' or something."

Doable, although the clause as is neither affects the extant assessments nor is reliant on them in order to function, so any changes to that end would be purely cosmetic.