NationStates

---

Bianca Venkman, Assistant to the Delegate-Ambassador: Good intentions do not always make for good drafts - let alone perfect ones. The target resolution - or soon-to-be resolution - we feel is neither. What was, once upon a time, fervent support for a soft and fluffy resolution that essentially promoted humanities-related educational components, has devolved into fervent opposition to a soft and fluffy resolution that manages to be both more fancily-worded than Responsible Land Management and even less clear in setting out what it is supposed to do. We haven't talked about it here, but the Auditors department is supposed to monitor if WHF funds are being used for "the above established purpose" when there are clearly seven different purposes! Please discuss, as ever.

.

Repeal "Supporting and Valuing the Humanities"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Target: GA#495

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

General Assembly Resolution #495 “Supporting and Valuing the Humanities” (Category: Education and Creativity; Area of Effect: Educational) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Reminding member nations that the General Fund, which relies on “donations from member states”, is not a bottomless pit of money;

Appalled that GA 495 does not sufficiently ensure that the World Humanities Fund does not pay for wasteful programmes that are only tangentially related to its objectives or permit member nation subdivisions to request funding for local educational needs;

Troubled that GA 495 fails to require that Fund-bankrolled programmes could not be paid for adequately by recipients without WA money;

Dismayed that this failure creates incentives for member nations to pawn off costs to the World Assembly and then pocket the difference, encouraging reckless spending of other peoples’ money;

Incensed at section 5’s requirement that “the GAO... cease the allowance of funds to the transgressing nation or organization” “if incorrect use of funds is reported” without adequate due process;

Interpreting that provision to apply to all GAO disbursements, rather than just World Humanities Fund handouts, even if nations or organisations receive funding in separate programmes with different oversight for separate purposes, such as:

1. preventing radioactive leakage,
2. primary education,
3. healthcare for people in poverty, and
4. economic development;

Extremely concerned that, by cutting off member nation ministries from resources voted to them in previous resolutions for the wrongdoings of unrelated ministries, GA 495 would then:

1. weaken safety standards in uranium mines, increasing the risk of widespread nuclear disaster,
2. worsen primary education in other topics, harming literacy and basic education as a whole,
3. hamper the ability of health systems in developing nations to cope with infectious diseases, and
4. destroy jobs in weak economies, plunging workers into poverty; and

Convinced that GA 80 “A Promotion of Basic Education”, which already requires schools in member nations to offer more humanities courses than the bare-minimum single course required in Article 2 of the target resolution, renders the target resolution unnecessary, hereby:

Repeals GA 495 “Supporting and Valuing the Humanities”.

Co-authored with Imperium Anglorum.

Reserved post is reserved.

Olden Drafts:

---

Responding to The North Pacific's IFV on the target resolution:

TNP IFV: Supporting and Valuing the Humanities is a proposal that firstly notes the importance and rightful mention of the humanities within the halls of the WA, coming after GA# 475 which spoke on the importance of the Natural Sciences.
Tinhampton: Much of what SaVing the Humanities' preamble says about the humanities - that it is important, that it can help people develop their critical thinking skills, that it has proven important for the development of ideas for a long time, and that people who work in this field should be celebrated - applies to almost all other academic subjects.

TNP IFV: This resolution not only speaks about the humanities' importance, but takes steps to ensure their presence and usage in member nations' curriculums.
Tinhampton: This is broadly incorrect. SaVing the Humanities only requires that one humanities subject be available for study in each year group - there is no requirement that students take these courses or that (if they do) such courses are factual and non-trivial in nature. If I "offer" you a job, that doesn't mean you're required to sign a contract to say that you work for my company.

TNP IFV: Funding is offered for those nations who may not be able to support such curriculums with their own national budget through the World Humanities Fund.
Tinhampton: There are seven distinct purposes for which WHF funds may be requested: three of them relating to humanities courses up to university level, one for informal access-to-humanities courses, one for finding humanities-related jobs, one for R&D (if that can be said, read my repeal) and one for symposia. Furthermore, there are no conditions associated to which national governments and non-profits under their jurisdiction may apply for WHF funding; so as long as they have not been blacklisted by the WHF for "incorrect use of funding" (although "incorrect" is a horribly jarring word to be using in this context), they can apply for WHF funds, regardless of whether they are actually unable to fund such projects.

TNP IFV: Such funding has been given concrete objectives to ensure that no money is being improperly used.
Tinhampton: The objectives in Article 3 of SaVing the Humanities are not "concrete." Fluffy language such as "seek[ing] to further the research and development in various areas of the humanities," "funding humanities courses... to allow for greater accessibility outside of formal academic institutions," "strengthen the academic enrichment of courses" and "increase the offerings of exposure to the foundations of areas in the humanities" is abound. For instance, does "academic enrichment" mean requiring that humanities courses cover more points of view with less detail, that they expand upon the beliefs of only a few thinkers, or that they set out to enhance critical thinking skills for their students?

TNP IFV: These funds are not limited to only governments, but are extended to non profit entities who help further the mission of this proposal.
Tinhampton: This is correct, but in some contexts (such as Article 3a) funds cannot directly go to the entities that need funding when necessary.

TNP IFV: Built into the proposal is the formation of the Department of External Auditors, which ensures funds are being responsibly allocated to avoid wasteful spending and ensures transparency when it comes to the use of funding.
Tinhampton: The DEA's mission is overstated by TNP's Ministry of WA Affairs; its task is to report abuse of funds to the GAO (using funds for their intended purpose remains the responsibility of member states), not to "ensure [that] funds are being responsibly allocated." Furthermore, the DEA's existence is unnecessary; in Quality in Health Services, the WHA can reject funding requests of its own accord without having to receive a notification from another WA committee that its funds are being misused.

TNP IFV: For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends voting For the proposal, "Supporting and Valuing the Humanities".
Tinhampton: Tinhampton reacted with :god_thinker:

You know, you can take all the time in the world to mark up these drafts, and posts FAQ's until your heart is content. That doesn't erase the monumental history of bad shit you have tried to pass. Perhaps you should take a break for a while, and let the poison dilute out of the water for a bit. Just a suggestion.

“A lot of the arguments here are based on what I would term ‘quibbles’, meaning minor problems where a piece of legislation has not made the most optimal choice, rather than actual flaws. Although you have picked up a lot of problems, the majority of those are so minor that they have virtually no effect on member nations. This all reads like a list of minor edits submitted near the end of the drafting stage, rather than a repeal.”

"Support. As a rule the government of the Bananamen People's Republic and the Communism, It's A Party! party are opposed to the squandering of the General Fund on frivolities. Particularly so when member states are already obliged to ensure that at least six of the example "subjects" are taught under GAR#80."

Assistant Venkman: Ambassador Lewitt, a lot of suboptimal decisions made in a resolution's text results in a suboptimal resolution; perhaps the most glaring error is the opt-in controversy, which I would argue affects everybody that wants to ask for funds. If you need to opt into being able to receive WHF funds before you can actually ask for them, but nobody explains how you can opt in... what's the point?
Speaking of minor edits, two ambassadors proposed complete rewrites of what was eventually to become the Castle Federate's final proposal. "Academic Support of Humanities" by Ambassador Linda Ayramaki from Ararukar [sic], which would have replaced the Fund with a series of encouragements for member states, was turned down on the basis that the draft was supposed to be more of a declaration of support for the humanities than a resolution for members. "World Humanities Fund" by my overseer, Delegate-Ambassador Alexander Smith, appears to have been rejected without reply. Both rewrites were published weeks before the target resolution's submission.
Thank you, Comrade Ambassador Ted the Bananaman. I think.

Support; if you want drafting help I'll be happy to help.

Draft 2 is now up - thank you, IA.

“On the basis of ambassador Venkman’s response and new clauses which highlight the problems with the way GA #495 handled the GAO, I now support this repeal. I previously underestimated quite how much of an impact the poor wording had on the legislation as a whole.”

OOC: Given the target's author steadfastly refused to fix any of the issues due to their love of their wording (apparently), support.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Given the target's author steadfastly refused to fix any of the issues due to their love of their wording (apparently), support.

I personally would support, but given who the author is, no dice.

Submitted 12 hours ago, now deleted; may resubmit this in a few months. The below figure used to be 29 - I'm reliably informed that McM carried out a counter-campaign.

AS OF 0459 BST ON FRIDAY: Approvals: 27 out of 73 needed (Imperium Anglorum, Kustonia, Alaskor, Caladda, Bastanbo, Esperantist Mars, Harmonic Empire, Mathuvan Union, Awesomeland012345, Elysir, Heard and Mcdonald Island, Nghymru, Pure Blooded Whites, Ecania, Land Land Country Country, Cantanasia Objective, Biroa, Ostrovskiy, Byrdonia, Ransium, Redundland, New Luciannova, Upper Administration, Allenstadt, SFR Philippines, Wadelhelpia, HaClife)

Tinhampton wrote:Submitted 12 hours ago, now deleted; may resubmit this in a few months. The below figure used to be 29 - I'm reliably informed that McM carried out a counter-campaign.

AS OF 0459 BST ON FRIDAY: Approvals: 27 out of 73 needed (Imperium Anglorum, Kustonia, Alaskor, Caladda, Bastanbo, Esperantist Mars, Harmonic Empire, Mathuvan Union, Awesomeland012345, Elysir, Heard and Mcdonald Island, Nghymru, Pure Blooded Whites, Ecania, Land Land Country Country, Cantanasia Objective, Biroa, Ostrovskiy, Byrdonia, Ransium, Redundland, New Luciannova, Upper Administration, Allenstadt, SFR Philippines, Wadelhelpia, HaClife)

For real?

OOC: I can't see any reasonable interpretation under which clause 5 extends the mandate of the GAO to all funds. Against.

Tinhampton wrote:I'm reliably informed that McM carried out a counter-campaign.

That really should be a sign shouldn't it? Also, the whole list of who approved what is really unnecessary, and incredibly annoying.

Pope Saint Peter the Apostle wrote:OOC: I can't see any reasonable interpretation under which clause 5 extends the mandate of the GAO to all funds. Against.

OOC: Certainly no nation would interpret it that way. But it's not an instruction to nations, it's an instruction to a WA committee; and even assuming total uncorruptibility among WA staff and organs, there would likely come a time when the committee would have what it thinks are great reasons to act as this repeal states. Cf. viewtopic.php?p=36694175#p36694175 (please note I might still be in the minority with this interpretation...)

Still working on this - and still submitting this Soon

Tinhampton wrote:Still working on this - and still submitting this Soon

Mega large support

"Ambassador, an honest question: do you have any intent of seeing the target of your repeal to be replaced? Or is it simply your intent to get a resolution you disagree with out of the way?"

Great Robertia wrote:"Ambassador, an honest question: do you have any intent of seeing the target of your repeal to be replaced? Or is it simply your intent to get a resolution you disagree with out of the way?"

Assistant Venkman: Tinhampton's ambassadors are not drafting a replacement. It is unlikely we would support one unless it has better and more nuanced safeguards on funding - rather than either near-indiscriminate permissions on WHF funding or near-indiscriminate bans on GAO funding - doesn't introduce unnecessary morasses of bureaucracy like the DEA, and isn't a carbon copy of what we're repealing.

Tinhampton wrote:Assistant Venkman: Tinhampton's ambassadors are not drafting a replacement. It is unlikely we would support one unless it has better and more nuanced safeguards on funding - rather than either near-indiscriminate permissions on WHF funding or near-indiscriminate bans on GAO funding - doesn't introduce unnecessary morasses of bureaucracy like the DEA, and isn't a carbon copy of what we're repealing.

"While your justification for this resolution is sound, I cannot in good conscience support this repeal once it reaches the floor. Had there been replacement legislation in the works, my response would have been different. Nonetheless, may events unfold in your favour."

Great Robertia wrote:

Tinhampton wrote:Assistant Venkman: Tinhampton's ambassadors are not drafting a replacement. It is unlikely we would support one unless it has better and more nuanced safeguards on funding - rather than either near-indiscriminate permissions on WHF funding or near-indiscriminate bans on GAO funding - doesn't introduce unnecessary morasses of bureaucracy like the DEA, and isn't a carbon copy of what we're repealing.

"While your justification for this resolution is sound, I cannot in good conscience support this repeal once it reaches the floor. Had there been replacement legislation in the works, my response would have been different. Nonetheless, may events unfold in your favour."

"You can write the replacement. There is still education laws that guarantee basic education on Humanities, so a non-immediate replacement wouldn’t be Super disastrous.

Honeydewistania wrote:

Great Robertia wrote:
"While your justification for this resolution is sound, I cannot in good conscience support this repeal once it reaches the floor. Had there been replacement legislation in the works, my response would have been different. Nonetheless, may events unfold in your favour."

"You can write the replacement. There is still education laws that guarantee basic education on Humanities, so a non-immediate replacement wouldn’t be Super disastrous.

Indeed. We consider the greatest justification for the repeal to be that its mandates are already ensured, in a less invasive manner, through other legislation.

We have yet to see any justification for why this assembly should stick its obtrusively large nose into micromanaging the educational systems and priorities of member states. These are purely domestic affairs best left out of this institution altogether. We encourage a full adoption of the repeal and no replacement.

At a broad level, https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/ ... r-2-ia.pdf (working paper). And bump.

As ever, we are Proposal-A-Go-Go.