I completely agree that it's surely desirable to update old laws with current terminology, for the avoidance of confusion. But in this case, while the affected bodies may have their names updated, by leaving everything else intact, and indeed actually passing the law as a currently in force dictum, we increase the confusion with no benefit that I can see.
Tan makes reference in the meeting to a post of explanation that I recently made: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... ves#p48529
Please have a look, and perhaps consider the following issues.
The issue of insurance against a possible sudden drop in community revenues is REAL. It is a worthy goal to put in place a system that protects us from the consequences of such an event. But what actually are the scenarios?
1) We have a sudden drop. The Treasurer wakes up one morning and sees that the existing Rudeen US$ account runs out of money. I do in fact have a Paypal account and a credit card attached to Rudeen's account, but those are only for extreme extremity... drawing on them would be very disadvantageous. Instead, I would simply log into the community reserves account, LadyJane, and transfer the needed L$s to Rudeen, and then have Rudeen sell L$s for US$s to make up the shortfall. This is very simple. No *law* is needed.
2) We have a sudden drop. But The Treasurer does NOT notice. Some possible life event might hinder her access or awareness to the money situation for the community. THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED THIS LAW, or if not a law, at least an understood administrative procedure, to protect against.
In this situation, the designated "separate line item (reserve account)" is useless. LL withdraws its tier payments from the US$ account of the Estate Owner, OR, from some designated RL account attached to the Estate Owner. Protection against a sudden drop of revenues, where there is no intervention to correct the matter, means that the intended "reserves" must be already IN the US$ account of the Estate Owner. That is the essence of the solution of the problem which this Act addresses.
Well, as I point out in the quoted post, I already do this. But this is not exactly what this law says, so my actions are "extra-legal" and intended to comply with the intent of the law rather than its wording. Each month when I "sell L$s" for US$s I make sure that the resulting sum in the US$ account is fully twice what is needed for the coming month.
Quite honestly, if anything, the community should be considering whether I should perhaps be instructed to INCREASE the margin that I now maintain. Instead of 2 months, should it be 3 months?, 6 months? Anything that puts sufficient overhead into the Estate Owner's US$ account so that the community can coast through any unforeseen absence of The Treasurer. Remember, the current problem needing to be addressed is not lack of cash... the May report indicated that the community possesses over US$10,000 in the Rudeen account and the LadyJane account. The PROBLEM is that in extremity the money be where it's needed.
So, please... don't mandate a structure that serves no function. 1) we do not receive US$ income, we receive L$ income. 2) we already have a reserve account, with funds unavailable for ANY use, except transfer back to the Estate Owner's account when needed. 3) the RA does not customarily disburse funds "at its discretion". The RA approves the Chancellor's budget, who directs the disbursal of funds. It is assumed that the disbursal of funds to LL for tier must proceed uninterrupted. 4) the balance in the reserve fund is "augmented" by any amounts more or less what is not foreseen to be needed in the Estate Owner's account.
Please let's not add to the confusion. I suggest that we toss this law, and instead focus on the actual functions of the Estate Owner and the Treasurer and how we can put in place systems which add to the security of the community (which is what this law is intended to achieve, but doesn't).