Trebor Warcliffe wrote:Here are my thoughts why I feel Beathans proposed legislation is unnecessary.
Stipends for CDS Government Officials
1. No government official shall be paid a stipend except as expressly authorized by the RAMy Response
The Chancellor has to submit a budget to the RA for approval. This budget contains the job title and respective stipend of the position. Verification that these stipends are indeed being adhered to are shown on a monthly basis in the CDS Financial Statements under Requests for Payments which lists in detail all payments made by the CDS except for tier expenses. Stipends, marketing, advertising, entertainers for events, web hosting fees and any other expenses are broken down in this area.
I am satisfied that you are not misappropriating funds from another budget item to pay an official more than the RA set limits. However, there is no law or Cosntitutional provision currently preventing a hypothetical Chancellor from doing so. There should be. If this proposal will not change how you are administering the CDS, why oppose it?
2. The Chancellor shall not pay any CDS official from Chancellery discretionary but shall only pay stipends from funds budgeted and authorized for payment of stipends.
My Response
The budget that is approved by the RA is the budget that must be followed. This doesn’t allow for funds to be transferred from one area of the budget to another area without at least an approval by the RA. For example if marketing expenses are looking to be more than I budgeted for I would have to approach the RA for either approval for more funds to be allocated or to transfer funds from another area of the budget to the marketing area. Verification that these stipends are indeed being adhered to are shown on a monthly basis in the CDS Financial Statements under Requests for Payments which lists in detail all payments made by the CDS except for tier expenses. Stipends, marketing, advertising, entertainers for events, web hosting fees and any other expenses are broken down in this area. With this level of transparency that Sudane has set-up every Linden is accounted for on a monthly basis.
I agree that you have described how the budget should work. The problem is that there is currently no legislation requiring that it work that way. That is the point.
At present, as long as the Chancellor has a figleaf argument that some activity fits, however loosely, into a budget item -- the Chancellor can spend funds from that item, even if the funds would more logically come from another budget item. This legislation would fix that, at least with regard to stipends.
3. As part of its budget process, the RA shall set the maximum stipend to be paid to any CDS official and may set specific stipends for any CDS office
My Response
This is already in existence. Each term the Chancellor submits a budget and if the RA is happy with the amount of the stipends than they approve it. If they’re not happy with the amount they send it back to the Chancellor to be amended. You’re proposing legislation for a procedure already in existence.
I agree with you on this as to our past practice. However, again, there is no legislation requiring that the RA consider and set stipends -- only that the RA pass the budget. We should make clear that stipends are controversial enough that they should be specifically evaluated in any budget.
4. The maximum stipend to be paid to CDS officials in office during the 16th term of the RA shall be L$ 1,500 (later amended to L$ 2,000)per month, as reflected in the approved budget for that term.
My Response
See my response above. You’re trying to make legislation for procedures already in existence. The RA approves the budget which contains a specific set figure for the stipend. This amount should be looked at on a term-by-term basis, not set in stone by legislation, due to different government positions and the various levels of responsibilities of these positions. Also I don’t see how you can enact legislation in the same term as it is approved. I believe CDS history shows legislation passed in one term becomes effective in the following term.
You are just wrong on CDS history. Much (indeed most) legislation passed by the RA was effective when passed -- without delay until the next term. For instance, the budget was effective when passed. The Constitutional Amendments on the election were put into immediate effect. The legislation on Sim expansion was immediately effective.
CDS history shows the opposite of what you assert here.
You are also forgetting the 5th. part of my proposal -- added later -- prohibiting plurality of office. Do you have a response to that part of the proposal?
Beathan