Over in the announcements of RA Actions, Gwyn commented:
[quote="Gwyneth Llewellyn":64ffvp0q]I'm raising the SC flag here on NL 4-29, "Finance Advisory Committee Act".
All matters related to finance are, constitutionally, the sole purpose of the Guild  all the RA can do is vote on a budget (thus, 4-28 has, in my opinion, no problem to be approved); as a matter of fact, a similar issue was raised some 15 months ago, with similar wording, where the RA at that time tried to implement a committee for dealing with finance, and it was vetoed on constitutional grounds.
Law 4-29 will have to be discussed internally at the SC for its constitutionality. Since it's supposed to be an advisory board and not a deliberative one, it might still pass, but only if the intent of 4-29 is totally clear (ie. if there is an opportunity to interpret it so that the RA can effectively manage the finances, this law cannot pass; if it's absolutely clear that the Guild can disregard any comments by the Finance Advisory Board at any time, without any sanctions or public pressure, well then, perhaps it might pass).
To be discussed soon at the SC! (I hope)[/quote:64ffvp0q]
I'd like to discuss this a bit.
I have expressed interest a number of times since assuming the role of Treasurer of having a group who can share responsibility for the finances of the community. In fact, as Gwyn says, it was early in the first RA, while I was a member, that I had proposed a procedure by which a committee administered the finances. This resolution was passed by the RA, but when Ulrika became aware of it, she vetoed it summarily as being in violation of the constitution.
Then, again, last summer I suggested an informal Finance Committee with which the Treasurer could share detailed financial info and which might thru combined talents improve the administration of City finances. The idea... and at that time it was only a proposal, was again vehemently opposed by Ulrika as an attempt by a few to hide information from the public. Her opinion was that any financial information which this committee might share could be just as well made public and discussed on the forum.
I'd like to suggest that this issue, the issue of confiential deliberation, is really the heart of the matter. The issue of RA usurpation of AC authority, however, seems to me a non-issue. Here is the text of the approved resolution.
[i:64ffvp0q]NL-429
The RA shall appoint a committee to advise the Guildmaster and RA on financial matters, including but not limited to:
Revenue Enhancement
Asset protection
Currency Management
Non citizens may be appointed to the committee with the consent of the SC. Any citizen may nominate someone to serve on the advisory committee. The committee shall have a minimum of three and maximum of nine members. A committee member may be asked to leave on recommendation of the GM and majority of the RA. [/i:64ffvp0q]
The "action" word here, relating to the issue of intergovernmental authority is "advise". "Advise" means to "give advice". It does not mean to exercise authority over. The procedures following the list may be altered in any way that the RA and the SC see fit; they do not bear materially on the issue here (in my opinion).
What is the issue is the need to bring the best talents we have together for the critically important function of financial administration. I am a RL business person with *many* years experience in certain aspects of money management, particularly in the area of administering an organization. I have no experience at all in appropriate investing, dual currencies, and currency strategies re inflation. The strength of NBurg is cooperative effort directed to solving problems and fostering growth. Finance very much qualifies for this treatment.
The concern I have, and I think should be publicly dealt with, is that many deliberations of such a group may need to be done in private. I believe this should be recognized and defined. Let me offer a simple example.
As Treasurer I am given the responsibility of collecting everyone's monthly fee. And, given human nature, it is inevitable that some citizens may be negligent at times in paying their fee on time. We do have a rule about this; I have intepreted that rule to mean that anyone whose fee for a given month is unpaid by the 21st day of the following month shall be subject to having their land Reclaimed.
Over the months of NBurg history, a number of people have been negligent. My administration of the rule has been to use my best judgment to determine whether or not this individual was someone who wanted to be a good citizen but who was bad at doing things on time, or was someone who had abandoned the community. In one case, someone who very much wanted to be a citizen went several months before they and I worked out a system whereby their fee was paid in a timely fashion. In my opinion, despite the hassle that person presented, no good purpose was served by ejecting that person from the community. Their fees were fully paid, finally.
In my monthly report while this was going on, I reported that some people were behind, but that I fully expected to collect. Again, Ulrika was incensed, demanding that names be made public and that such people lose their land. Her opinion was that people should be held to the rules that the community had approved. Period. My opinion is that such information is confidential. It does not need to be shared on the forum. Only the financial status... "x" $$ in arrears of monthly fees... perhaps "y" $$ likely to be collected... "z" $$ not likely, etc.
This is a simple example. There are many more issues of financial policy which should be discussed privately by individuals committed to the financial health of the community who are professionally qualified to do so. I am not proposing that every consideration of a finance committee be secret; only that many issues, at their discretion, should be so. At this point in time, I can only consult with myself on such matters. That is not a good long term financial administration policy.
It might be suggested that the GM should simply appoint her finance committee from whomever Guild members she deems suitable. *shrug* That's fine with me too. However, I should think that it would be in the interests of the community that there be cross relationships with the other branches, particularly with the RA as the only "representatives of the people". In this case, the concept of an "oversight" function might apply. The members of this committee are authorized only to "advise" the GM, or the Treasurer, in matters of financial management. But, becoming intimately knowledgeable with the financial workings, they are also uniquely suited to present legislation to remedy shortcomings of the system as they evolve. While the GM may not agree with the intent of some of that legislation, the fact that these individuals are knowledgable of the facts make such proposals more credible.
In the current matter, I had expressed to Claude my strong interest in such a committee. He prepared this resolution, and the RA approved it. If the RA and the SC see fit to tweak it in order to tighten compliance with the Constitution, thats fine. But, I adamantly stand behind the formation of such a committee, and I thank Claude and the RA for creating it.
Sudane
They could even bring the "advisory body" under the Bank of Neufreistadt. And they could even have non-voting members of the RA be appointed to that committee. None of these would violate the spirit of the Constitution  it would be just the Guild finally establishing its own procedures to handle all financial things properly, in a manner that they see fit.