Talk:Social Services Expenditures Act, 654

From The Kodiak Republic Wiki

Social Services Expenditures Act, 654 Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 08/04/2023 11:01 AM

Tabled by von Zeppelin, MGA, CKA, as an independent member's bill. In order to save the Republic from default, the following changes are being made in the laws concerning the Ministry of Social Services. Voting is currently set for the 18th of august,_654 The Kodiak Republic Wiki Social Services Expenditures Act, 654 In order to save the Republic from default, the following changes are being made in the laws concerning the Ministry of Social Services.

ACTIONED on ## month ####, ## Aye, ## Nay, ## Abstain.

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/04/2023 11:02 AM Voila. Discussion begin. Thanks, @Assembly President .

Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 08/04/2023 11:02 AM

@Assembly Member debate is now open for the social services expenditures act, 654

Jonn Stevens (DPPK)


a message

to this channel. See all 

pinned messages .

— 08/04/2023 11:02 AM

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/04/2023 11:09 AM I don't think there's anything to discuss here. In article 1.1, the reduction is minimal, in 1.2, the attempt of the bureaucracy to profit by doing nothing is removed.

Joshua Lopez - Slatium — 08/04/2023 11:09 AM Why remove section 3.2 and 3.3?

Klaus Mikaelson (Ind) — 08/04/2023 11:34 AM You want to remove the governing body that checks for wellfare fraud? I don't see how that makes sense.

Joshua Lopez - Slatium — 08/04/2023 11:37 AM That is what I was thinking about

Kenward Matthews (SAK) — 08/04/2023 11:40 AM Perhaps it is to save money, in which case I would advise lowering the 50M of funding rather than removing it altogether

Joshua Lopez - Slatium — 08/04/2023 11:41 AM I understand that, but what do we save exactly? This just encourages welfare fraud where we would lose money regardless, just leave it be in my opinion.

Kenward Matthews (SAK) — 08/04/2023 11:48 AM I can't really judge that, though I would like to hear the author's opinion on this

Klaus Mikaelson (Ind) — 08/04/2023 12:39 PM exactly. This encourages fraud to take place and for those who would commit fraud to take more risks in their crime. this would end up easily costing far more than the government would save by cutting this department.

Braughn F. G. Kryos — 08/04/2023 12:47 PM Considering the author's crusade against what he sees as a pandemic of welfare fraud, removing the body responsible for making sure that doesn't happen is rather ironic.

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/04/2023 11:18 PM Article 2.3,_645

Article 6.4 mentioned above,_637 The Kodiak Republic Wiki The Policing Act, 645 Return to Kodiak Law Code The Kodiak Republic Wiki The Kodiak Felony Act, 637 A resolution to levy consequences for criminal acts. Passed 21 March 2022 - 13 Aye, 0 Nay, 1 Abstain. Amended 01 October 2022 - 6 Aye, 3 Nay, 0 Abstain Amended 05 January 2023 - 13 Aye, 02 Nay, 04 Abstain We already have an organization that fights corruption, and we don't need others. Therefore, Article 1.2 of this law is the removal of duplication of services.

Joshua Lopez - Slatium — 08/05/2023 2:49 AM I don't think that the SBI has the objective to stop welfare fraud, more of a job to stop corruption in government.

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/05/2023 2:54 AM All problems with corruption are under the responsibility of SBI. The complexity of the issues being addressed helps him in this, which gives him experience and good positions. If the SBI does not cope with its work, then it is necessary not to multiply budget consumers, but to make the imperial services work.

Otherwise, maybe we should create a service that would monitor the service that counteracts corruption? And for them to create another service, because 3 services to fight corruption are not enough?

Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 08/06/2023 12:56 PM

If I may ask the honorable member, if he intends to put in the bill That the quote SBI will take over this area of corruption, based on my understanding. Just because you get rid of a department, does not mean it’s responsibility’s would automatically be transferred to another department as the SBI as I understand it deals with 1 treason and 2 deliberately hidden wealth it’s not specifically to handle welfare fraud for more understanding I feel we would have to ask the @Chief Justice what would happen to that responsibility

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/08/2023 7:30 AM Article 6 - State Crimes ... 6.4 - Corruption 6.4.1 - Dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in service to the government of the Kodiak Republic. 6.4.2 - Subcategories of Corruption shall include charges of bribery, lobbying, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, parochialism, patronage, influence peddling, graft, and embezzlement. 6.4.3 - Punishable by a maximum of 20 years in Federal Prison

Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 08/08/2023 11:16 AM

“Dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in service to the government of the Kodiak republic” I don’t know if those committing Welfare fraud are specifically in service to the government

Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/09/2023 12:39 AM As written no, and I would argue that welfare fraud in this context isn't a 'State Crime'. It should be a crime however, but not at the level of 'State Crime'. We're talking about crimes at the level of treason and government corruption.

I would also suggest that welfare fraud is, as presently written in the Policing Act is also not a matter for the SBI, as their mission is centered around state crimes, organised crime, terrorism, foreign interference, and unaccounted wealth investigations. If the Assembly wished to pass this responsibility to the SBI then the SBI would need to be given that mandate.

In my opinion, welfare fraud should be investigated by the department supplying the welfare, and said department should be empowered to use all legal measures to recoup the fraudulently claimed funds.

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/09/2023 1:09 AM I have to disagree. Article 6 clearly and definitely speaks about corruption and its manifestations. In our legislation, "State crimes" is a broad category. I insist on a careful reading of the articles I have given. The transfer of powers to the department to investigate corruption in it is like giving a criminal the authority to pass a sentence on himself

Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 08/09/2023 1:13 AM

Yes and while the honorable member has interpreted it that way many others would disagree in any case I believe if the member would like to have the SBI take over that duty I suggest he specifically puts that in the bill or requests it be added because I feel that is a very broad interpretation of that article we must be precise because in the worst case scenario we would just be eliminating the department responsible for taking care of welfare fraud

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/09/2023 1:15 AM I'll do it right away.

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/09/2023 1:22 AM Apparently, I will not be able to add in this bill clarifications to the legislation that concerns us relate to the Ministry of Law and Order, and not social services. Will the participants of the discussion be satisfied if I introduce a law to clarify Article 6 with a separate bill?

W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/09/2023 1:25 AM I don't believe that we can simply integrate investigations for welfare fraud into the justice ministry - this issue is one that is very much a question of documents and procedures best understood by the Social Services Ministry based on problems sourced entirely within the perview of the social services ministry investigations for such fraud would easily cost a considerable multiplier more trying to integrate into any other department

Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 08/09/2023 1:30 AM

And if I may even if you do put this into another bill unless it’s put in the government queue there would be possibly a few months (IRL) where their would not be anyone investigating welfare fraud

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/09/2023 2:25 AM You know, I readily believe that this is good... no, they know their organizational structure perfectly well. That is why they will use the full power of the department for their own, sometimes selfish purposes. And therefore, if you create an anti-corruption bureau subordinate to a particular ministry, then it uses its power to hide its machinations. Therefore, in developed countries, not separate semi-independent departments are being created, but unified relatively independent bureaus AGENCE FRANÇAISE ANTICORRUPTION in France, SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE in UK,

and Bundes­kriminal­amtes ( in group SO32) in Germany - they all understand the absurdity of the idea of sentencing by the criminal himself, so they form separate bureaus.

I agree, it may take enough time. But the current legislation is already quite readable in my interpretation. The new bill will only make a clarification, although necessary. Moreover, by that time I can reform SBI and put its structure on the world level. Serious Fraud Office About us An overview of the work the SFO does and how it carries out its role as a investigator and prosecutor of serious fraud, bribery and corruption. Image Organigramm Organigramm

Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 08/09/2023 2:30 AM

If I may suggest to the member if this is his intention if he may just remove the part about repealing the department that handles welfare fraud keep the rest of this bill and then write another bill to handle this topic the welfare fraud office may exist for a little bit longer but i think it is a much better solution then getting rid of the office and not being able to transfer its duties

Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/09/2023 2:32 AM As pointed out by the President, the article specifies government employees. Persons committing welfare fraud need not be employees of the state. So as written, it does not in fact cover welfare fraud in general under corruption. So it does not automatically fall under SBI under state crimes of corruption. So welfare fraud could be entered on its own into the laws as a crime if required, and if especially intended to be investigated by the SBI. This will ensure no room for legal errors, so to speak. I will note that not all countries put welfare fraud under specific investigative organisations. Some countries keep it in-house with the welfare providing organisation (with that said it is basically having a department within the department handling fraud).

Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/09/2023 2:39 AM I'll also actually state that I have no opposition for welfare fraud investigations being brought outside of the initiating department. Just that reppealing it doesn't actually mean it automatically passes on to SBI (unless they are government employees committing the fraud). So additioal entries to the law code would need to be made for that to happen.

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/09/2023 2:49 AM The concept of "social benefits" exists only if there is a state structure issuing them. If there is no structure, then there are no benefits. Therefore, you should not worry about non-state benefits - they simply do not exist. Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/09/2023 2:50 AM I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

The article on corruption under State Crimes relates only to government employees. It is explicit.

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/09/2023 2:54 AM If 6.4.1 - yes, if 6.4.2 - no.

Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/09/2023 2:58 AM We can't simply ignore a clause. Since you point out 6.4.2 - Fraud inherently is not necessarily corruption. Corruption implies an abuse of entrusted power for gain. I feel like this is a wasted argument to be honest. All I'm saying is - if we want SBI to handle welfare fraud, then this needs to be defined, and SBI given the mandate to investigate it as well.

Avakael — 08/09/2023 3:00 AM general point of order for the Australian example- public prosecutions does investigate welfare fraud when the welfare agency refers it to them, but the welfare agency doesn't bother doing this unless it's a very high sum. Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 08/09/2023 3:00 AM I believe Ms. Groves was talking about the recipients, who are not state employees, performing fraud

Avakael — 08/09/2023 3:00 AM you'd be better off ensuring the agency simply has the power to compel a debt plan where it's clear it was actually fraud and not a mistake.

Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 08/09/2023 3:01 AM

If I may redirect to this comment for the author

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/09/2023 3:03 AM I punish for corruption both the one who gave the money and the one who took it. This is a double-edged sword, which (according to our legislation) hurts equally on both sides.

Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/09/2023 3:04 AM Not really, someone comitting fraud doesn't make the service officer, who didn't know at the time, guilty of corruption.

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/09/2023 3:06 AM How can someone accidentally take a bribe or take it without knowing about it?

W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/09/2023 3:06 AM Fraud =/= bribery Welfare fraud could be, for example, someone reporting to the Ministry a lower income than reality because they work for cash-in-hand, and then taking a higher amount of basic welfare than they actually deserve. None of that is the fault of the welfare officer. Another example would be failing to report a dead parent (or failing to report a mistake regarding continued payments), and collecting their pension.

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/09/2023 3:11 AM A person who did not notify the service about an ultra-high allowance is guilty, as is someone who did not notify about the death of a parent. Usually, in such cases, a call is made to the appropriate services to clarify the reasons for receiving an unreasonably high amount of money. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/09/2023 3:13 AM that call can't be made unless its invesitaged by a welfare fraud department

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/09/2023 3:14 AM It can be made due to the presence of a support service. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/09/2023 3:14 AM Not if the lie isn't found out

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/09/2023 3:15 AM Practice shows that a call is made first, and then a lie is revealed.

W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/09/2023 3:16 AM by whom? Magic Dan? Who do you think is going to investigate irregularities in payments if not the welfare fraud investigators?

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/09/2023 3:17 AM The prosecutor's office and the police coped with this perfectly, they are coping and will continue to cope. In our case: the reduced prosecutor's office = SBI. Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/09/2023 3:20 AM You can't decide someone has committed fraud without investigating first. Which is what the aforementioned welfare fraud department have been doing. Not the SBI, because our laws have not instructed the SBI be responsible for welfare fraud.

So I repeat - if we want the SBI to handle it then laws need to change.

Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/09/2023 3:24 AM No, bribery would be corruption, that's a different matter. If a state employee, government official etc took a bribe then yes the SBI would investigate.

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/09/2023 3:30 AM SBI is engaged in the prevention of fraud in public services everywhere. It's hard for me to understand how this should work.

Suppose the Minister of Social Security stole 10 million florins from the treasury right now. In order not to be declassified, he either shackles the actions of the anti-corruption bureau in social services, or directly orders them to engage in nonsense. As a result, the minister steals money with impunity. But this is in a world where there is no SBI.

In the world with SBI, it will launch an investigation at one of the regular inspections or mo complaint and, since the Minister of Social Services does not have authority over this bureau, an act of corruption will quickly be revealed.

Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/09/2023 3:34 AM That's not welfare fraud, that's a different crime. The monetary part would be embezzlement and fraud (without the welfare), and indeed Corruption.

Your scenario is indeed covered by State Crimes and indeed investigated by SBI. That is not the welfare fraud that the Social Services department investigates.

I fully believe we just have a mismatch of what welfare fraud is. Welfare fraud is as explained by Mr Ward - when a welfare recipient (e.g., parenting payment) lies to the department of social services to gain more welfare payments.

Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/09/2023 3:42 AM "SBI is engaged in the prevention of fraud in public services everywhere"

To put it another way - yes this, SBI investigates fraud commited by public servants, government officials, elected officials etc.

The Social Services Fraud Investigation department investigates citizens that receive welfare but lie about their circumstances to get payments (or more payments) than they are eligible for.

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/09/2023 3:46 AM It seems to me that we are beginning to understand each other. Can you show me an article stating that SBI punishes only civil servants and ignores citizens?

Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/09/2023 3:47 AM Yeah it's 6.4.1:

6.4 - Corruption

   6.4.1 - Dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in service to the government of the Kodiak Republic.

Specifically 'those in service to the government of Kodiak' Social Services could use the courts to prosecute if they need to prosecute a citizen (As pointed out by Avakael).

Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 08/09/2023 3:48 AM An argument possibly could be made that all citizens serve the government in some way or another But that's a level of pedantry obviously in conflict with the spirit of that clause.

Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/09/2023 3:49 AM (OOC: not sure everyone would agree there :andreaLUL: ) von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/09/2023 3:50 AM 6.4.2 - Subcategories of Corruption shall include charges of bribery, lobbying, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, parochialism, patronage, influence peddling, graft, and embezzlement.

It may do and citisen.

Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/09/2023 3:51 AM Yes but 6.41. first narrows State Crimes Corruption to persons that serve the State.

Then further defines what forms corruption can take in 6.4.2. We have to read them together, not separately. If 6.4.1 didn't exist, then yes the SBI would investigate those that don't serve the State as well. Which would be quite a day, imagine the SBI investigating CEOs ;) But I digress. Remember social services only cares about welfare fraud.

SBI cares about corruption in government.

Private citizens that say, embezzle, are actually prosecuted as private citizens through the legal system (Since we have Article 2 in the Felony Act).

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/09/2023 3:59 AM I think you've changed my mind. It's a pity that another question remains. What is the lesser evil: citizens robbing states on an industrial scale or spending several million on a semi-useful department.

Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/09/2023 4:03 AM It seems a small price to pay to try to deter and recoup losses and help make sure money goes to those that need it, I think. I think the department should exist, but I don't have a big opinion on how much funding they should have right now.

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/09/2023 4:04 AM 0 florins?

Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/09/2023 4:04 AM According to policy review we are pretty much at minimum of funding.

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/09/2023 4:07 AM Maybe 50 mln -> 15 mln?

Klaus Mikaelson (Ind) — 08/09/2023 8:27 AM "dishonest" seems an odd word to use in a legal document or law, especially when talking about any part of government.

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/09/2023 9:02 AM As soon as there is an opportunity, I will get to this bill.

Joshua Lopez - Slatium — 08/10/2023 5:02 PM Can we reduce it to 25 mln? I don't like that we have to change it at all but I understand why.

W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/10/2023 8:17 PM I have made some considerations and would suggest the following amendments to this proposal @von Zeppelin [CKA]:

Instead of decreasing the pension we should amend the Retirement Act to increase the retirement age from 65 to 67. We should not repeal either the Unemployment benefit, the Work for Welfare Scheme, nor the Welfare Fraud Department We should commit to a 25% reduction in the Child and Dependents Act from 2 billion quarterly to 1.5 billion quarterly. We should commit to a 10% reduction in the Public Housing Act from 1 billion quarterly to 0.9 billion quarterly.

Joshua Lopez - Slatium — 08/11/2023 2:55 AM We could reduce the funding for the Disabilly Support Act from 1 billion to 0.9 billion as well.

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/11/2023 3:07 AM See changes.

W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/11/2023 3:08 AM national school bus act is in transportation or should have been that error is now repaired but will need to be removed from this proposal

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/11/2023 3:11 AM I suggest we consider him, since he was in this category. And after the adoption / rejection of the law, move it to the desired category. The Public Service — 08/11/2023 3:13 AM The suggestion must be rejected. While the error was likely made in good faith by the President at the time, it is still standing policy that amendment packages cannot cross ministries - even if the lodgings are incorrect

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/11/2023 3:17 AM Good. Redone. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/12/2023 2:20 AM @Assembly President I think it's time to end this discussion and begin voting.

Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 08/12/2023 2:46 AM

If someone would second the members motion and there are no objections i will begin the vote in 24 hours W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/12/2023 2:47 AM i second

Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 08/12/2023 2:48 AM

In that case if there are no objections I will begin the vote in 24 hours EasyPoll BOT

— 08/13/2023 3:07 AM

Question Do you Approve of The Social Services Expenditures Act 654

Choices 🇦 Aye 🇧 Nay 🇨 Abstain

Final Result 🇦 ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░ [17 • 81%] 🇧 ▓░░░░░░░░░ [2 • 10%] 🇨 ▓░░░░░░░░░ [2 • 10%] 21 users voted


alarm_clock: Poll already ended (12 hours ago)
spy: Anonymous Poll
one: allowed choice
lock: No other votes allowed

Allowed roles: @Assembly Member Poll ID: d799feb5 Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 08/13/2023 3:09 AM

@Assembly Member voting is now open for the Social Services Expenditures Act 654 Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 08/14/2023 3:22 PM

@Assembly Member only 24 hours left in the poll make sure to vote! Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— Today at 2:48 PM

@Assembly Member with a margin of 17 aye 2 nay and 2 abstaining this act is declared passed

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.