The Organizing Our Finances Act

[Üc R. Tärfă]

Well, the actual whole point is realizing that it doesn't make sense to report on our financial state right after elections.  Money is almost never spent in the interim period except on emergencies or scheduled items, so why are we settling accounts after that, rather than in the useful time where it will be visibly linked to the probity and activity of a government?  It's not transparent and it's not useful.

Because final balances/statement are made up to the day when a new budget starts to be useful and relevant. A final balance made before the election is a balance that covers not one budget but two part of two different budgets (and governments).

Can we get real on that part? It's like the first thing taught in accounting 101. The final balance should be on the budgeted period.

You want the Burgermeister to be required by law to report before the election (Which btw it can be done today with the existing law, it only requires the minister to request a report - or the ziu to approve a sense of the ziu to bind the minister to request it)? Fine, but we can't reinvent how accounting has always worked since it was invented 😅

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

The most useful and relevant time to give a financial statement is when it will keep a government accountable to the people.  It is more transparent and democratic.  It should be required of a government, not optional.  It's the people's money.

I understand that this might bother accountants. We can budget some money for counseling for them, if it gets severe. But I think they will be assuaged if a supplemental report is required in the case of any further expenditures (which almost never happened in that period of time anyway).

[Tric'hard Lenxheir]

Well, the actual whole point is realizing that it doesn't make sense to report on our financial state right after elections.  Money is almost never spent in the interim period except on emergencies or scheduled items, so why are we settling accounts after that, rather than in the useful time where it will be visibly linked to the probity and activity of a government?  It's not transparent and it's not useful.

So I think you're largely wrong, but it would seem make sense to require a supplementary report included with the budget, detailing any further expenditures, if any, and providing new final figures in such a case.  @Tric'hard Lenxheir , would you be open to adding that to your bill?

Absolutely, my proposal was not intended to remove the responsibility of the incoming government to also do a financial report prior to or with the new budget (especially after taking out the freeze on spending) it was simply an effort to make the transition easier so that the incoming government wasn't coming in blind trying to figure out where we were financially. Basically I want to keep the country financially open and make the transition easier on everyone.

[Üc R. Tärfă]

The most useful and relevant time to give a financial statement is when it will keep a government accountable to the people.  It is more transparent and democratic.  It should be required of a government, not optional.  It's the people's money.

Absolutely, my proposal was not intended to remove the responsibility of the incoming government to also do a financial report prior to or with the new budget (especially after taking out the freeze on spending)

You keep talking about transparency, but in your posts (I added the underlines in the quotes above) there's always this part about the Government making the report: how there can be any transparency at all if a Government is required to report on itself?

We are all for transparency and democratic oversight: that's why it is and it must continue to be the job of the Burgermeister and not the Government.

it was simply an effort to make the transition easier so that the incoming government wasn't coming in blind trying to figure out where we were financially. Basically I want to keep the country financially open and make the transition easier on everyone.

The Government "was coming in blind" because it tried to be something he must not be: the reporter and not the receiver of the report.

I recongise that the Senator proposal - as it stands at the moment I'm writing this (C.1.5.8 The burgermeister shall be required to submit a Final Financial Report 30 days before the end of the Cosa to include all expenditures during the Cosa.) - sounds different from his comments: he talks about government reporting but in the proposal says the Burgermeister.

I understand that this might bother accountants. We can budget some money for counseling for them, if it gets severe. But I think they will be assuaged if a supplemental report is required in the case of any further expenditures (which almost never happened in that period of time anyway).

Excpet that the only assured and constant flow of revenues to our Treasury comes exactly in the period between the end of the term and the new budget.

Use that money in better counseling and not for accountants, it will be more useful.

I can assure the Ministreu that we will not allow him to take transparency away from the Kingdom's money and put the Government in charge of the duty to report on itself on how it spent the money, like it is always implied in all his comments and actions.

I offered a four point common sense compromise:

• keep the Civil Service, the Burgermeister,  (and not the Government) in charghe of Reporting and supervising how money are spent, just like we have the Civil Service, the Secretary of State, (and not the Government) in charge of the elections;
• detach the final report from the budget (the Government won't have to attach the report to the budget bill);
• add a compulsory preliminary report at the end of the Cosă term (by the Burgermeister) before the Election to give people voting the opportunity to have a report on how money were or werent' spent by the outgoing Government;
• the final report will cover the period from one budget to the other as accounting practice requires.

The above plan keeps and adds real transparency and democratic oversight, responds to requests from both the majority and the opposition and has a chance to be approved.

I see the good faith of the Senator, if these concerns are our common and shared goals I'd be more than happy to consponsor a new bill and write it together.

[Tric'hard Lenxheir]

We are all for transparency and democratic oversight: that's why it is and it must continue to be the job of the Burgermeister and not the Government.

This is simply a misunderstanding, I realize that the Burgermeister is a "civil servant" however a civil servant is simply an employee of the government so I admit I am getting it wrong when I say "the government" needs to do a financial report, it is already in the law that it is the burgermeisters responsibility and my proposal is not trying to change that, it is simply trying to change, or rather add when the financial report is done.

[Tric'hard Lenxheir]

The most useful and relevant time to give a financial statement is when it will keep a government accountable to the people.  It is more transparent and democratic.  It should be required of a government, not optional.  It's the people's money.

Absolutely, my proposal was not intended to remove the responsibility of the incoming government to also do a financial report prior to or with the new budget (especially after taking out the freeze on spending)

You keep talking about transparency, but in your posts (I added the underlines in the quotes above) there's always this part about the Government making the report: how there can be any transparency at all if a Government is required to report on itself?

We are all for transparency and democratic oversight: that's why it is and it must continue to be the job of the Burgermeister and not the Government.

it was simply an effort to make the transition easier so that the incoming government wasn't coming in blind trying to figure out where we were financially. Basically I want to keep the country financially open and make the transition easier on everyone.

The Government "was coming in blind" because it tried to be something he must not be: the reporter and not the receiver of the report.

I recongise that the Senator proposal - as it stands at the moment I'm writing this (C.1.5.8 The burgermeister shall be required to submit a Final Financial Report 30 days before the end of the Cosa to include all expenditures during the Cosa.) - sounds different from his comments: he talks about government reporting but in the proposal says the Burgermeister.

I understand that this might bother accountants. We can budget some money for counseling for them, if it gets severe. But I think they will be assuaged if a supplemental report is required in the case of any further expenditures (which almost never happened in that period of time anyway).

Excpet that the only assured and constant flow of revenues to our Treasury comes exactly in the period between the end of the term and the new budget.

Use that money in better counseling and not for accountants, it will be more useful.

I can assure the Ministreu that we will not allow him to take transparency away from the Kingdom's money and put the Government in charge of the duty to report on itself on how it spent the money, like it is always implied in all his comments and actions.

I offered a four point common sense compromise:

• keep the Civil Service, the Burgermeister,  (and not the Government) in charghe of Reporting and supervising how money are spent, just like we have the Civil Service, the Secretary of State, (and not the Government) in charge of the elections;
• detach the final report from the budget (the Government won't have to attach the report to the budget bill);
• add a compulsory preliminary report at the end of the Cosă term (by the Burgermeister) before the Election to give people voting the opportunity to have a report on how money were or werent' spent by the outgoing Government;
• the final report will cover the period from one budget to the other as accounting practice requires.

The above plan keeps and adds real transparency and democratic oversight, responds to requests from both the majority and the opposition and has a chance to be approved.

I see the good faith of the Senator, if these concerns are our common and shared goals I'd be more than happy to consponsor a new bill and write it together.

I am okay with your plan, it does what I am suggesting and words it better, like I said I got it wrong by saying "the government" that was simply because whether the Burgermeister (or the Sec of State for that matter) are elected officials or not they are still part of the government.

[Üc R. Tärfă]

I am okay with your plan, it does what I am suggesting and words it better, like I said I got it wrong by saying "the government" that was simply because whether the Burgermeister (or the Sec of State for that matter) are elected officials or not they are still part of the government.

Wonderful news!

I'll write back at you soon - in less than 24 hours  - with a starting point proposal ☺️

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

You keep talking about transparency, but in your posts (I added the underlines in the quotes above) there's always this part about the Government making the report: how there can be any transparency at all if a Government is required to report on itself?

"Government" is being used here to refer to the entire governing apparatus, including civil servants, not "the Government" (ie the elected and politically-appointed Cabinet).

And you're reinforcing what we're saying: it would be good to have the Burgermeister be obligated to give a Financial Report at the end of the term, rather than passing it through Finance and presenting it concurrently with the budget after the election.  This is another point in favor of the proposal.

I can assure the Ministreu that we will not allow him to take transparency away from the Kingdom's money and put the Government in charge of the duty to report on itself on how it spent the money, like it is always implied in all his comments and actions.

You seem to actually understand what we mean when we refer to the government reporting, and you have already noted that the bill itself refers to the Burgermeister.  I don't think anyone has proposed differently here.

• keep the Civil Service, the Burgermeister,  (and not the Government) in charghe of Reporting and supervising how money are spent, just like we have the Civil Service, the Secretary of State, (and not the Government) in charge of the elections;
• detach the final report from the budget (the Government won't have to attach the report to the budget bill);
• add a compulsory preliminary report at the end of the Cosă term (by the Burgermeister) before the Election to give people voting the opportunity to have a report on how money were or werent' spent by the outgoing Government;
• the final report will cover the period from one budget to the other as accounting practice requires.

I don't quite understand why this is a compromise.  This is pretty much just exactly what @Tric'hard Lenxheir proposed.  Two mandatory financial reports: one at the end of the Cosa, and one at the time of the budget.  It looks like the only difference is that you want the second one issued independently of the budget, by the Burgermeister alone.  A return to the system from back in the day works great for me, lol - in for a penny, in for a pound!  @Tric'hard Lenxheir , would this be okay with you?

I see the good faith of the Senator, if these concerns are our common and shared goals I'd be more than happy to consponsor a new bill and write it together.

I don't know why we'd abandon this bill when we're making such good progress![/list]

[xpb]

Thanks to all regarding this discussion.  I am formulating options for consideration on how to make reporting easier, by in turn making future transitions easier -- as well as more compliant to existing banking and organizational laws for the Kingdom of Talossa within the economic system of the United States.  As noted on the first line of Talossa.com

"The Kingdom of Talossa is an independent, sovereign nation in North America, which seceded peacefully from the United States in 1979 (but we're not sure the United States noticed)"

X Pol Briga
Burgermeister of Inland Revenue
Burgermeister@talossa.com

[Üc R. Tärfă]

Thanks to all regarding this discussion.  I am formulating options for consideration on how to make reporting easier, by in turn making future transitions easier -- as well as more compliant to existing banking and organizational laws for the Kingdom of Talossa within the economic system of the United States.  As noted on the first line of Talossa.com

Thanks. However I think that we shouldn't make our laws "unnaturally" compliant with U.S. laws and regulations (which will be a difficult task to do) unless and until we will effectively start a path towards "incorporation" or whathever, also because many other changes or parallel legislations will be necessary to be adopted.

Until that time comes, I wrote a draft for a financial reform compliant with what I listed above:

• keep the Civil Service, the Burgermeister,  (and not the Government) in charghe of Reporting and supervising how money are spent, just like we have the Civil Service, the Secretary of State, (and not the Government) in charge of the elections;
• detach the final report from the budget (the Government won't have to attach the report to the budget bill);
• add a compulsory preliminary report at the end of the Cosă term (by the Burgermeister) before the Election to give people voting the opportunity to have a report on how money were or werent' spent by the outgoing Government;
• the final report will cover the period from one budget to the other as accounting practice requires.

To that list I add the followings (some of this are necessary consequences of the above):

• clear definition of the financial period
• in coherence with the structure of the law I moved the Royal Bank & Post under the Treasury (with the Burgermeister ex officio Chairman or a Chairman appointed by the FinMin among the Deputies of the Burgermeister)
• provided for two other pereptual authorization, similar to that for the webdomains, (a) for the postage and shippings of tokens, stamps and collectable items (b) bewteen the end of a fiscal period and the next budget limited to the budgeted funds non exhausted and under requirements of a 7 days notice of disbursement;
• as consequence of the detachment of the final report from the budget, the Secretary of State is now authorised to sumbit and clark in the Second Clark a simple Resolution of Approval of the Final Report issued by the Burgermeister;
• other financial reports different from the preliminary (at dissolution) and final are called "Statements" and can be requested not only by the Minister but upon petition of a 1/3 of MCs.

The amendment is written in order to create a new Title M in el Lexh to put more order in the Lexh.

(later on in this term I'll hopper a bill to make BHAID fully integrated into the system).


EDIT: BHAID included.

The current text and the proposal are here.

DISCLAIMER: You can trust me that the new stuff are those highlighted, the other are simple copy-paste or copy-paste with very limited make-up changes.

[xpb]

Thanks to all regarding this discussion.  I am formulating options for consideration on how to make reporting easier, by in turn making future transitions easier -- as well as more compliant to existing banking and organizational laws for the Kingdom of Talossa within the economic system of the United States.  As noted on the first line of Talossa.com

Thanks. However I think that we shouldn't make our laws compliant with U.S. laws and regulations (which will be a difficult task to do) unless and until we will effectively start a path towards "incorporation" or whathever, also because many other changes or parallel legislations will be necessary to be adopted.

Until that time comes, I wrote a draft for a financial reform compliant with what I listed above:

• keep the Civil Service, the Burgermeister,  (and not the Government) in charghe of Reporting and supervising how money are spent, just like we have the Civil Service, the Secretary of State, (and not the Government) in charge of the elections;
• detach the final report from the budget (the Government won't have to attach the report to the budget bill);
• add a compulsory preliminary report at the end of the Cosă term (by the Burgermeister) before the Election to give people voting the opportunity to have a report on how money were or werent' spent by the outgoing Government;
• the final report will cover the period from one budget to the other as accounting practice requires.

To that list I add the followings (some of this are necessary consequences of the above):

• clear definition of the financial period
• in coherence with the structure of the law I moved the Royal Bank & Post under the Treasury (with the Burgermeister ex officio Chairman or a Chairman appointed by the FinMin among the Deputies of the Burgermeister)
• provided for two other pereptual authorization, similar to that for the webdomains, (a) for the postage and shippings of tokens, stamps and collectable items (b) bewteen the end of a fiscal period and the next budget limited to the budgeted funds non exhausted and under requirements of a 7 days notice of disbursement;
• as consequence of the detachment of the final report from the budget, the Secretary of State is now authorised to sumbit and clark in the Second Clark a simple Resolution of Approval of the Final Report issued by the Burgermeister;
• other financial reports different from the preliminary (at dissolution) and final are called "Statements" and can be requested not only by the Minister but upon petition of a 1/3 of MCs.

The amendment is written in order to create a new Title M in el Lexh to put more order in the Lexh.

(later on in this term I'll hopper a bill to make BHAID fully integrated into the system).

The current text and the proposal are here.

DISCLAIMER: You can trust me that the new stuff are those highlighted, the other are simple copy-paste or copy-paste with very limited make-up changes.

Üc Rêntz'ëfiglheu Tärfâ,

Thank you for your due diligence on this topic.  Perhaps certain things need emphasis.

Until such time as the United States recognizes the secession of the Kingdom of Talossa, the banking and organizational structures of the United States apply, if accounts are to be kept within the United States.  Talossa may have its own bylaws as part of its organization, however, there are certain things that have been done ad hoc to date which are not ideal.

Currently, an individual is the owner of the accounts.  In my opinion, this is inappropriate, in part because others than the person designated as the owner are manipulating the accounts, which tie back to the original owner's personal tax identification.

The savings and checking accounts are held by Ally.com bank, which has no physical locations other than links to ATMs.  That bank only has accounts for individuals and does not support organizational or corporation accounts.  There is also a current account at PayPal.com, which is again attributed to the same individual.

There is no appearance of conflict of interest, as the course of events that dictated this process are based upon voluntary assumption of duties.  In the future, there must be a more proper way to provide for these normal transitions.

At a minimum, these accounts need to transition to some type of holding entity that is not an individual, and to a financial institution that can support organizations.  There are a number of banks that have branch locations within the Greater Talossan Area that also have locations in most of the USA.
These include Chase Bank 111 E Wisconsin Ave, Milwaukee, WI 53202, PNC Bank 411 E Wisconsin Ave, Milwaukee, WI 53202, and Wells Fargo Bank at 100 E Wisconsin Ave, Milwaukee, WI 53202.   All of these have online banking.  Of these, I would suggest Wells Fargo Bank since it has the most physical branches. 

A couple of options:
1. Place the funds within an account held in an existing non-profit organization
2. Create a new non-profit organization

The King has indicated that he can serve as the registered agent for an organization.  The King could also be one of the directors of that same organization.

My suggested form would be 501(c)7 which in turn will need organizing documents.  It would appear to be under the purview of the Burgermeister and the Civil Service to obtain a US Federal EIN (Employer Identification Number) which is a FEIN (Federal Tax Identification Number) for an organization even if they don't have employees per se and to conduct such business as the organizing documents, however I will seek a directive from the MinFin in this regard such that the Government will be apprised of the situation.

The accounting year typically would be a calendar year which would link to completion of form 990N, whereas the Kingdom could have other reporting periods linked to Cosa sessions, etc.  The first accounting year of the organization could start on some auspicious date, and continue until 31 December 2023, then henceforth entire calendar years. Small tax-exempt organizations generally are eligible to file Form 990-N to satisfy their annual reporting requirement if their annual gross receipts are normally $50,000 or less.  That form would be first be due 15 May 2024 and on or before that date yearly thereafter.

I would suggest that in recognition of your interest in this area that the Crown would consider you to be a director of whatever organization is deemed most appropriate.  My research indicates that as long as that there is at least one director that is also a US Citizen, such as the King or myself as the current Burgermeister, that there could be other directors that are not US Citizens.

An update of your 1.5.7. All accounts and other monies held by the Royal Treasury shall be held in the name of the "organization" where the King and Burgermeister, who would serve as directors, and at least one other person in such a way that the King and the third (or more) of other directors shall be able to perform the functions of the Burgermeister in case of the Burgermeister's absence, on their own initiative or upon request of the Minister of Finance.

As the King and Burgermeister are currently in the State of Colorado, that would be the place to setup a corporate entity, the costs of which are minimal ($50) which I as Burgermeister could contribute to the cause, and there would be an ongoing $10 per year reporting fee to the State of Colorado.  The directors could be in other places, and the corporate entity could migrate in the future to Wisconsin or other states as the then extant civil service officers may determine as useful.

[Üc R. Tärfă]

I try to reply briefly to your post.

First of all: thank you for all the  helpful informations on the process you provided.

Just to be clear: I agree with you!

I was not advocating for the not doing it: quite the contrary we should do it and we should explore all the way to achieve that goal. What I was saying, probably not in the correct way, is that we should have a two layers approach:

1) make the law to address our needs (that would be the bylaws you were referring to)

2) put at the top of that the changes required by our eventual registration as organization + any parallel legislations/documents required when the moment will come.

Your suggestion on C.1.5.2. M.1.1.. is a good example of what I was saying: that section will certainly requires to be changed at the moment when we will be registered as such, together with clear instructions on how to reconcile our structure to "elect" the directors and any other required figures.

Another aspect is the accounting year of the organisation. It's obvious that it should be the US fiscal year, but our internal won't. It will be unnatural to our system. So we should have a double layer:

1) our own "micronational" accounting period according to our law and to our system
2) a parallel system that absorbs and transforms our own micronational process to be accounted for the macronational accounting needs of the organisation.

As you only provided suggestions to C.1.5.2. M.1.1. I believe you are satisfied with the overall framework of my proposal. I'm pretty proud of it!

In sight of this, should we put exactly what you suggested in C.1.5.2. M.1.1. right now? Because it doesn't describes the situation at the moment and some other details (apart King and Burgermeister who will be and who will decide/appoints the other member of the board?... Maybe the SoS as he is another typical long-term civil officer?) needs to be perfected.

I may put a "Until the moment when the money will be held in the name of a registered organisation, etc... Current text" and it will be amended when we will be registered,

or

I can put what you proposed with a subsection "Until that moment, for the time being the funds will be temporarily held etc... Current text" and it will be amended when we will be registered. (And to stress the goal to be registered)

or

Use your suggestion and forget about the fact that it doesn't describes this particular moment?

What do you think?

(BTW: I added BHAID into the framework!)

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Thanks to all regarding this discussion.  I am formulating options for consideration on how to make reporting easier, by in turn making future transitions easier -- as well as more compliant to existing banking and organizational laws for the Kingdom of Talossa within the economic system of the United States.  As noted on the first line of Talossa.com

Thanks. However I think that we shouldn't make our laws compliant with U.S. laws and regulations (which will be a difficult task to do) unless and until we will effectively start a path towards "incorporation" or whathever, also because many other changes or parallel legislations will be necessary to be adopted.

Until that time comes, I wrote a draft for a financial reform compliant with what I listed above:

• keep the Civil Service, the Burgermeister,  (and not the Government) in charghe of Reporting and supervising how money are spent, just like we have the Civil Service, the Secretary of State, (and not the Government) in charge of the elections;
• detach the final report from the budget (the Government won't have to attach the report to the budget bill);
• add a compulsory preliminary report at the end of the Cosă term (by the Burgermeister) before the Election to give people voting the opportunity to have a report on how money were or werent' spent by the outgoing Government;
• the final report will cover the period from one budget to the other as accounting practice requires.

To that list I add the followings (some of this are necessary consequences of the above):

• clear definition of the financial period
• in coherence with the structure of the law I moved the Royal Bank & Post under the Treasury (with the Burgermeister ex officio Chairman or a Chairman appointed by the FinMin among the Deputies of the Burgermeister)
• provided for two other pereptual authorization, similar to that for the webdomains, (a) for the postage and shippings of tokens, stamps and collectable items (b) bewteen the end of a fiscal period and the next budget limited to the budgeted funds non exhausted and under requirements of a 7 days notice of disbursement;
• as consequence of the detachment of the final report from the budget, the Secretary of State is now authorised to sumbit and clark in the Second Clark a simple Resolution of Approval of the Final Report issued by the Burgermeister;
• other financial reports different from the preliminary (at dissolution) and final are called "Statements" and can be requested not only by the Minister but upon petition of a 1/3 of MCs.

The amendment is written in order to create a new Title M in el Lexh to put more order in the Lexh.

(later on in this term I'll hopper a bill to make BHAID fully integrated into the system).

The current text and the proposal are here.

DISCLAIMER: You can trust me that the new stuff are those highlighted, the other are simple copy-paste or copy-paste with very limited make-up changes.

Üc Rêntz'ëfiglheu Tärfâ,

Thank you for your due diligence on this topic.  Perhaps certain things need emphasis.

Until such time as the United States recognizes the secession of the Kingdom of Talossa, the banking and organizational structures of the United States apply, if accounts are to be kept within the United States.  Talossa may have its own bylaws as part of its organization, however, there are certain things that have been done ad hoc to date which are not ideal.

Currently, an individual is the owner of the accounts.  In my opinion, this is inappropriate, in part because others than the person designated as the owner are manipulating the accounts, which tie back to the original owner's personal tax identification.

The savings and checking accounts are held by Ally.com bank, which has no physical locations other than links to ATMs.  That bank only has accounts for individuals and does not support organizational or corporation accounts.  There is also a current account at PayPal.com, which is again attributed to the same individual.

There is no appearance of conflict of interest, as the course of events that dictated this process are based upon voluntary assumption of duties.  In the future, there must be a more proper way to provide for these normal transitions.

At a minimum, these accounts need to transition to some type of holding entity that is not an individual, and to a financial institution that can support organizations.  There are a number of banks that have branch locations within the Greater Talossan Area that also have locations in most of the USA.
These include Chase Bank 111 E Wisconsin Ave, Milwaukee, WI 53202, PNC Bank 411 E Wisconsin Ave, Milwaukee, WI 53202, and Wells Fargo Bank at 100 E Wisconsin Ave, Milwaukee, WI 53202.   All of these have online banking.  Of these, I would suggest Wells Fargo Bank since it has the most physical branches. 

A couple of options:
1. Place the funds within an account held in an existing non-profit organization
2. Create a new non-profit organization

The King has indicated that he can serve as the registered agent for an organization.  The King could also be one of the directors of that same organization.

My suggested form would be 501(c)7 which in turn will need organizing documents.  It would appear to be under the purview of the Burgermeister and the Civil Service to obtain a US Federal EIN (Employer Identification Number) which is a FEIN (Federal Tax Identification Number) for an organization even if they don't have employees per se and to conduct such business as the organizing documents, however I will seek a directive from the MinFin in this regard such that the Government will be apprised of the situation.

The accounting year typically would be a calendar year which would link to completion of form 990N, whereas the Kingdom could have other reporting periods linked to Cosa sessions, etc.  The first accounting year of the organization could start on some auspicious date, and continue until 31 December 2023, then henceforth entire calendar years. Small tax-exempt organizations generally are eligible to file Form 990-N to satisfy their annual reporting requirement if their annual gross receipts are normally $50,000 or less.  That form would be first be due 15 May 2024 and on or before that date yearly thereafter.

I would suggest that in recognition of your interest in this area that the Crown would consider you to be a director of whatever organization is deemed most appropriate.  My research indicates that as long as that there is at least one director that is also a US Citizen, such as the King or myself as the current Burgermeister, that there could be other directors that are not US Citizens.

An update of your 1.5.7. All accounts and other monies held by the Royal Treasury shall be held in the name of the "organization" where the King and Burgermeister, who would serve as directors, and at least one other person in such a way that the King and the third (or more) of other directors shall be able to perform the functions of the Burgermeister in case of the Burgermeister's absence, on their own initiative or upon request of the Minister of Finance.

As the King and Burgermeister are currently in the State of Colorado, that would be the place to setup a corporate entity, the costs of which are minimal ($50) which I as Burgermeister could contribute to the cause, and there would be an ongoing $10 per year reporting fee to the State of Colorado.  The directors could be in other places, and the corporate entity could migrate in the future to Wisconsin or other states as the then extant civil service officers may determine as useful.

@xpb With respect to the 501c7 you have presented a good framework for action. I am happy to assist with setup costs as well.

[xpb]

xpb With respect to the 501c7 you have presented a good framework for action. I am happy to assist with setup costs as well.

Thanks - what we will need initially will be a minimum of 3 directors.  That could be King, Burgermeister, and MinFin with the King as the registered agent, or could be Burgermeister and two others, such as Seneschal and shadow Seneschal or some other mix, with the King remaining as the registered agent.  These directors can change from time to time, such as after a Cosa election, or whenever the Kingdom would see fit.  The number of directors can expand or contract such that there are at least 3 at any given time.

It appears that as long as at least one Director is a USA citizen, along with the registered agent (both are currently the proposed case) then other directors could be of any nationality.  There can be more than 3 directors, all of whom would need to publish their physical address in the filings.  The postal mailing address for the proposed entity will be Post Office Box 3037, High Mar Station, Boulder, CO 80307-3037 USA which my family has held since 1960 when that Post Office opened.  I would likely list +1 303-442-5538 as a phone number as that has been held since 1960 as well but is now directed linked to a mobile phone.  The mailing address and phone number may also be updated periodically as needed by the organizaiton.

[Üc R. Tärfă]

I hope I am not misunderstood: I very much appreciate the study and information that the Bugermeister is sharing, and I agree with them "in principle". However, I would like to emphasise that, from my point of view, this exposition is not yet definable as an action plan but rather as ideas and suggestions of a possible way forward (for exemple I'd be more inclined to have only more "permanent" civil officers on the board and not more frequently changing political members of the government, King, Burgermeister & SoS for example). May I suggest that a bipartisan Royal Commission (Burgermeister + one member of the majority (I guess the FinMin will be the one) and one member of the opposition) be set up to study the path in depth, starting from the Burgermeister already exposed framewok, and draw up detailed proposals/pathway/implementation suggestions to be submitted to the Ziu for consideration and implementation (Lexh.H.5.)?

On the financial reform, I'll officially submit my proposal as a draft, I haven't received any comment on it except from the Burgermeister, with the change proposed by the Burgemeister framed in this way: until such a time when an organisation will be set up, the money will be temporarily held by...). That section, which needs to describe the current situation, will be later modified accordingly by the implementing acts adopted by the Ziu based on the plan drawn up by the Royal Commission. The bill could also be the vehicle to set up the Commission (FURTHERMORE etc etc)