It could very well also just be a name. It would indeed appear that the "Accounting" Department do indeed have at least some regulatory power in regard to the budgets designated to different departments and/or specific endeavours. Otherwise, why would Fawley reach out to the Accounting Department with the itimized list that suggested their numbers were wrong? Even if that's true, it would already be outside of their hands, because they have no authority to do anything about it, as their job's just to "figure out the books". What were they supposed to say if they replied? "Oh, sorry, our bad". And then what? It would be up to the council to determine the status of the case. However, as is indicated by the memo, if the Accounting Department have a say where costly endevours are concerned, then it would have made perfect sense for Fawley to write and complain to them, as they were the ones who complained about the expenses and put pressure on the council to close the case for financial reasons in the first place. Maester Martin (talk) 18:05, May 9, 2019 (UTC)
- Accountants don't manage finances, they keep formal records of an entity's financial activities. If the council (whichever it was) used mistaken financial reports as the rationale to close the investigation, it would make perfect sense for Fawley to write to the office that would've drawn up those reports in the first place. I can't understand the need to assume this department had any more attributions than the ones alluded to in the name. -- 01:35, May 10, 2019 (UTC)
Because that's what the information provided is appears to be saying. If the Accounting Department only kept records, then it would be the council who drew up that report and just give it to Accounting to have the filed archived, that message would have gone to the council. With some degree of regulatory power over Ministry budgets, and what gold can be used for what, then of course the Accounting Department has a ball in the park. Accounting, in its simplest definition, is of course keeping financial records, true, but an accounting department will also be responsible for helping the Ministry cut its costs without significantly affecting its running operations by assessing whether or not it is feasible to providevlarge amounts to a given department. Generally speaking, its function is more like that of advisors to management than that of a separate department, meaning their financial reports to the higher-up are directly influencing everything from economic policies to people's payrolls. MACUSA, for example, is modelled after the British Ministry, and they have a Keeper of Treasure and Dragots, which as per our page are "presumably responsible for creating economic policies". Given the Accounting Department's existence in a government, ('accounting departments' are often associated with businesses, during which they don't only keep financial records, but also plays an important role in managing the company's finances too), I'd say it's rather reasonable to say the Ministry counterpart would have an indirect, regulatory power where the Ministry's gold are concerned. If we had only known a financial record to have been filed with this department, and nothing more, I'd agree with you, but that's not what Fawley's memo is really indicitive of.
Also - this is sort of funny. When I point out that a thing is vauge because of how additional information are muddling the water, you can't "understand the need to assume [something] has any more attributions than the ones alluded to in the [information provided]", but when our positions are reversed and the vaugeness is the result of an interpretation of a thing as vauge, well, then of course it's reasonable to speculate into what other attributions that thing might have than the ones alluded to/clearly told to us. Maester Martin (talk) 06:31, May 10, 2019 (UTC)
- It's spelt "vague". -- Saxon 12:43, May 10, 2019 (UTC)