Accountancy
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. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 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)
It's stated clearly in a previous memo that the council closed the investigation. In the memo to the Accounting Department, Grim is asking that as budgetary concerns were given as the reason for the investigation's closure, why does his tally of the costs and this department's not line up and if this is intentional (cover-up) or accidental (incompetence). There is nothing in this short memo to indicate that this Accounting Department (like every other that I've dealt with) has any control over the budget, just the responsibility of tracking how monies are gathered and spent. --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:00, May 10, 2019 (UTC)
Because, Ironyak1, that if all they did was keeping records, the memo would serve no purpose and not help him in any way. It would not matter if the Accounting Department did acknowledge the inconsistency in the financial records, because even if they did, they would in no shape or form have any authority to do anything about it. If the department do possess some regulatory power over Ministry budgets, there would be at least some merit to their inqury to the council should they make one. If they just keep records, however, the council are at liberty to ignore it, because the latter can go "Yes. And?", and there is nothing the Accounting Department can do about it. Heck, they could probably even get them in trouble for interferring with proceedings of Magical Law Enforcement. Maester Martin (talk) 21:43, May 10, 2019 (UTC)
- It would help him, because if the accountants admitted they were mistaken about the costs, the council would have no rationale left to justify their decision to shut down the investigation. That's the point.
- (Also, in response to your comment above about "our positions being reversed" -- they quite clearly aren't. We find ourselves in the very familiar position of you being assuming things for the sake of assumption, and I saying one mustn't do that.) -- Seth Cooper owl post! 01:15, May 11, 2019 (UTC)
1) And what would prevent the council from coming up with another reason if the financial account was false? The answer to this question is one we don't really have yet, but do you know who did? Grim Fawley. And it would have made no sense for him to send a memo to the Accounting Department if they had no manner in which ti influence the council's decision? If the AD has some regulatory power over interdepartemental budgets, they would be in a position to do that by making budget cuts to put a stop to things going on that was overly expensive, and had the power to enable the council to re-open the investigation by restoring the initial financial plan, if they don't, they aren't, and they couldn't do or say anything, and the memo would be utterly pointless.
2) That specific assessment of yours sounds like it is completely detached from reality, Seth. xD
Case 1: Time-travel.
Me: "Look here, the younger version of Hermione from book seven were transported back to 'the Forest of Dean in 1997', that means time travel!
You: That's vauge.
Me: Not really... But hey, look here, this article written about the game; the people who wrote it has been in touch with one of the game developers.
You: They're not a canon source. It's vauge. The thing about Hermione could mean anything - it could be about memories.
Me: Yeah, but - it isn't written as if that's the case.
You: It's vauge.
Me: But... The information currently available to us -
You: Vauge!
(And before you call that a strawman, it's our time-travel discussion in a nutshell).
Cause 2: Regulatory power.
You: This is what accounting mean.
Me: Yeah, but given this piece of information, it might seem like the "accounting department" is just a name -
You: That's not consistent with the definition of accounting.
Me: But - that's vauge. Assuming the Accounting Department are just bookkeepers given the implications of what what we know so far is rather restrictive. This, at least, seem to support what we know thus far. What if we just leave it like that and change it if when more information is revealed?
You: Stop assuming things, Ninclow!
Me: Aren't you just assuming, though, when you say that the existence of an accounting department in a magical government mean that the department are restricted to exclusively deal with record keeping just because of the name of the place? This thing presented in canon -
You: No, and also - you are wrong. And assuming, Ninclow, you're wrong and assuming stuff again.
(Okay, I won't pretend I am absolutely sure that an argument can't be made for the latter, at least, can concievably be seen as something similar to a strawman, but still, that's what I am left with every time I re-read this discussion so far.) Maester Martin (talk) 19:30, May 11, 2019 (UTC)
- (It's still spelt "vague".) -- Saxon 19:32, May 11, 2019 (UTC)