Skip navigation

Category Archives: Memorandum To All Staff

Memorandum to All Staff

Re: Questions and concerns re: recent alterations to the Budget Allocation column on Document 26.a (Funds Request form) and Document 29.d (Expenditure Report form)

On May 15, 2009, the company issued a memorandum to all staff regarding the addition of a fourth selectable option, “Research Purposes,” to the Budget Allocation column on document 26.a (Funds Request form) and 29.d (Expenditure Report form), both of which had previously offered only “Medical Advancement,” “Technological Development” and “Military Prototype” as viable resource acquisition delegations. Since the institution of this change on June 1, 2009, the company has received numerous questions and concerns from multiple departments; the following document has been prepared to address the most prevalent and pressing queries and issues.

Note that, where appropriate, specific questions and comments have been re-stated verbatim to preserve relevant examples presented therein.

Q: Previously, all artillery-related projects were to be allocated under “Military Prototype,” even if said projects were currently unmarketable, but still integral in the pre-emptive development of weaponry for use in pending American conflicts. Should weapons projects that will only prove lucrative in the future, such as anti-mantis missiles or a rifle that can only be fired at women, retain their current “Military Prototype” designation, or be classified under the new “Research Purposes” category?

A: Any technology developed that’s unmarketable as a result of its incompatibility with the current socio-cultural marketplace should henceforth be allocated under “Research Purposes.” These projects will remain under the research designation until such time as all mantids, female humans, et al, require military suppression and/or an official threat of tactical action.

Q: Previously, if a project demonstrated simultaneous potential in more than one of the three available budget allocation categories, departments were encouraged to indicate every category that applied, with the understanding that funds would be divided equally between those divisions. Is this still the case? For example, the laser grenade that’s also a flash drive or the homing pigeon with OxyContin for blood – still dual allocation, or simply “Research Purposes”?

A: From today on, any project that legitimately demands partial funding from two separate budgetary divisions should request funding from the “Research Purposes” budget. Note, however, that the above examples DO NOT fulfill the requirements for dual allocation. Homing pigeons and flash drives already exist and are, therefore, exempt from development funding eligibility. These projects should have always been allocated singularly – “Medical Advancement” for the opioid animal blood and “Technological Development” for the laser grenade. Only projects requiring dual development funding, such as a laser grenade that’s also a cell phone for ghosts, or a manticore with OxyContin for blood, are eligible for dual allocation.

Q: Our department recently worked on developing an erectile disappointment medication, intended to alter optical perception by creating specific distress in neural feedback to create the illusion that the user’s sexual partner possessed a penis that surpassed said partner’s actual penile dimensions in both length and girth. This pill was initially allocated as a “Medical Advancement.” Once the project was completed, it was discovered that the medication was unsuccessful in its goal, but did generate an unpredicted (and still unexplained) powerful empathic shockwave that transmitted the user’s disappointment to their partner, causing immediate and permanent impotence. In a case like this, should funds allocation transfer to the most accurate specific qualification (in this case, “Military Prototype”), or default to the newly created “Research Purposes” category?

A: If substantial evidence for re-allocation of a project to one of the other two specific designations can be provided via the completion and additional filing of Document 33.e, this action is acceptable. In absence of, or inability to rigorously defend, the filing of Document 33.e, please default allocation to “Research Purposes.”

Q: What if a department is working on an extensive, difficult project, tires of it and decides that it’s good enough the way it is, even if it’s only half done and doesn’t do anything? Departments used to not be allowed to do that. Would projects of this nature now be categorizable under “Research Purposes”?

A: Yes.

Q: In the past, a few departments have been using most of the day on Friday to flirt with inebriation and play darts, using a copy of Document 29.d as the board. Previously, each of the three check boxes in the Budget Allocation category counted as an outer bull hit (the company logo is currently the only place to earn an inner bull hit). Now that there is an additional box, making those check boxes 33.3% easier to hit, how should the boxes be scored? Should each one now count as a triple ring hit? If so, which portion of the document replaces the budget allocation check boxes as an outer bull hit?

A: Going forward, count any part of the letterhead itself, including the logo, as an out-of-play area. Score the three pre-existing check boxes (“Medical Advancement,” “Technological Development” and “Military Prototype”) as outer bull hits. Use the new “Research Purposes” check box as the only area of the document valued as an inner bull hit. If problems persist, the company will consider resizing each individual check box to size specifications more conducive to fun, competitive play.

The company appreciates the time and attention that everyone has put into reading the above information and, if applicable, assimilating it into their respective department’s routine and functions. If you have any other questions or concerns relating to the recent alterations to the Budget Allocation column on Document 26.a (Funds Request form) and Document 29.d (Expenditure Report form) that weren’t addressed above, contact your direct supervisor.

Marlie Chaples
Executive Accountant