(02-09-2018, 05:27 PM)North Prarie Wrote: Is disclosing private discussions necessary because of government transparency? If not, I fail to see the porpoise.

Spoiler

(02-09-2018, 06:23 PM)Roavin Wrote:

(02-09-2018, 05:27 PM)North Prarie Wrote: Is disclosing private discussions necessary because of government transparency? If not, I fail to see the porpoise.

Indeed, for transparency. The porpoise is right there:

Spoiler

Quote:b. For a High Court case, they shall be released as soon as reasonably possible after the period for appeal has passed without an appeal being filed, or if an appeal was filed, after the final ruling has been announced.

Quote:b. For a High Court case, they shall be released no later than 6 months after the ruling or, if appealed, the ruling on the appeal, has been announced.

Quote:

Sunshine Act
An act to periodically publish threads in private government forums

1. Documentation

(1) Discussion within a government institution that leads to a motion or a decision by that institution into taking deliberate action or inaction is to be considered substantive discussion.

(2) All substantive private discussions of government institutions must be documented on the regional forums for the purpose of persistence and posterity.

(3) Substantive discussions occurring via real-time communication methods may be quoted verbatim or reasonably summarized on the forums, as deemed most reasonable by that institution. If the communication via such a method cannot be saved, meeting minutes must be taken of that discussion.

2. Publishing of Discussions

(1) The substantive discussions of an institution shall, in due time, be released for public archival accessible to all members of the South Pacific.

(2) The release of discussions shall occur at the following times:
a. For a Cabinet term, discussions from the Cabinet and all ministries shall be released no later than 6 months after the completion of that term.
b. For a High Court case, they shall be released no later than 6 months after the ruling or, if appealed, the ruling on the appeal, has been announced.

(3) Discussions may be withheld from release if they are ongoing or directly related to another ongoing discussion, or if the public release of information contained therein threatens the security of the region or an ally.

(4) A discussion may be released in a redacted form by copying the discussion and censoring information not intended for public consumption. The normative copy of the discussion thread must then remain in the private forum.

(5) If reasonably possible, the institution should strive to release discussions containing classified information in redacted form, rather than withholding them. Any personally identifiable information must always be redacted upon release.

3. Audits of Discussions

(1) The assembly may appoint an individual to audit the discussions of an institution to evaluate compliance with the provisions contained herein, either with a simple majority and approval of that institution, or a three-fifths supermajority. The Council on Regional Security or the Legislator Committee may veto the appointment of such an individual for reasons of regional security. An individual appointed thusly will be granted access to all relevant forums and other considerably used communication platforms for no longer than 2 weeks.

(2) The High Court, as part of a case, may compel an institution to grant the Court insight into related discussions.

(02-15-2018, 06:53 PM)Roavin Wrote: @Nakari - given that the specific draft below is not a change but rather just the full "rendering" of a previous draft and a change applied to that draft, do you consider that the final debate time countdown is expired (since the change was 4 days ago), or that it starts now regardless?