| APC: Overhaul to the Sunshine Act |
Are we all in agreement with this bill?
-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions -Legislator 2/24/20- -High Court Justice 6/7/20- -South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20- -Minister of Engagement 6/17/22- -Past Roles/Positions -Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18 -Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21 -Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17 -Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18 -Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17 -Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016
Change it from all members to legislators with respect to the clauses involving the CRS, due to the classified nature of some discussions.
I am actually starting to think perhaps transparency should go into the SPA but that's just me...
Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been What's Next? CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021 (04-26-2017, 09:31 PM)Omega Wrote: I am actually starting to think perhaps transparency should go into the SPA but that's just me... The CRS has discussions in relation to matters other than the Security Powers Act. I would personally include all transparency requirements in the Sunshine Act so we don't have to be referring to two different laws to figure out transparency requirements. It probably goes without saying that transparency requirements for any other institution wouldn't belong in the Security Powers Act at all, but I assume you were only referring to the CRS. Another issue to consider is that transparency requirements are sometimes thorny and difficult to get right. I'm not sure subjecting them to a supermajority is wise, and the Security Powers Act is a constitutional law. I think it's best to just leave the Security Powers Act to address security powers as it was designed to do. We already have a law for transparency requirements and I think the original goal of seeking to amend the Sunshine Act was the right course of action.
Shall we motion, If there is no more to attend business to attend to?
-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions -Legislator 2/24/20- -High Court Justice 6/7/20- -South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20- -Minister of Engagement 6/17/22- -Past Roles/Positions -Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18 -Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21 -Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17 -Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18 -Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17 -Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016
I'm not a fan.
![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
(05-02-2017, 07:12 AM)Roavin Wrote: I'm not a fan. I'm not either. Despite, uh, recent issues with the CRS, this is too much transparency for a regional security institution. It makes sense to hold the Cabinet to a higher standard of transparency because it is a political institution and releasing most of its discussions won't impact regional security, but applying that same standard to the CRS is asking for trouble. All of their discussions should be security-related, and in most cases the general public probably should not see them. We want the CRS to be able to have candid discussions and to do so on the forum. Under specific circumstances when it's deemed necessary, we can compel the release of information, but we shouldn't expect the automatic release of information. I also don't like the change from "members" to "legislators" being able to petition for release of information. (05-02-2017, 07:38 AM)Cormac Wrote:I am going to have to agree. The recent actions taken by the CRS in the releasing of information gives me hope that we can hold them accountable without a provision in the Sunshine Act. Yes, transparency on the CRS is a discussion that should be had, but this would be too much.(05-02-2017, 07:12 AM)Roavin Wrote: I'm not a fan. Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been What's Next? CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021
Since no debate has happened, I motion this for a vote.
(Unless of course we still want to get rid of the CRS portion then we can remove that and then I motion it as well  )
-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions -Legislator 2/24/20- -High Court Justice 6/7/20- -South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20- -Minister of Engagement 6/17/22- -Past Roles/Positions -Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18 -Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21 -Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17 -Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18 -Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17 -Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016
I remain opposed to the legislation, but since the APC still wishes to pursue it, I will second for the purpose of bringing it to a vote.
Edit: Actually, nope. @"Griffindor13", the legislation is not formatted correctly. There are no amendments to the proposed Article 2 (currently Article 3), Sections 1 and 2, so according to the Law Standards Act they are not permitted to be included in the legislation. Additionally, the amendment that changes Article 3 to Article 2 does not strike through the 3. You're going to need to reformat before this legislation can be brought to vote. I'll also need clarification on whether you are motioning the draft in the OP or the later draft posted by Omega, here, though I would imagine that will be clarified when you reformat. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |