| [DRAFT] Resolution on Release of Information |
The Assembly of the South Pacific, REFERRING TO the recent investigation by the Council on Regional Security into Belschaft's contact with Neo Kervoskia and the possibility of Belschaft posing a security threat to the region, NOTING the unreasonably long length of the investigation without substantive results to justify it, APPALLED at the internal strife of the Council leaking into the broader halls of the Assembly and implying, if not proving, a misuse of office, BELIEVING that the Council on Regional Security did not use good judgement in its investigations and rulings, SEEKING TO use the information to gain clarity on the case and improve the process going forward, hereby resolves: 1. The Council on Regional Security must, within 24 hours of this resolution's passage, have compiled a list of threads pertaining to the investigation, dating back to the initial findings of the conversation between Belschaft and Neo Kervoskia, and provide this list (which must include the name of the thread and whether sensitive information is contained therein) to the assembly; 2. The Council on Regional Security must, within 24 hours of releasing the list of threads, release for Legislator viewing any thread that is not considered to contain sensitive information. 3. The Council on Regional Security must, within 72 hours of releasing the list of threads, release for Legislator viewing all other threads appropriately redacted. 4. The Council on Regional Security must, after releasing all threads, name a candidate that is not themselves on the Council which they trust to audit the Council chambers for a three day approval vote in the Assembly; if the approval vote fails a simple majority, the process begins anew, otherwise the candidate voted upon is considered the Auditor herein. 5. The Auditor must be granted full access to the council chambers for one week to review full release of relevant threads as well as the appropriateness of the redactions undertaken by the Council, and present these findings to the Assembly after the week expires. 6. Failure by the Council on Regional Security to follow this resolution will be considered dereliction of duty. ![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
Full support.
Yeah, seems fair enough.
John Hills- President of Ausstan
If a majority of the Committee failed to act, but a majority had still tried to abide by this resolution, would that minority be considered in "dereliction of duty", therefore exposed to recall procedures?
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System (04-24-2017, 08:15 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: If a majority of the Committee failed to act, but a majority had still tried to abide by this resolution, would that minority be considered in "dereliction of duty", therefore exposed to recall procedures? I would not vote in favor of recalling a minority that tried to get the CRS to conduct a proper, thorough investigation. Whether it would be legal or not is another question; I would argue that it wouldn't be, but that would ultimately be up to the High Court. I don't think a recall of a minority that tried to do the right thing would pass in any case. There may be some who would try to take advantage of an opportunity to recall you, but I doubt it would be a majority.
I guess my main concern is the final clause of this draft referrring to the whole Committee being exposed to charges of dereliction of duty, when it's possible the whole membership didn't act the same way, in the hypothetical scenario that this passes and an auditor isn't appointed.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System (04-24-2017, 08:24 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: I guess my main concern is the final clause of this draft referrring to the whole Committee being exposed to charges of dereliction of duty, when it's possible the whole membership didn't act the same way, in the hypothetical scenario that this passes and an auditor isn't appointed. Oh, I see your point. @Roavin, perhaps it would be better to clarify in the last clause that only the CRS members responsible for not complying with the resolution will be considered derelict in their duty. That should avoid a minority who vote in favor of compliance getting swept up in it. To be honest, though, I would argue that the minority members could release the threads themselves and otherwise comply with this resolution, even if a majority of the CRS votes against doing so. In the event this becomes an issue, I would encourage the minority to do that.
The bigger question is this: why is Kris concerned that a majority of the Council will not follow this resolution?
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
I happened to find a loohople, thought it was better to avoid it. I'm afraid there isn't more to that, in this particular case.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |