(03-21-2022, 05:02 PM)im_a_waffle1 Wrote: This seems solid, however I would suggest extending the length of time between the end of a term and the Sunshine Act release to 3 months since it can take a while to sift through all of those threads and discussions and filter out things that the public or the Assembly shouldn't be able to see.
(03-22-2022, 12:52 PM)Lerasi Wrote: (03-21-2022, 05:02 PM)im_a_waffle1 Wrote: -snip-
Or perhaps, instead, clause 1.3 could be extended further to cover incredibly lengthy discussions, or discussions containing irrelevant information? For reference:
“3) Significant 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.”
I wouldn't be too much against this but I still feel like two months is quite a lot of time to sift through discussions held by the previous Cabinet. Further, some Cabinets/PMs have appointed an Advisor to assist them to go through the discussions where if that trend continues, I strongly doubt that two months would be a massive undertaking for them.
And discussions that happened in previous Cabinets that continues onto the next Cabinet should, IMO, be still released, and if need be, excluding the discussion that took part after the new Cabinet was sworn in.
Otherwise, discussions that happened in Cabinet X that continues after 3 more Cabinet terms would remain hidden from the Assembly.
(03-22-2022, 01:30 PM)Farengeto Wrote: (03-21-2022, 10:06 PM)LFP Wrote: (03-21-2022, 07:46 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: (03-21-2022, 02:46 PM)LFP Wrote: -snip-
-snip-
-snip-
What exactly is problematic about those terms?- (a) typically involves some form of ongoing security issue, diplomatic issue, or other similar such topics, where being forced to release those discussions while they are still active can compromise whatever is still ongoing, and negatively affect the region
- (d) is an extension of that, where being compelled to release something without cause before being ready for public disclosure can compromise relations and interactions with other regions.
- © seems redundant. We already have wording for redacting that information in 2.4, I don't know why we need to add complicated phrasing like that.
The whole clause about private releases really doesn't fix anything. Private isn't that "private", and releasing those can still expose the information to individuals it should not be exposed to, even if it doesn't get leaked outside of the Assembly. Simple cases of this include ongoing diplomatic discussions, where even releasing it to the Assembly could include revealing it to members of third-party regions where it can be damaging for them to see pre-emptively.
EDIT: The new name for section 3 is also contradictory to what that clause actually does. It has nothing to do with court discussions.
(a) Security issue is already addressed via 2(3)a of the amendment, where release of information that threatens the security of our region or an ally allows the Cabinet not to release the discussion in public or in private, and to only provide a basic explanation as to why they chose not to release that information.
(d) Cabinet acts on behalf of the Assembly, not the other way around. It has a right to be informed about what is happening behind the scenes, and the link provided in the original post shows that Cabinet may keep Assembly in the dark even when other partner regions chooses to go public with bilateral/multilateral discussions that are kept from secret from this body.
© Because the original author decided to add the original phrase into the Act, even with respect to what was said in 2(4). I however have no issues with striking the entirety of 2(3)b.
I find "
[...] even if it doesn't get leaked outside of the Assembly." extremely amusing as you seem to consider informing Assembly of what happened in the last Cabinet,
leaking.
Section 3 has nothing to do with auditing, but that it grants access to courts to review documents that may relate to an on-going case that they are hearing. I am happy to amend "Discussions relating to High Court cases" to "Discussions pertaining to High Court cases", "Access to discussions by the High Court", or "Discussions that may offer insight to on-going High Court cases".
