While I am hopeful that this private discussion will result in continued lively debate, it has shown that the Cabinet is not always forthcoming with what is happening behind the scenes. And while the Assembly has passed the Sunshine Act quiet some time ago to ensure the body is not kept in the dark, it is clear that some provisions of the Act allows the Cabinet to suppress information from both the Assembly and the region as a whole.

Further, six months waiting period between the end of a Cabinets term and release of (some of) the information is not only arbitrary but unreasonably long as it adds a term and a half between the releases. 

This Assembly not only legislates for the region but it also elects those who are given executive powers to lead the region on behalf of the Assembly. Thus, I believe this body must insist on more regular and transparent sharing of information from the executive to the legislative. 

For those reasons, I offer the following amendments for discussion before moving for a vote. 

 

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

[...]

2. Publishing of Discussions

(1) The significant 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 shall be released no later than 6 2 months after the completion of that term:.
i) Discussions of the February to June term are due for release in the following December.
ii) Discussions of the June to October term are due for release in the following April.
iii) Discussions of the October to February term are due for release in the following August.
b. For a High Court case, they shall be released no later than 6 2 months after the ruling or, if appealed, the ruling on the appeal, has been announced.

(3) Discussions may be withheld from public release if
a. they are ongoing or directly related to another ongoing discussion, 
b. a. if the public release of information contained therein threatens the security of the region or an ally, or,
c. b. if any personally identifiable information is contained therein, and redacting such personally identifiable information prior to release would significantly remove context from that discussion. or
d. if they contain diplomatic conversations with other regions or organizations.

(4) Discussions should be released privately to the Assembly if
a. they are ongoing or directly related to another ongoing discussion, or,
b. if they contain diplomatic conversations with other regions or organizations. 

(5) Assembly must be informed in private with the reasoning behind it if a discussion is withheld from public release due to security concerns or personally identifiable information. 

(4) (6) 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) (7) 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 Discussions relating to High Court cases

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

Reply

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.

"After he realizes this newfound power of his to override the hopes and dreams of republicans, he puts all of the united provinces under his control."
one time minister of culture

Reply

And while the Assembly has passed the Sunshine Act quiet some time ago to ensure the body is not kept in the dark, it is clear that some provisions of the Act allows the Cabinet to suppress information from both the Assembly and the region as a whole.

Could you clarify which provisions of the Sunshine Act allow the Cabinet to "suppress information from both the Assembly and the region as a whole"?

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

Reply

And while the Assembly has passed the Sunshine Act quiet some time ago to ensure the body is not kept in the dark, it is clear that some provisions of the Act allows the Cabinet to suppress information from both the Assembly and the region as a whole.

Could you clarify which provisions of the Sunshine Act allow the Cabinet to "suppress information from both the Assembly and the region as a whole"?

a. they are ongoing or directly related to another ongoing discussion, 
d. if they contain diplomatic conversations with other regions or organizations.
and to some extend -- 
c. if any personally identifiable information is contained therein,

Reply

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.

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.”

“Consuming, purchasing, selling, or holding poison-free food substances is hereby considered Treason against the people and the government of A poisoned apple. Mangoes are exempt from this clause. Poisoned fruits other than apples will not be permitted.”

~ Offices ~ Awards ~ RP Nations ~

Reply

And while the Assembly has passed the Sunshine Act quiet some time ago to ensure the body is not kept in the dark, it is clear that some provisions of the Act allows the Cabinet to suppress information from both the Assembly and the region as a whole.

Could you clarify which provisions of the Sunshine Act allow the Cabinet to "suppress information from both the Assembly and the region as a whole"?

a. they are ongoing or directly related to another ongoing discussion, 
d. if they contain diplomatic conversations with other regions or organizations.
and to some extend -- 
c. if any personally identifiable information is contained therein,

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.

(This post was last modified: 03-22-2022, 01:32 PM by Farengeto.)

Reply

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.

 

-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. 

 

-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".

Reply

​​​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.

The point of the six months (or whatever time is determined) isn't for the Cabinet to have enough time to go through its archives, it's to provide a cooldown period and to allow any sensitive issues to lose their criticality before they are released.

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

Reply

​​​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.

The point of the six months (or whatever time is determined) isn't for the Cabinet to have enough time to go through its archives, it's to provide a cooldown period and to allow any sensitive issues to lose their criticality before they are released.

I can not argue against the notion that some non-security related sensitive information will have to be shared with the Assembly if this amendment passes. 

But there has to be some give and take between the sensitivity of some discussions and the Assemblies right to be informed on what is happening behind the scenes. It is kept in the dark because those elected by it doesn't trust the Assembly. Assembly kept in the dark so all it does is rubberstamp whatever the Cabinet puts in front of it. 

It is perhaps a bit of oversimplification, but I believe in this bodies right to be informed so that it can act in the best interest of the region as a whole.

Reply

It is kept in the dark because those elected by it doesn't trust the Assembly.

I can assure you that any percieved trust issues that you believe exists between the Cabinet and the Assembly are completely unfounded. Previous Cabinets have consistently kept this august body informed on ongoing diplomatic discussions with other regions. You're utilizing a set of extraordinarily unprecedented circumstances that no one could've foreseen to make your point, which doesn't exactly lend credence to your argument that the Cabinet is inherently secretive in nature.

Assembly kept in the dark so all it does is rubberstamp whatever the Cabinet puts in front of it.

I find it offensive that you would suggest that our Assembly is merely here for rubber-stamping things that the Cabinet puts forth, when the reality is probably the farthest from it. Several of the threads that I've linked above has prominent, outspoken Legislators object to various points put forward by the Cabinet and several previous Cabinets have faced heavy criticism for the things they did while in office. That doesn't sound like the Assembly is merely rubber-stamping whatever the Cabinet puts foward; the exact opposite actually.

(This post was last modified: 03-24-2022, 08:43 AM by Moon.)

Reply