Freedom to Information Act

mr_sniffles

mr_sniffles

TNPer
Given that ensuing administrations will interpret the law as they please and the lack of expediency of the court system, I ask the Regional Assembly to codify the following policy started by my predecessor Joshua:
Preamble: whereas the security and freedom of the North Pacific go hand in hand:

Section 1:
a) The North Pacific government exists specifically to serve the people of the region and to act in the best interest of the majority.

b) The Ministry of the Interior shall be delegated the task of informing the Assembly of any governmental action not already disclosed by the respective Ministers.

c) All registered citizens and/or governments residing in The North Pacific have the right to request information from the Government through the Department of Internal Affairs, and

d) The Department of Internal Affairs shall endeavour to retrieve information requested from the different departments of the government, whom are obligated to release this information provided it will not and/or does not present a threat to regional security, and

e) Citizens or governments which do not recieve this information for any reason not specifically designated in appropriate legislation may file a request for the information in a regional court, where the Department of Internal Affairs and/or other regional departments may present evidence to attempt to persuede the court to rule for either side.

f) Information not disclosed because of issues pertaining to Regional security will be classified by the majority vote of the CLO.

g) Information deemed a security threat will be released by a majority court ruling, no sooner than 2 months after the original request.
Click to expand...

h) Members within and actions from the North Pacific Intelligence Agency will be
 
Not bad of a law, but is there a penalty for those who refuse to disclose such things despite a citizen lodging a request under this law, that does not pertain to regional security? :ADN:
 
Govindia:
Not bad of a law, but is there a penalty for those who refuse to disclose such things despite a citizen lodging a request under this law, that does not pertain to regional security? :ADN:
Click to expand...
Well violating any law, especially a law designed to curtail those in power are punishable by suspension, impeachment, or ban.
 
You need a good clause about preventing information that would damage regional security from being revealed. Didn't Poltsy try this type of legislation before?
 
Romanoffia:
You need a good clause about preventing information that would damage regional security from being revealed. Didn't Poltsy try this type of legislation before?
Click to expand...
I dont quite remember Poltys but if subsection f is not strong enough, I am more than happy to accept suggestions.

I think this legislation is needed now more than ever since there is no Minister of Communications and the cabinet is handpicked by the executive. We need a check and balance, this is one of my many responses.
 
mr_sniffles:
Romanoffia:
You need a good clause about preventing information that would damage regional security from being revealed. Didn't Poltsy try this type of legislation before?
Click to expand...
I dont quite remember Poltys but if subsection f is not strong enough, I am more than happy to accept suggestions.

I think this legislation is needed now more than ever since there is no Minister of Communications and the cabinet is handpicked by the executive. We need a check and balance, this is one of my many responses.
Click to expand...
We should introduce a clause dealing with if a citizen requests information that could be classified. We must balance regional security with their right to know what's going on, to ensure a democratic, transparent government :ADN:
 
Govindia:
mr_sniffles:
Romanoffia:
You need a good clause about preventing information that would damage regional security from being revealed. Didn't Poltsy try this type of legislation before?
Click to expand...
I dont quite remember Poltys but if subsection f is not strong enough, I am more than happy to accept suggestions.

I think this legislation is needed now more than ever since there is no Minister of Communications and the cabinet is handpicked by the executive. We need a check and balance, this is one of my many responses.
Click to expand...
We should introduce a clause dealing with if a citizen requests information that could be classified. We must balance regional security with their right to know what's going on, to ensure a democratic, transparent government :ADN:
Click to expand...
I hear what you're saying but the CLO's are elected members of the Assembly who decide just what can or cannot be classified.

If you feel this isn't strong enough, I'd love an improvement.
 
Well first we need to figure out this part before I can even suggest any "improvements". How do you think we should try to resolve such a scenario I outlined above if a citizen were to make such a request? :ADN:
 
Govindia:
Well first we need to figure out this part before I can even suggest any "improvements". How do you think we should try to resolve such a scenario I outlined above if a citizen were to make such a request? :ADN:
Click to expand...
The CLO's constitutional duties are to review any executive action, which includes the appointed Cabinet. Technically, they have the power to review any action by the Delegate and his Cabinet. Should any information or action be withheld, it would be the responsibility of the CLO's to question such decisions and bring an emergency vote to the RA (which is basically all citizens who did or did not vote for said Delegate.)

Now I guess the weakness of this bill, and also that of the CLO is that they need to know what to ask. If the Del withholds any action deemed vital to the security of the region, then well not just the CLO's will be left in the dark but probably most Cabinet ministers who are not involved in said matter would also be left in the dark.

Obviously we have returned to an era of suspicion, of limited executive powers coupled with distrust but this bill isn't about publicizing controversial actions but to engage the citizens on any and every action done by un-elected Cabinet members. I'm talk the small stuff that might slip our minds and come back to bite us in the ass.
 
I agree for the most part. Don't think I'm attacking the bill. There is still a bit about TNP law that I'm not too familiar with, given how new I just joined the RA so bear with me.

I do think the bill as I said, for the most part is good, and I applaud you for it. I think that we should try and plug this weakness/loophole so this doesn't come to bite us back in the ass as well. You know? :ADN:
 
How about attaching a time limit in which stuff automatically becomes public information if someone requests it. If someone wants existing information that is say, a year or more older, that information would be made public at their request - but with the proviso that there is immunity to anyone 'incriminated' by the revelation of that material?
 
Sorry to nitpick, but why an immunity provision for such a declassification period? :unsure:

There's also the matter of how one can honour the request of a citizen who wants information that could be considered a regional security issue if released - what constitutes a regional security issue? Do the citizens not have a right to know?

Again, trying to close loopholes here....:ADN:
 
Queen Mab believes that there should not be a time limit for a declassification period as there may still be a chance that the information would be harmful to regional security. If that is the case, Her Majesty believes that it would be irresponsible for such information to be released, regardless of the public outcry.

As for immunity, the Queen of Air and Darkness believes that immunity should not be given to people involved. If a crime has been committed, then one has been committed, and Queen Mab believes that the parties should be held responsible.
 
Govindia:
Sorry to nitpick, but why an immunity provision for such a declassification period? :unsure:

There's also the matter of how one can honour the request of a citizen who wants information that could be considered a regional security issue if released - what constitutes a regional security issue? Do the citizens not have a right to know?

Again, trying to close loopholes here....:ADN:
Click to expand...
Well, the main reason for the immunity clause is that certain actions ordered and carried out could be taken out of context while quite legal at the time and even under present laws and thus used for political purposes.

Or worse yet, what if the revelation of certain information exposes a perfectly legitimate intel technique that no one but those engaging in it are aware of? What if the revelation of information exposes intelligence operatives still in service?

Traditionally, and by practice, 'freedom of information' actions usually pertain only to information regarding a specific individual/nation and requested only by that specific individual nation. An intelligence agency or the military cannot be required to allow every tom, dick and harry to peruse their files in hope of looking for something that relates to their request. It would require a representative of a given archive to look for specific relevant information to be released.

And would this freedom of information act go beyond the scope of actual forum content to include PMs containing OOC content or any PM of any nature? There is way of recovering long-deleted PMs from any account without the account owner's permission or knowledge, or anyone's knowledge at all because everything deleted or not still exists on the board server and can be accessed if you are willing to take the obvious risks. Where does it stop and what good would it do other than possibly to reopen long-healed wounds (notice how I didn't split an definitive? ;D ).

Besides all this, I don't want anyone looking at those saucy naked pictures of GBM she sent me a while back. ;)

Just kidding. They weren't saucy, they were utterly sublime! :P

But you get my drift.
 
four months? its rather long to wait.....

Additionally, how can we ensure with this bill the government doesn't drag its feet in a FOIA request made by a citizen? :ADN:
 
Govindia:
mr_sniffles:
I think Clause E handles that.
Click to expand...
fair enough, but 4 months is much too long...what about one month ?
Click to expand...
As much as I do wish security situations are resolved that quickly, a full term for the Del to handle security situations seems fairer. If there's a chance for abuse, we're entrusting the CLO's to act first then the judges to dole out punishments if they (the CLO's) missed it.

I'm not too sure about the wait myself but does this sound fair?
 
mr_sniffles:
Govindia:
mr_sniffles:
I think Clause E handles that.
Click to expand...
fair enough, but 4 months is much too long...what about one month ?
Click to expand...
As much as I do wish security situations are resolved that quickly, a full term for the Del to handle security situations seems fairer. If there's a chance for abuse, we're entrusting the CLO's to act first then the judges to dole out punishments if they (the CLO's) missed it.

I'm not too sure about the wait myself but does this sound fair?
Click to expand...
I think shortening it from 4 months to something smaller would be more feasible to deal with. Even one month should be reasonable IMHO, no? :ADN:
 
I believe the reason four months was selected was due to that being the length of the terms of office in the Executive Branch.

Perhaps two months after a particular term of office ends?
 
I'd like to see a few things clarified, if possible, on this bill:

f) Information not disclosed because of issues pertaining to Regional security will be classified by the majority vote of the members of the CLO.
Click to expand...

1. Does the CLO have to see the information to vote on classifying it?
2. Are there any guidelines for the CLO as to what kind of information they should agree to classify?

g) Information deemed a security threat will be released by a majority court ruling, no sooner than 2 months after the original request.
Click to expand...

1. So even if the CLO voted to classify it, the Court can later release it?
2. Does the Court need to see it to release it?
3. So any info the CLO classified can, at any time 2 months after classification, be released by the Court? Any info at all?
4. On what basis does the Court decide to release information?
 
Eluvatar:
1. Does the CLO have to see the information to vote on classifying it?
2. Are there any guidelines for the CLO as to what kind of information they should agree to classify?
Click to expand...
1) Absolutely
2) Because in the act of streamlining, like the office of the executive, the CLO's run on the power of personality and their own style.

1. So even if the CLO voted to classify it, the Court can later release it?
2. Does the Court need to see it to release it?
3. So any info the CLO classified can, at any time 2 months after classification, be released by the Court? Any info at all?
4. On what basis does the Court decide to release information?
Click to expand...

1) Yes
2) Well we all know how rambunctious the members of the Court are :shrug:
3) Info that is requested by ordinary citizens, to truly allow the people to share a role in governing AFTER it has been vetted by the proper authorities.
4) When the Court decides that the info to be released will not harm the security of the region.
 
Eluvatar:
I'm assuming these requests for information would apply to any NPIA or similar entity?
Click to expand...
Anything an RA member wants to know that can be vouched as not detrimental to the security of the North Pacific by the elected officials responsible for keeping corruption in check.
 
Well, leveraging this law there are a bunch of ways to attempt to force the NPIA to divulge information.

In my opinion there needs to be more protection for TNP's intelligence services in this bill. For example one could include language such as:

f) Information not disclosed because of issues pertaining to Regional security will must be classified for a period of time or permanently by the majority vote of the members of the CLO.
Click to expand...

And I would suggest removing clause g). The court can choose to order the release of information for constitution reasons anyways if necessary. I don't think giving the Court decisions with no legal guidance is advisable for the functioning of an impartial judiciary. Additionally, the fewer people are involved with classified information, the better.

In addition some sort of language like this may be a good idea to include:

Should the executive deem any information unsuitable for release to the CLO for classification, such information may not be used as evidence in court or as basis for any executive decision pertaining to Assembly members.
Click to expand...

Thoughts?
 
The CLO's exist to monitor government actions. I just don't understand why you want to cut them out. I mean if we can't trust the judges nor the CLO's, who else are we left with?

As for your addition. This act is intended to outline the rights of the release of information, not the other way around.

Also it's redundant as judges can hold information as long as they like should they see this as a continuing security threat.
 
The CLO is intended to have access to both public and private areas of the Cabinet in order to monitor and to exercise its emergency delay and emergency legislation powers. It would be impossible for the CLO to do its job if its access is restricted.
 
You misunderstand me.

I do not think the CLO should be restricted from Cabinet-level information.

I'm talking about specifically the NPIA. Historically, the NPIA has not had to reveal information except as it felt necessary to use as evidence. It would be destructive to the idea of having a useful intelligence agency to remove that power.

If the NPIA can be legally bound to reveal information to the CLO, and to the Courts, sources may be far less willing to give the NPIA information. In addition, operatives may be more reluctant to participate, knowing that their identities and/or methodology may be revealed at any time.

Of course, I'm not in the NPIA so if any NPIA member who knows what they are talking about thinks I'm wrong, please do speak up, and I'll shut up.
 
Eluvatar:
You misunderstand me.

I do not think the CLO should be restricted from Cabinet-level information.

I'm talking about specifically the NPIA. Historically, the NPIA has not had to reveal information except as it felt necessary to use as evidence. It would be destructive to the idea of having a useful intelligence agency to remove that power.

If the NPIA can be legally bound to reveal information to the CLO, and to the Courts, sources may be far less willing to give the NPIA information. In addition, operatives may be more reluctant to participate, knowing that their identities and/or methodology may be revealed at any time.

Of course, I'm not in the NPIA so if any NPIA member who knows what they are talking about thinks I'm wrong, please do speak up, and I'll shut up.
Click to expand...
You're right and I'm sorry for getting my wires crossed. Anyways, I spoke with some security folks and I've decided to make the NPIA exempt from this law.
 
Well - As far as exemption for the NPIA, you need to have the ability to hold the NPIA responsible for anything illegal and balance that with regional security issues. I would suggest that there be established a standing committee consisting of NPIA members, the Director of the NPIA and the Delegate should the freedom of information act be applied to the NPIA - mainly to determine the results of the release of sensitive information and obsolete information.
 
What do you think about adding the release of information protocols, when we overhaul the NPIA once we get the Executive up and running? (Say a in a couple of weeks?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top