Request for Review: FOIA silliness

Section 6.2: Freedom of Information Act
16. The Delegate and appointed government officials will be delegated the task of informing the Assembly of any governmental action not already disclosed by the respective officers of the Executive.
17. All registered citizens residing in The North Pacific may request information from the Government through the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive.
18. The Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive will endeavour to retrieve information requested from the different departments of the government, who are obligated to release this information provided it will not and/or does not present a threat to regional security or unduly impinge on the privacy of private citizens, and
19. Citizens which do not receive this information for any reason not specifically designated in appropriate laws or regulations may file a request for the information in a regional court, where the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive may present evidence that addresses any claim that release of the information impairs Regional security.
20. Information not disclosed because of issues pertaining to Regional security will be classified by the majority vote of the Court sitting as a three-member panel.
21. Information whose disclosure is deemed a security threat to the Region will be released by the affirmative vote of a majority of a three-member panel of the Court, no sooner than 2 months after the original request, once the threat no longer exists.

Click to expand...

Hello, I have requested in this thread that the SC's thread regarding the denial of Rach and Madjack from the RA be released. The Delegate passed on the request to Vice Delegate Democratic Donkeys. The Vice Delegate initially stated he had "absolutely no problem releasing the thread" but then reneged on his words, stating merely that overall the Security Council didn't approve of the release for unspecific reasons.

No reason for not releasing this information has been given, and no one has stated that its' release poses a security threat or will unduly impinge on the privacy of private citizens. I can only assume that the SC and the VD have no valid legal reasoning for denying the request. As such, I am filing a request for the information in the regional court, as is legally allowed in the rules above.

At this point, the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive may present evidence that addresses any claim, none of which has yet been made, that the release of this information impairs Regional security. The Court will then rule upon whether to allow or deny the FOI request based upon that information, if my understanding of the law is correct.

I thank the Court for their time and welcome a swift resolution to this issue.

Pardon me for intruding, but I think a change in the topic title may be in order, since this is not a request for review of a law or government procedure, but appears to be a request for information under clause 19.

Yes, it's that, and also reviewing if the denial was right and legal. But mostly what COE said.

When I was about eight my friends and I started a club called the "lion club". We built a den and held lots of meetings. We had a secret handshake, a password and lots of rules. In retrospect, the main purpose of the club was to annoy Emma, the little sister of one of the members. Emma was not allowed to join the club or know its secrets, obviously. She used to cry and cry and get very annoyed and stamp her feet that we were keeping secrets from her and not letting her join in.

She used to run to her mummy, who used to order us to tell Emma our secret passwords and handshake. We would do so .... then immediately change them so she did not know them again.

I only mention this because Blue Wolf is beginning to remind me more and more of Emma, who was seven years old at the time.

Happy days.

Flem forgets I used to be in the Security Council and got voted in because I promised to be more transparent. The second I leave, the doors slam shut, it seems.

I wonder who kicked out my door stop.

I thought you left voluntarily. I also imagine you could return.

Your inclusion/exclusion from the club notwithstanding, I wonder if the delegate has the authority to delegate this decision to the VD. I seem to recall a conversation with SillyString when discussing Grosse's omnibous bill on minor edits that if it's not stated in the law, delegation is essentially not legal.

If that was true there, I would assume it's true here. Here's her quote for reference:

I don't think this is accurate. There's no provision in this legislation to allow such a delegation, and the legal code as written allows only the delegation of duties within an office (from the Speaker to a Deputy Speaker, for example). There's no legal way for any of the three parties to pass the obligations of this bill on to another branch.

Click to expand...

That referred to another piece of legislation, but in looking at what BW cited I see no place where the delegate is able or is "allow[ed] such a delegation". In Grosse's bill example, I stated that the delegate and chief could delegate authority to the Speaker to process minor edits. In this case, McM Delegated the decision to release information to DD. Because the wording of the legal code is "and" and not "or when it says "The Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive" this seems to imply that both have equal responsibility in this situation.

Personally, I do believe delegation can be done by the delegate wherein he/she allows another to make the call on the release of information. In this particular case, it makes common sense for DD to make the initial decision. However, given SS's comments on another bill where there also wasn't a legal designation of delegating authority, I thought it pertinent to bring up here.

Also - if the decision must include McM, then he should state his opinion on the matter specifically and not delegate it to other members of his Executive team. He has previously stated:

The SC is separate to the executive, so I'm going to leave this decision to the Vice Delegate to make in consultation with the SC.

Click to expand...

No where in the law does it state McM is able to delegate his decision to anyone else. Again, and I want to make this clear, I don't think the law needs to be specific, but I refer to SS's previous comments on the subject and ask the court to take this into consideration when making a decision on the matter. If a legal requirement is required to delegate, as Silly String suggested, then I believe McM will need to simply state his position on this FOI release request in accordance with the law.

I do believe the SC falls under the purview of the FOIA with this line:

All registered citizens residing in The North Pacific may request information from the Government through the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive.

Click to expand...

A controversial court ruling named SC members as governemnt officials, if I recall :p, but also the Constitution has been updated to note:

Government officials are the constitutionally-mandated elected officials, any officials appointed by them as permitted by law, and members of the Security Council.

Click to expand...

Therefore, SC members are part of the government and subject to this law. Finally, I do believe DD has stated that rejecting these two applicants was not about a Security Risk but to ensure they could not vote in the present election. If no Security threat exists and Security Council Members are government officials, I see no reason why this information cannot be disclosed.

Some other legislation that may or may not have relevance here:


From the Constitution: Article 6. The Security Council

3. The Security Council will monitor the region's security and report on it to the public, and enforce decisions of the Regional Assembly to remove the Delegate.

From: The Bill of Rights for all Nations of The North Pacific

5. All Nations of The North Pacific have the right to be protected against the abuse of powers by any official of a government authority of the region. Any Nation of The North Pacific has the right to request the recall of any official of a government authority of the region in accordance with the Constitution, that is deemed to have participated in such acts.

punk D:

Finally, I do believe DD has stated that rejecting these two applicants was not about a Security Risk but to ensure they could not vote in the present election.

Click to expand...

Ethical? Legal?

(all bolding is mine)

I think it's ethical. In the past there have been alleged attempts to manipulate the voting by having people apply to the RA right before voting. Legal? I believe it's also legal to do so as well. I don't feel DD abused any type of power if that's the question. I think he just didn't want people coming from obscurity to affect the vote and used his legal method to do so.

That's certainly one way to construe it.

I actually did state that I believe they are a security risk, thank you for trying to be reasonable Punk D, but that part is inaccurate. My reasoning, as I have provided before, is that nations who show no interest in participating beyond coming here to vote are not really demonstrating loyalty to The North Pacific. It is pure gamesmanship, yet I am the one under fire for applying the law in a completely legal manner.

If the legislature intended for a particular protocol to be followed, then it should have been included in the legislation it decided to pass, as it did, and that is what I followed. The term "security risk" should also have been defined more clearly. However, it was my impression that this particular law was meant to be flexible, and left mainly to the discretion of the Vice Delegate. I do believe that it is a security risk to have interlopers come in and influence our elections.

I am heartened to see that my recent action has sparked a conversation about implementing certain activity requirements in the RA to be eligible to vote, which is something that would alleviate my specific concern in this instance.

I explained my reasoning multiple times, including to the Security Council. One of the nations initially rejected even commented that my action was sensible. This need to see what the Security Council said seems near meaningless, as the conversation itself was fairly mundane. I did not appreciate how insistently Blue Wolf's request was made, though I do intend to honor it, much in the same way that I intend to honor McMasterdonia's request that I consult with the Security Council on the issue before releasing the thread. I am certain that Blue Wolf knows how long it takes sometimes to have the input of the entire Security Council, as he was a member for a significant period of time.

Blue Wolf crows about his crusade to introduce transparency to the Security Council, but I must wonder how many discussions he published from the private area of the Security Council unilaterally without asking the people who participated in the discussion, at the very least?

This absolutely is making a mountain out of a molehill, and I echo the criticism Flemingovia raised.


Disclaimer: I would appreciate it if the people who have a problem with my action please address the actual reasoning I am expressing, rather than latching onto one out of context statement and choosing to argue that instead.

I would further add to what DD said, that the FOIA law is somewhat unclear on this particular subject. Additionally there is a privacy concern.

As Blue Wolf II is aware, the Security Council often discusses potential threats to regional security. More often than not, these threats turn out to be nothing. The Security Council is able to reach out to the individual and establish a relationship. Some of the SC members are very seasoned at doing this and we gain decent members onto the regional forum.

It is important that these discussions occur in private. For one thing, they are often held based on very limited knowledge available to us at the time. If these discussions were to be held in public - or to be routinely released, this could unduly damage the reputation of the individual nation being discussed and lead people to believe they are a risk to regional security - when in fact they are not. Newmist suffered as a result of Pasargad unilaterally declaring him to be a security threat and threatening him with banjection (on the RMB) some years ago. SC threads often include copies of telegrams sent and received - and sometimes pure speculation about the intent of an individual nation.

Additionally the Security Council, as we all know, is responsible for regional security. It is important that Security Council members are able to express themselves in private. It is important that the SC need not think of the wider political ramifications of discussing the possibility of an individual being a security threat - especially if said individual is an influential or popular figure in the region.

SillyString's ruling on the FOIA law regarding Judicial deliberations can be applied to this situation. (I have stolen this from the ruling, but made slight edits to fit this situation).

"Should this privacy cease to be protected, and Security Council decisions be deemed subject to FOIA publication upon request, freedom of deliberation would be curtailed. Knowing that their preliminary thoughts and arguments could be made public, members of the Security Council would likely be pressured to tailor their posts to fit with political sensibilities and not ruffle prominent political feathers. There would also be pressure to take into account the opinions of prominent members of the region and render final decisions in accordance with their interests, rather than relying on the opinions of the members of the Security Council and making a decision that is necessary for the purposes of maintaining our regional security and according to the law."

The Vice Delegate is a member of the executive, however the Security Council is not. I am unsure to what extent my powers over FOIA applies over threads in the SC area even if it applies to the Vice Delegate. The court ruling on FOIA says that it applies only to the executive - it does not mention the Security Council.

The Vice Delegate has made his reasoning known to the public for this particular case. The thread in question should remain private in order to maintain the privacy of Security Council members who discussed the matter in that thread. I am concerned that allowing this FOIA request would lead to an overall undermining of the privacy of the Security Council and a weakening of the Security Council as a deliberative body.

So as I see it this is two tiered issue. The first matter is whether or not FOIA even applies to the Security Council. From the court ruling and discussion on the subject I feel that it is quite ambiguous. Secondly, is the concern about the privacy of Security Council members and the need for them to be able to express themselves in private on the issues. Especially as SC members have not agreed to release the thread at the time of this post.


It is quite late at night here.. so I apologise if this post is unclear

mcmasterdonia:

The first matter is whether or not FOIA even applies to the Security Council. From the court ruling and discussion on the subject I feel that it is quite ambiguous.

Click to expand...

FOIA's apply to the government, specifically "any governmental action" and relating to "the different departments of the government". Is the Security Council no longer part of the government or is it simply just above the law?

Secondly, is the concern about the privacy of Security Council members and the need for them to be able to express themselves in private on the issues. Especially as SC members have not agreed to release the thread at the time of this post.

Click to expand...

Nowhere does it say that the parties posting in information requested via an FOIA have to consent, so that's not even a requirement. As far as privacy? They're government officials posting in official government threads that are subject to FOIA request, there is always the potential for their posts to be viewed by the wider public.

Not only that but I'm fairly sure that clause is there to protect RL privacy only. >_>

So as BWII submitted this to the court for review, shouldnt everyone keep their opinions to themselves and let the court justices address this? If you want to make comments there is a public gallery forum here at the courts, no?

PaulWallLibertarian42:

So as BWII submitted this to the court for review, shouldnt everyone keep their opinions to themselves and let the court justices address this? If you want to make comments there is a public gallery forum here at the courts, no?

Click to expand...

You could say these are unsolicited briefs.

Just out of curiosity - And I am on the SC - where is this discussion concerning RA membership in relation to the persons/nations in question?

I can't seem to recall every having taken part in any such conversation if it indeed ever happened. Maybe I am dim, but I am missing something here.

Well, Democratic Donkeys sure thinks its real, so it's a little late to start denying it's existence now.

PWL:

So as BWII submitted this to the court for review, shouldnt everyone keep their opinions to themselves and let the court justices address this?

Click to expand...

Physician, heal thyself.

Blue Wolf:

FOIA's apply to the government

Click to expand...

Yes, they do:

Article 7. General Provisions

1. Constitutionally-mandated elected officials are the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, Justices, and Attorney General.
2. Government officials are the constitutionally-mandated elected officials, any officials appointed by them as permitted by law, and members of the Security Council.

punk D:

I think it's ethical. In the past there have been alleged attempts to manipulate the voting by having people apply to the RA right before voting. Legal? I believe it's also legal to do so as well. I don't feel DD abused any type of power if that's the question. I think he just didn't want people coming from obscurity to affect the vote and used his legal method to do so.

Click to expand...

Your opinion. I'm curious how the Court will see it.

Romanoffia:

I can't seem to recall every having taken part in any such conversation if it indeed ever happened. Maybe I am dim, but I am missing something here.

Click to expand...

Interesting comment from a member of the SC. Obviously not a privacy concern.. for Roman anyway.

Romanoffia:

Just out of curiosity - And I am on the SC - where is this discussion concerning RA membership in relation to the persons/nations in question?

I can't seem to recall every having taken part in any such conversation if it indeed ever happened. Maybe I am dim, but I am missing something here.

Click to expand...

There is a danger that this will lead to a "oh yes we did ... oh no we didn't" pantomime argument by members of the Security Council.

Should the court request it....

As an admin, and therefore impartial with regards the Security Council, I do not mind taking a look to see and confirm whether such a thread exists, and whether Romanoffia took part in the discussion.

Naturally I would not read the posts more than necessary, or divulge their contents, pending the court's decision.

flemingovia:

There is a danger that this will lead to a "oh yes we did ... oh no we didn't" pantomime argument by members of the Security Council.

Click to expand...

So.. are you saying that the SC is divided on this? If consultation did take place with the SC (the entirety of the council), I would think they would unanimously recall that discussion.

flemingovia:

As an admin, and therefore impartial with regards the Security Council, I do not mind taking a look to see and confirm whether such a thread exists, and whether Romanoffia took part in the discussion.

Click to expand...

This is a court thread. I think your offer is entirely inappropriate. Particularly since you're seeking to prove/disprove certain elements of this request for review. Specifically, whether Romanoffia was truthful or not. Let the Court perform their duties.

It's funny, if we're getting this much resistance on an FOIA request on something as benign as RA membership rejections, imagine what roadblocks will be thrown in front of the Regional Assembly when they request information on something truly scandalous.

Perhaps the FOIA rules need to be rewritten, or the legal code changed to make it a crime to obstruct an FOIA and/or hide/delete requested information.

Blue Wolf II:

It's funny, if we're getting this much resistance on an FOIA request on something as benign as RA membership rejections, imagine what roadblock will be throw in front of the Regional Assembly when they request information on something truly scandalous.

Click to expand...

The mind boggles, but it definitely isn't funny. Not haha funny anyway.

falapatorius:

flemingovia:

As an admin, and therefore impartial with regards the Security Council, I do not mind taking a look to see and confirm whether such a thread exists, and whether Romanoffia took part in the discussion.

Click to expand...

This is a court thread. I think your offer is entirely inappropriate. Particularly since you're seeking to prove/disprove certain elements of this request for review. Specifically, whether Romanoffia was truthful or not. Let the Court perform their duties.

Click to expand...

I do not understand how it is "entirely inappropriate"? the justices cannot look in Security Council threads. I can. I am offering to be of service to the court in looking into this simple matter, which is whether the thread subject to this FOIA request actually exists or not.

Without the masking required to look at the SC threads, I do not see how the court could "perform their duties" in this regard.

Meh. It's an offer of help. If the court isn't interested, carry on.

Roman didn't see the thread because he was apparently inattentive, it is still there, at least until the "fixer" gets to wiping all the evidence away.

Now, now, DD, no need to get touchy. After all, only Roman was implying that the asked for thread should suddenly disappear.

It seems the conspiracy theories go both ways now

I'd like to point out that two days have now passed and neither the Delegate nor designated officers of the Executive, despite their presence here in this thread, have presented evidence that make any claim that release of the information impairs Regional security.

As of this moment, I see no valid legal reason why the FOIA should be denied.

flemingovia:

Romanoffia:

Just out of curiosity - And I am on the SC - where is this discussion concerning RA membership in relation to the persons/nations in question?

I can't seem to recall every having taken part in any such conversation if it indeed ever happened. Maybe I am dim, but I am missing something here.

Click to expand...

There is a danger that this will lead to a "oh yes we did ... oh no we didn't" pantomime argument by members of the Security Council.

Should the court request it....

As an admin, and therefore impartial with regards the Security Council, I do not mind taking a look to see and confirm whether such a thread exists, and whether Romanoffia took part in the discussion.

Naturally I would not read the posts more than necessary, or divulge their contents, pending the court's decision.

Click to expand...

Take a look, I say. I really don't remember taking part in such a conversation. I would not be averse to the Court giving permission for you to look into the matter. I don't see any thread involving such a discussion. But really, if I had taken part in such a discussion I really don't remember having done it. I think I would remember something like that considering that as an SC member, RA admissions really isn't much of a subject matter giving the mission of the SC.

*wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*

You know, I find myself wondering if Chief Justice Romanoffia, who is a member of the Security Council and, more importantly, doesn't think the thread I'm requesting exists despite overwhelming evidence provided by the Vice Delegate that it does, will recuse himself from this matter?

I'm less concerned about his Security Council membership and more concerned that, even as an SC member who has access to the FOIA request material, he claims the requested thread isn't real, doesn't exist, or at the very least he can't see it. The Vice-Delegate has said several times in this thread and others that the requested thread exists and either Democratic Donkeys has been lying to us all from the start (I rather doubt it) or there is something very suspicious going on relating to Romanoffia's vision.

I do believe his continuing belief that the thread doesn't exist, despite his access to it, coupled with his Security Council membership might cloud his judgement and constitute as a conflict in interests.

I acknowledge the Court is busy working on multiple cases, but I humbly request a member of the Court weigh in, and state whether or not this request for review will be placed in the judicial queue for consideration.

As a new Vice Delegate is likely to be sworn in soon, I believe the best way to proceed would be to allow that person a chance to review the situation and choose a course of action. If they choose to reverse DD's decision, the Court will consider the matter resolved. If, on the other hand, they choose to uphold it, the required hearing will begin.

Ok. Thank you.

Does the court have any reason to believe that the incoming VD will consider reversing the outgoing VD's decision?

The Court has no knowledge of the incoming Vice Delegate's state of mind, but as it will be the incoming executive embroiled in any court case, it would be better to allow them a chance to take a position than to pre-emptively attribute the outgoing administration's position to them and bring them before the court immediately upon taking office.

For that matter, the incoming Delegate will need to take a position as well.

I am currently reviewing all information pertaining to this and should have a decision within the next 72 hours.

[me]

Blue Wolf II:

You know, I find myself wondering if Chief Justice Romanoffia, who is a member of the Security Council and, more importantly, doesn't think the thread I'm requesting exists despite overwhelming evidence provided by the Vice Delegate that it does, will recuse himself from this matter?

I'm less concerned about his Security Council membership and more concerned that, even as an SC member who has access to the FOIA request material, he claims the requested thread isn't real, doesn't exist, or at the very least he can't see it. The Vice-Delegate has said several times in this thread and others that the requested thread exists and either Democratic Donkeys has been lying to us all from the start (I rather doubt it) or there is something very suspicious going on relating to Romanoffia's vision.

I do believe his continuing belief that the thread doesn't exist, despite his access to it, coupled with his Security Council membership might cloud his judgement and constitute as a conflict in interests.

Click to expand...

Where do you get that idea from? Hurling such accusations is not very conducive to getting results and makes you look like a whining baby in which whose pablum has been piddled.

I am not claiming the thread doesn't exist. I am merely saying I do not see it. I cannot be everything to everyone when dealing with multiple tasks at the same time. If the thread exists (which may indeed be the case or not), I don't remember. To wit:

If someone else on the SC knows where this tread is located, please let me know via PM or in the appropriate thread in the SC section.

If I am wrong in any way about my assertions, I will surely apologize for such an error or failure of memory. I would love to see this particular discussion and I will certainly dig through the SC section once again (again and again) to look for it. If I do find it, be assured I will note it as such.


Addendum:

OK, I see the particular thread in questions, and yes I did comment once in said thread.

I stand corrected, the thread does exist, Blue Wolf.


Now my question is, are you asking essentially is, is the Vice Delegate is required to explain the reasons why someone was rejected for RA membership?

Also remember, when I first applied to the SC, I was denied admission because I was a 'security risk'. This being an absurd conclusion, you will recall that I requested from the SC an explanation of how I could be a 'security risk' and was promptly told told to go straight to Hell, more or less. I seem to recall that the SC reversed its decision and admitted me to the SC as I was in no way a 'security risk' as all history shows.

You will also recall that I attempted all manner of legal actions to get at the reasoning in the determination that I was a 'security risk' and was told, in yo-so-many words, to go straight to Hell by the Court. It was incumbent upon me to convince the proper people that I was not a 'security risk' no matter how unfair the burden of proof placing was.

I have two hats to wear here. I am an SC member and I am a Justice on the Court. Frankly, I would rather the SC make a decision as to whether to release the thread in question and not be compelled to do so by the Court. How I feel about this matter is irrelevant; it must be concluded objectively without personal interests being involved.

At some point can the Court provide an explicit period of time during which any interested party can submit briefs or arguments on this? I have very carefully read through this thread just now and have not found that any such formal opportunity has been afforded by the Court.

There are some significant legal questions and points that need to be made, and I for one would like the opportunity to submit those in the context of this particular request for review.

Why Gross, I didn't know you were the Delegate or a designated officers of the Executive.

As usual, BW you demonstrate an inability to read the English language. Must be a lupine thing.

(And I wasn't asking you to begin with.)