So r3n has decided to try to stonewall the FOIA request. Unfortunately, his request is a relatively reasonable one, and we should accept it So, here's what I see as the options: 1) Rule that the SC is not covered by FOIA, and order that the thread(s) in question be released but all posts not made by the VD redacted. 2) Use this request as a chance to revisit the decision we made before, and amend our previous ruling to say "executive or security" branches of government. I personally prefer #2, for a few reasons. First of all, none of what they do is necessarily public. This differentiates them from the Court, which holds at least its trials and issues its decisions in the public eye, and even more so from the RA, which even in its most private forum is almost as public as it gets, discussion-wise, and is always public for voting. The SC, on the other hand, is free to discuss and take action in private, and it is completely within the ideals of the FOIA law that citizens be able to determine their actions and their reasoning wherever possible. Disallowing this would provide the body of citizens no power of oversight and place no checks on the SC. It's also worth noting that the functions of the SC have always been executive in nature. They do not create law, which is legislative, nor do they interpret law, which is judicial. Rather, they enforce and exercise law - the very definition of the executive branch. The scope of this exercise is, additionally, one typically assumed to be executive. In many regions, the Delegate (and sometimes an appointed Minister) is tasked with ensuring regional security, tracking endoswapping nations, and so on. We have assigned such functions to the Security Council, but that does not change their fundamental nature. Even back when the SC first existed, it was envisioned as an emergency decision-making body that could act in a shorter timeframe than that allowed for the broader government.[/note]Quoth Grosse: "When I drafted the original proposal, my conception was that the security council would be, in effect, a council of elders who convened on behalf of all of the registered voters and regional assembly members to authorize actions on behalf of the region which may be required prior to the time frame in which actions may be authorized under other constitutional and statutory procedures."[/note] While such snap decisions are sometimes necessary and correct, it nevertheless remains vital for the general population to be able to subject those decisions to scrutiny. Second of all, any compelling reason for discussions of the SC to be exempted are already covered by the law as written - namely, regional security. The law grants a blanket exception to FOIA release if it would impair regional security, and access to knowledge of the inner workings of the SC can easily be protected under that exception. To exempt them from the law as a whole because they deal with security matters sometimes would, in my opinion, be a gross overreach. And finally, I think this is the best option because I forgot about the SC when working on the previous ruling. Had I remembered it existed, I would have included language that specifically did not exempt it - so that is an oversight that I think should be rectified. I'll go ahead and accept the request and give a period of time for briefs to be submitted later today. Could you two give your thoughts on this matter in the meantime? And maybe also on the other one still pending?