Request for Information

I would agree. Nothing in the thread indicates to me any gross misconduct and/or abuse of powers under the current laws.

But I willl say again, in accordance with the laws of TNP is a poor word choice in this RA member's opinion.
 
McM:
But from the opening post and the follow up discussion you can see that DD was not alone in believing that it was a potential security risk.
Click to expand...
?? Am I seeing a different thread? No one agreed there was a security risk from what I've read. Definitely nowhere near a consensus (although only a few members bothered to respond). A couple members were thorough enough to ask for evidence/documentation. None was given.
 
*Blue Wolf GraveDigs*

Seven months ago, former Vice Delegate Abacathea and I had come to an agreement regarding the release of Security Council information as dictated by the Security Council's own laws. This agreement never saw fruition.

However, as the matter remains open and unresolved, I call upon the current Vice Delegate SillyString, to honor Abacathea pledge to the best of her abilities and uphold Security Council procedures.

I await her reply. ^_^
 
Yes, I see the Security Council Archives now but...uh, there seems to be quite a lot of threads missing. I was on the Security Council for a while and I remember some specific threads which aren't in there. In fact there is a very large gap in information from March 2012 to May 2014 which appears to be unaccounted for.

Perhaps they're all in The War Room Archives, a forum I can see but not access, which is not the same as disclosure. :P

Also, from the limited release, I see DD's topic about him wrongly denying RA membership to a few people, but not the thread where he supposedly asked the SC about my FOIA request, on which DD claimed they denied the release of information.

Did that thread never exist and DD is a liar or is it being withheld from the public for some reason?
 
Can you clarify your original request? I recalled it being for those particular threads.

Whatever it is, I will look into it when I have a chance (probably wednesday; this week is hectic at work).
 
Blue Wolf II:
I am no longer simply requesting the DD thread, I am requesting for the accounting of all Council's votes and recommendations, something they have historically never done, and for the Security Council to honor it's own procedures that they themselves put in place.
Click to expand...
 
Somwhow, Blue, you must have missed the Court decision that the Security Council is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act procedures. And as was noted in this thread, the procedure you and Aba discussed was only for his tenure as Vice Delegate. The Security Council has never approved such a procedure, and the R.A. never amended the Freedom of Information Act.

So literally no have no "paws" to stand on.

And for the record, we don't take votes on the security assessments; we offer input, if we wish to the Vice Delegate as individual members of the Security Council, and the decision on how to proceed on any assessment is left to the Vice Delegate.
 
Apparently, Mr. Barky, you missed the entire conversation that followed thereafter and never read any of this thread.

I am not making this as a request via the Freedom of Information Act, a fact that we've been over months ago. No, this is a demand that the Security Council follow it's own procedure regarding the release of information, specifically Article 7c, which states:

c. The Council may make recommendations in secret until such time as the Chair determines the immediate and pressing threat has passed, at which point the Chair must account for the Council's votes and recommendations.
Click to expand...

The Security Council has never made any of its recommendations public after the threat has passed, thus violating their own rules that they themselves have put in place to regulate their own body.

I am simply asking the Chair to follow Security Council procedure, a procedure you yourself had a hand in writing, Gross.
 
One, I was not a party to the adoption of that specific procedure. Second, the security assessments are the responsibility of the Vice Delegate as Vice Delegate. The role of consultation with the Security Council does not require the individual members to do anything. It has nothing to do with security threats as that rule you quoted implies in its language. So there is quite a valid and legitimate position to be taken that that rule simply does not apply.

Two, what the Security Council giveth, the Security Council can take away (i.e., amend its own rules or suspend them, or do away with them altogether.
 
It has nothing to do with security threats as that rule you quoted implies in its language.
Click to expand...

Oh, you're so very silly, and also so very wrong. The procedure is literally called: Article 7: Immediate Threats.

Find better excuses. :P


Two, what the Security Council giveth, the Security Council can take away (i.e., amend its own rules or suspend them, or do away with them altogether.
Click to expand...

I agree, let's abolish the Security Council procedures entirely. That will give the Regional Assembly an excellent reason to dictate a procedure upon the SC rather than the SC making their own, seeing as how they can't handle such a simple task.

By all means, remove the Security Council Procedures just to avoid fulfilling this request. When the Regional Assembly has made a new procedure on the Security Council, one you're sure to hate Gross, I will be all the happier.
 
Now that Tomb has been elected delegate and the minor crisis we had is more or less over, could the Vice-Delegate revisit this?

It's well past Wednesday at this point. :P
 
For what it's worth that clause applies more narrowly than Blue Wolf appears to be claiming.

In context:

Article 7: Immediate Threats
a. Sometimes, a threat to regional security may be discovered which is of an immediate and pressing nature.
b. In this case, the Council may discuss and vote on the matter outside of the official regional forum.
c. The Council may make recommendations in secret until such time as the Chair determines the immediate and pressing threat has passed, at which point the Chair must account for the Council's votes and recommendations.
Click to expand...

This is about a very rare (Security) Council process in which the Council is unable to do its duties through the official regional forum. The official regional forum includes both the public chambers and any private areas the Council may maintain.

While a procedure which requires the eventual disclosure, limited or complete, of classified Council business may be appropriate to create, this is not that procedure. This procedure is more one to render such a procedure conceivable, by requiring Council records to be filed on the forum.
 
Eluvatar is reading into the language of the rule. At no point does it say "off site forums" merely "outside of the official regional forum".

This is a forum made of forums. The Admin Forum, for example, is outside of the official regional forum and can not be touched by regional laws. When the Security Council makes special forums that are outside of official regional business, such as making a forum to by-pass the official regional Security Council Forums, this rule does apply.
 
Having examined the laws, this is my interpretation:

Clause 3.g mandates that all votes be reported publicly, either in final result or ongoing tally, unless specifically exempted. Clause 7.c allows the Council to make recommendations in secret, in the event of an immediate and pressing nature, and to keep that vote secret until the threat has passed. This is a critical part of addressing security concerns, in order to avoid tipping off the target too soon.

The question, then, is the meaning of the term "recommendation", and how does the second clause relate to the first?. Is it anything the council urges in private? Is it the result of a formal vote?The answer lies in Clause 6.b, which empowers the Council to make reports or recommendations regarding a threat. The language of this clause specifically says that any such recommendations or reports may only be made following four days of discussion and four days of voting. It seems clear to me, then, that the only matters subject to release under this clause are those which were undertaken in secret and resulted in a formal recommendation.

I will look through the Security Council archives to determine if any such matters exist.
 
I that's the case, then DD's claim that he had the SC vote on whether or not to release information regarding his decision to deny two members to the RA would be a lie.

To just point out one of many similar claims.
 
As far as I can tell, we've not had a formal discussion and vote on a recommendation on any RA/citizen applicant. Council members have been invited by the Vice Delegate to individually give any feedback they wished on whatever the V.D. presened in that context, but the final decision has always been that of the Vice Delegate, and not of the body as a whole.

Simply put, that whole process is outside the framework of the current rules of the SC. Perhaps formal rules may need to be adopted, but I still maintain that the arrangement BW had with a prior V.S., was between them and dis not involve the Council as a body, and we've never discussed an official process on the topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top