Make an amendment to the Legal code ch6 section 2

PaulWallLibertarian42

PaulWallLibertarian42

TNPer
Per this court ruling: Request for review: Vice Delegate Consultation with Security Council

It seems there in a loophole that keeps the Security Council out of the realm of FOIA requests because it isnt technically part of the government. Which means the Security Council operates independently of regional government with no effective oversite or accountability to the RA or citizens free to do whatever secret things they do. I feel this needs rectifed. So I propose amending Chapter 6.2 clause 18 to specifically list the Security Council to name them in our legal code as being affected and compelled to comply with FOI Requests:

Proposed amendment:

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;as well as the Security Council, 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.[/b]
Click to expand...
 
Might I suggest that there are larger flaws with the FOIA law than simply that? :P

Are you open to accepting submissions for broader amendments? If so, I'd be happy to whip something together.
 
Yes, I'm not sure if the addition addresses the issues raised within the court ruling. I think there's more that will need to be done to bring the SC in line.
 
One start is to repeal the current law outright and start over on a blank slate.

The current law ha always been problematic and poorly written, and no amount of amendment is going to salvage it.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
One start is to repeal the current law outright and start over on a blank slate.
Click to expand...
In that case, what do you propose we replace it with, Gross? The repeal is the easy part and can be done at anytime. Rewriting the law is the hard part.
 
I propose to get rid of the problem.

I'll leave to others for now to decide if they want to attempt anything else. Question to ponder. If you're so interested in removing all vestiges of confidential discussions, do you get rid of that status for the Court? For the Private Halls of the R.A.? For any and all parts of the Executive? So it is more than just the Security Council that needs to be discussed.

This ha more to do with Blue Wolf's constant paranoia about the Security Council, which should not be a paranoia unless he has or plans to act in a manner that eeking to emasculate the work of the Security Council such an ongoing campaign that he engages in and has for years.

Something else to ponder.
 
Is it really paranoia if there was a literal plot against me by the Security Council that involved a secret "non-government" forum that no one is ever allowed to see? Actually, that does sound rather paranoid and I myself would doubt the accuracy of that statement...had it wasn't for the fact that all this was revealed in public for all to see. To top it off, all that came out in a thread that was a "release" of Declassified Intelligence, the only release the Security Council has ever made in its history I might note, that was intended to discredit me in my run for a Security Council position. Didn't work, but "A" for effort.

But back to the actual subject at hand. Repealing this law while replacing it with nothing and saying "we'll come up with something better, just not now" is ridiculous. You might as well just say "I don't want there to be any law which makes the government accountable to its citizens" and at least be honest about it, Gross.

Why not come up with a new law and replace the old one at the same time? Is there any real reason to do it in two steps? I mean, besides to make the process unnecessarily complex.
 
I simply do not believe that a proper amendment can be fashioned out of this sow's ear of a law. I didn't support the original when it was first proposed because it was poorly written, even under the prior constitution under which it was enacted. History has shown that opinion to be correct.
As I noted in my previous post there are a number of considerations to this topic that need to be fully aired, and I do not believe this proposal is the proper vehicle in which to conduct that debate. I'd rather get rid of this poor disaster of a law and just start over.
 
Well, Eluvatar clearly doesn't agree with you as he has done exactly what I recommended. I find his changes to be fairly comprehensive and with a bit more polishing we'll be able to use the Freedom of Information Act for its intended purpose. That's much better than repealing the Act and replacing it with nothing.
 
As there are now 3 seperate discussions on this, one being a citizens lobby petition. And these other discussions are more comprehensive and more thought out in nature then just taking 2 minutes to add the words "Security Council" into a clause and seeing what happened. - though maybe this was my goal all along to get people talking about it and the more legal minded among us to write more thorough and thought out proposals and to facilitate discussion, as the bill sponsor I withdraw this proposal forthwith and am locking this as Deputy speaker shortly if there are no objections.

If anyone wishes to discuss this further then please see Grosses proposal thread Here. on repealing the Freedom of Information act.

And Eluvatar's Citizen Assembly Petetion to Reform the Freedom of Information act

Thank you for your time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top