Petition to Reform the Freedom of Information Act

[Eluvatar]

Examining the current controversy regarding the FoIA and the Security Council, and remembering previous controversy regarding Court records, I would like the Regional Assembly to consider reform along these lines:

Section 6.2: Freedom of Information Act
16. Elected officials will have ultimate responsibility for the public disclosure of government activities, but may delegate its execution.
17. All registered citizens residing in The North Pacific may request information from any branch or part of the Government through the elected official at the head of it or their designee.
18. In this section, agent means the elected official or their designee who is answering a request for information.
19. An agent will endeavour to retrieve information requested from their branch of the government.
20. All officials are obligated to release information provided it will not undermine regional security, unduly impinge on the privacy of citizens, or violate the bill of rights or legal code, in which case its release is prohibited.
21. Regulations may not prohibit the release of information that does not meet the above criteria.
22. Citizens who do not receive this information for any reason not specifically outlined in appropriate laws or regulations may file a request for the information in a regional court, where the agent and the officials blocking release may present the relevant evidence to examine the claim that release of the information is inappropriate under this section.
23. Information not disclosed because of issues pertaining to Regional security will be classified by the majority vote of the Court.
24. Whether classified information should remain so may be reexamined by the Court no sooner than 2 months after the original request.

Section 6.2: Freedom of Information Act
16. The Delegate and appointed government Elected officials will be delegated the task of informing the Assembly of any any governmental action not already disclosed by the respective officers of the Executive. have ultimate responsibility for the public disclosure of government activities, but may delegate its execution.
17. All registered citizens residing in The North Pacific may request information from any branch or part of the Government through the Delegate and the elected official at the head of it or designated officers their designee.
18. In this section, agent means the elected official or their designee who is answering a request for information.
19. The Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive An agent will endeavour to retrieve information requested from the different departments their branch of the government. , who
20. All officials are obligated to release this information provided it will not and/or does not present a threat to undermine regional security or, unduly impinge on the privacy of private citizens, and or violate the bill of rights or legal code, in which case its release is prohibited.
21. Regulations may not prohibit the release of information that does not meet the above criteria.
22. Citizens which who do not receive this information for any reason not specifically designated outlined in appropriate laws or regulations may file a request for the information in a regional court, where the Delegate agent and the designated officers of the Executive officials blocking release may present the relevant evidence that addresses any to examine the claim that release of the information impairs Regional security is inappropriate under this section.
23. 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.
24. 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 Whether classified information should remain so may be reexamined by the Court no sooner than 2 months after the original request, once the threat no longer exists.

No special implementation clauses should be necessary.

Edit: On second thought, I would recommend including an implementation clause. The bill would look like this:

1. The below section will replace the current Chapter 6, section 2 (Freedom of Information Act):

{fill in final draft}

2. Chapter 6, clauses 22-45 will be renumbered appropriately.

3. This bill will take effect two weeks after passage, during which time the Court, Security Council, and Delegate are advised by the Regional Assembly to adopt specific regulations that outline common cases when information must not be published because it would undermine regional security, unduly impinge on the privacy of citizens, or violate the bill of rights or legal code.

4. If at the end of two weeks any of the named bodies fail to come to a decision, the head of the body may appeal to the Regional Assembly for an extension of specified duration. The Speaker will hold an expedited vote on whether to allow the extension, as on a bill to enact a law.

Thank you for your consideration.

 

[Mall]

Opposed because the title is really long

 

[Mall]

Now that my first concern has been addressed I am opposed because it looks like you changed a lot of stuff and change frightens me.

 

[Eluvatar]

Opposed because the title is really long

The subtitle has been shortened.

Now that my first concern has been addressed I am opposed because it looks like you changed a lot of stuff and change frightens me.

Right.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

17. All registered citizens residing in The North Pacific may request information from any branch or part of the Government through the Delegate and the elected official at the head of it or designated officers their designee.

To clarify, "any branch or part of the Government" includes the Executive, the Judicial, the Security Council, the NPA, and the NPIA, were it to be active, correct? I just want to clarify that.

Also, to avoid confusing, the head of the government is the Delegate, the head of the Security Council is the Vice-Delegate, the head of the Courts is the Chief Justice and so on in that manner?

We might want to be very specific about what we're talking about so no one can weasel themselves out of a request based upon unclear verbiage and not actual concerns of safety and security.

Oh, and maybe we should add how the "privacy of citizens" does not include the "right" for someone to talk shit about others in a private government forum and for the subject to never be able to see it. I'm sure at least one person will try to argue that, might as well preempt it. "Privacy of Citizens" should be linked with the Bill of Rights as far as I am concerned.

 

[Eluvatar]

17. All registered citizens residing in The North Pacific may request information from any branch or part of the Government through the Delegate and the elected official at the head of it or designated officers their designee.

To clarify, "any branch or part of the Government" includes the Executive, the Judicial, the Security Council, the NPA, and the NPIA, were it to be active, correct? I just want to clarify that.

Due to the use of the word branch, it clearly refers to any official body of the region.

Also, to avoid confusing, the head of the government is the Delegate, the head of the Security Council is the Vice-Delegate, the head of the Courts is the Chief Justice and so on in that manner?

We might want to be very specific about what we're talking about so no one can weasel themselves out of a request based upon unclear verbiage and not actual concerns of safety and security.

Also, the head of the regional prosecution is the Attorney General and the head of the Regional Assembly is the Speaker. If we were to make, say, the Minister of Defense (or Minister of Invasion or w/e) into an elected position, they would be the head of the armed forces.

Oh, and maybe we should add how the "privacy of citizens" does not include the "right" for someone to talk shit about others in a private government forum and for the subject to never be able to see it. I'm sure at least one person will try to argue that, might as well preempt it. "Privacy of Citizens" should be linked with the Bill of Rights as far as I am concerned.

Are you talking about the consultations between the Vice Delegate and the Security Council regarding RA Applicants or are you talking about something else?

PS: Added implementation clauses.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

Are you talking about the consultations between the Vice Delegate and the Security Council regarding RA Applicants or are you talking about something else?

I'm talking about in general as it relates to the FOIA. I can totally see someone making the claim that something they posted can't be released because the release would be a "violation" of their "right to privacy" for illegitimate reason. Example: "I made a post in private, and even though I was a government official at the time, I expected that post to remain private forever. Therefore, if you release that thread, you are violating my privacy as a citizen because circular logic."

People have claimed similar non-sense to weasel out of legal obligations. They don't normally succeed, but there has been an excessive amount of reading into the language of the Freedom of Information Act for the express purpose of not following it. I'd prefer we made the language of the Act as iron clad as possible to avoid the attempts to sidestep the law that we saw in the past.

 

[PaulWallLibertarian42]

Or you know you could join the RA and submit this yourself

 

[Blue Wolf II]

Paul, you realize Elu's proposal is exactly what the Citizens' Lobby exists for, right? So those who don't want the obligations the Regional Assembly forces its members to uphold (as lack as those may be) may petition the RA with useful ideas.

 

[Eluvatar]

Or you know you could join the RA and submit this yourself

The text in this petition is not ready for a vote, or even for formal discussion, so I don't think we're losing anything by my remaining a Citizen not in the Assembly.

Do you have any constructive criticism of the text in the petition?

 

[PaulWallLibertarian42]

Not at this time I need to re thru more carefully. Im at work right now.

I just figure they made punk join the RA you could as well otherwise its kinda a double standard. but that is all carry on. That can be reserved for another time.

 

[SillyString]

I have a criticism. One of the key reasons the court ruled that foia as it is now doesn't apply to the court was the high likelihood of harm coming about as a result of forced immediate disclosures.

I believe a better approach would be to treat the different bramches of the governmrnt differently, and place a time delay on some or all of them. It's a lot less problematic for court deliberations to be declassified months later than days later, for example.

I will have some language for this soon(TM).

 

[Eluvatar]

Asta, given the Bill of Rights problems with releasing Court deliberations, I imagine this law would protect against their improper release. It explicitly suggests the Court should make rules on this subject, as well.

 

[PaulWallLibertarian42]

Like have a sealed record/gag order on all court cases? FOI cant be evoked until like 60 days after a trial or Review for example?

 

[Romanoffia]

Asta, given the Bill of Rights problems with releasing Court deliberations, I imagine this law would protect against their improper release. It explicitly suggests the Court should make rules on this subject, as well.

I was going to point that out. This law would actually supercede any decision relating to the Court's determination of the privacy of Court Deliberations. A clause protecting specifically that might be worthy to add.

Other than that, it actually looks pretty good.

 

[punk d]

Paul, you realize Elu's proposal is exactly what the Citizens' Lobby exists for, right? So those who don't want the obligations the Regional Assembly forces its members to uphold (as lack as those may be) may petition the RA with useful ideas.

Mental note to self: With Elu's return, I can become a citizen. Elu always shows up right on time.


Back to the point of this thread, I believe that a bill of this nature is needed. I believe that the court in its recent ruling on the SC took a rational approach to the law. Sure, a different interpretation could have been taken, but I don't believe we want to leave FoI requests up to interpretation.

There are terms in the present that I believe are a bit ambiguous & I'd like requests centralized with specific reasons provided if information is not ok'd.

For example, if there is a request made to release information within the FA office. I believe the delegate - i still like the delegate centralizing such requests and not lower ministers - should be obligated to instruct the requestor that if rejected the rejection is based upon privacy concerns, regional security, or anything else we wish to define in the law. Whereas this proposal does list reasons and adds a new one I believe that any official that denies a request, must do so citing one, many, or all of those reasons. I'd like that clearly spelled out in the law that "agents" must say why (in general terms) information is not being released.

 

[Romanoffia]

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

One of the fundamental flaws with the current law, which this proposal so far does not address is the lack of standards for the judiciary to determine what should be classified and on what basis it is to make that determination; and the lack of an opportunity for the branch or agency involved to specify a standard with respect to information it has or maintains that would supplant the general judicial standard that should be specified in the statute. Not doing so creates a situation where the Court of the day could choose whatever standard it wishes at a certain point in time, and then be entirely inconsistent at a later point in time on the same information or other information. In effect, the lack of an external standard allows a Court of a particular day to make a highly partisan decision and deny that it is doing so. The only way to avoid this is to have standards that the court has to apply and not create according to its own whim.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I agree with SillyString. I think the FOIA law should incorporate time delays and take into account the different nature of different areas of government. A wider reform to be sure, but a better one.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

The only way to avoid this is to have standards that the court has to apply and not create according to its own whim.

And what standards do you recommend?

 

[Eluvatar]

One of the fundamental flaws with the current law, which this proposal so far does not address is the lack of standards for the judiciary to determine what should be classified and on what basis it is to make that determination; and the lack of an opportunity for the branch or agency involved to specify a standard with respect to information it has or maintains that would supplant the general judicial standard that should be specified in the statute. Not doing so creates a situation where the Court of the day could choose whatever standard it wishes at a certain point in time, and then be entirely inconsistent at a later point in time on the same information or other information. In effect, the lack of an external standard allows a Court of a particular day to make a highly partisan decision and deny that it is doing so. The only way to avoid this is to have standards that the court has to apply and not create according to its own whim.

Again, the intent of the bill is to allow government bodies to write regulations which outline specifics. Obviously, one might believe this model to be unworkable, but the intent is that the Court would not be deciding every FoIA, only reviewing the regulations and deciding FoIAs that are unanticipated edge cases (And would presumably lead to improved regulations).

 

[Blue Wolf II]

What about combating attempts to hide information?

Let's just say, hypothetically, the NPIA, which currently doesn't exist, managed to convince an Admin to set up a super-secret section of the forum called "Totally Not the NPIA's Secret Plotting Forum" from which rogue agents were plotting against the government.

When confronted with this fact, however, the agents claim that their forum was outside the government because it's not the official forum of the NPIA and therefore is "not part of the government" and thus can not be accessed using a Freedom of Information Act request, hence allowing them to hide their activities and continue to plot against the government without harassment.

How would this act stop such a blatant, and yet currently legal, violation?

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

Elu, you need to make it very clear in the language of the statute you propose that each entity is to define that standard. I don't believe it is clear enough in the current law or in the current state of your proposal.
BW, this isn't my proposal, it is Elu's so I am leaving the first attempt at exact language to him. I know better than to put forward language, which you will reject out of hand regardless. Your paranoia about the possibility of regional security concerns about either yourself or you political allies has been going on for years, and continues even after you had terms as Vice Delegate and as Delegate. If I didn't better, I would think you are trying to suppress any possibility of your next coup attempt being found out about ahead of time.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

Yes, yes, you've had the same theories that I will destroy the region dating back for years. Here's a quote from 2012.

Blue Wolf has been routinely politicizing everything because he fears that when the time does come that he seeks to pull off a coup of TNP, he wants anyone in opposition to him as politically weakened as possible.

Clearly I'm up to no good. I've been doing horrible things like defeating a coup as Vice-Delegate, catching spies as acting Delegate, and reestablishing The North Pacific Army as Delegate. I obviously shouldn't have done these things and should be discouraged from doing so again in the future. That's what you're saying, right Gross?

Moving on. Is it really so horrible of me to ask that you back up your recommendations with a proposal? Gross, you're the one saying that this and that needs to be fixed, but when someone asks for details you suddenly get all defensive and can't be buggered. Are you going to just sit there and whine or are you going to contribute?

Don't complain about something if you're not willing to put forth some sort of a solution, even if it's a bad one.

 

[Cormac]

I like this draft. I agree with Grosse that it should be more clear that each entity is responsible for developing regulations related to freedom of information, though.