Proposal to repeal current FOI Act

Grosseschnauzer

Grosseschnauzer

TNPer
The Regional Assembly, recognizing that the numerous flaws in the current text of Section 6.2 of the Legal Code has presented numerous problems and raises numerous questions as to what exact should be disclosed or not disclosed, and when, if ever, dsclosed, and that the interest of fairness, governmental transparency and just governance require that such section be repealed.
the Regional Assembly hereby strikes the current language of Section 6.2 of the Legal Code, known as the Freddom of Informatio Act, and repeals the same, effective upon this bill becoming a law:

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...
 
You guys must have done something really bad to go through all this trouble. Opposed on the grounds that I want to see the skeletons stuffed in those closets.
 
The current law is badly flawed, as shown by the numerous Court reviews that have taken place over it for an extended period of time; the processes are cumbersome and were designed for a different constitution, and it is unsalvageable in its current form.

As I said, I'd rather start a revision from a clean slate and address a whole number of policy issues as I mentioned in the thread on Paul Wall's proposal. That one is a knee jerk reaction, much like BW's character when he can have what he wants when he wants it.

When the codified Legal Code was being debated there wasn't a single change or comment about this particular law. It hasn't been looked at by the RA since its original adoption several years ago. But every time it is used there are questions about what and how it is supposed to work.

The way the amendment is proposed it would emasculate the sensitive work of the Security Council in a way that would cripple it. Some don't want it to work at all. And those are the only ones who would benefit from Paul Wall's proposal.

What this repeal does is clear the deck and allow for a full fledged unbiased debate on the whole question. It needs to be resigned from the bottom up since there's no way to filx the current provision without creating even more legal problems.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
That one is a knee jerk reaction, much like BW's character when he can have what he wants when he wants it.
Click to expand...
Is it wrong for me to ask for transparency within The North Pacific? I believe you yourself, Gross, have expressed the want for a more open government in TNP several times over the years, although apparently only when it suits your own needs.
 
Instead of out right repealing it and having no FOI. Cant we just amend the current one from the ground up so there is not a break in FOI laws abeit even a flawed one. I think id rather have a feel good do nothing law then no law at all. Atleast it gives the illusion we care.
 
I would say that it would be better to include a new text to replace the current FOIA. Leaving us without a FOIA for any period of time would have an adverse affect on 'transparency'.

Here's my idea of for modifying the FOIA:

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 any branch, agent, or any inferior department of any branch excluding the The Court of The North Pacific Judicial Deliberations.

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 Branch.

18. The Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive will endeavour to retrieve information requested from the different departments branches 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 consisting of one member of each branch of government, each member chosen by their respective branch of goverment.

21. Information whose disclosure is deemed a security threat to the Region will be released by the affirmative vote of a majority of a the three-member panel of the Court, no sooner than 2 months ten (10) days after the original request, or once the any threat to regional security relating to the requested information no longer exists.
Click to expand...

There have been a couple of changes in to procedure (mainly who makes the initial determination of whether or not information is 'classified' for security reasons, but any appeal still rests with the Court) and a shortening of the fulfilment time of a request from 2 months to 10 days.

Any suggestions for improvement of this?
 
BW:
Is it wrong for me to ask for transparency within The North Pacific?
Click to expand...
Apparently. I didn't really follow all FOI requests, but it seems there were many delays, reviews, etc. The fact this repeal is being proposed suggests transparency is dead in the water.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top