- Pronouns
- He/Him
- TNP Nation
- Olvern
- Discord
- lordnwahs
Errors are part and parcel of learning about how to do the job. I'm sure that everyone is glad that you have been transparent about them.
Last edited:
As I was conducting said audit, I found the following discrepancies in the residents group/sheet:An audit will also be conducted to ensure that data within the registry is accurate and up-to-date.
They’ve gotten back to me just now, and so I hereby appoint @Matzerati as Deputy Speaker. Please take your oathThere's one more I want to have in the office, but until their confirmation I'll be holding off their appointment temporarily.
Hello, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I had not thought about this, and I will be bringing this up to the Speaker’s Office soon. I’m sure we’ll be able to amend it quickly.Mr Speaker,
In relation to the guide on processing citizenship applications, is it intended that this will be amended to reflect the current process following failed assessments in step 5 and, in particular, to remove reference to appeals following failed administrative assessment and replace it with reference to re-assessment by the Vice Delegate (or rejection for those not subject to re-assessment))?
Following a discussion in the office, it has been amended.Mr Speaker,
In relation to the guide on processing citizenship applications, is it intended that this will be amended to reflect the current process following failed assessments in step 5 and, in particular, to remove reference to appeals following failed administrative assessment and replace it with reference to re-assessment by the Vice Delegate (or rejection for those not subject to re-assessment))?
They have not, no. They will be informed promptly.Mr Speaker, may I ask if the resident affected by the late removal of their citizenship due to error has been given notice of the nature of the error made in their case?
Has Section 7.4.36 of the Legal Code been interpreted to apply to channels still in active use?Mr. Speaker, your latest post makes reference to the Speaker’s Office channel in our Discord server. This serves as a good reminder that the Speaker’s office has at least one instance of off-forum content where its occupants discuss matters of the office. These communications are subject to automatic release per the current FOIA law, and to date I am unaware of any releases of information from your office since this law was amended. Are there plans to release this information (from the channel you mentioned plus other similar channels or servers that may have existed previously), or was this also overlooked?
The “active use” standard has not been cited by the government, to my knowledge, since this law was amended, certainly not on the executive side of things. Both the executive and security council have approaches disclosures as if “active use” was irrelevant, though this is more significant on the SC side since they do have a continually in use channel whereas the executive has been archiving their records after each term concludes. Is the Speaker asserting that all private government records in his office are not subject to release based on this standard?Has Section 7.4.36 of the Legal Code been interpreted to apply to channels still in active use?
If this is the case, where are the archives of the all the channels in use in the Executive server?The “active use” standard has not been cited by the government, to my knowledge, since this law was amended, certainly not on the executive side of things. Both the executive and security council have approaches disclosures as if “active use” was irrelevant, though this is more significant on the SC side since they do have a continually in use channel whereas the executive has been archiving their records after each term concludes.
I'm not the Speaker, I'm asking as a citizen and deputy speaker.Is the Speaker asserting that all private government records in his office are not subject to release based on this standard?
The FoIA law does not require annual release of all executive channels in Discord. The standard is any space that the public does not have access to by virtue of only the delegate, cabinet, and individuals being allowed to participate.If this is the case, where are the archives of the all the channels in use in the Executive server?
I'm not the Speaker, I'm asking as a citizen and deputy speaker.
Which would apply to at least, at a conservative estimate, half a dozen channels that I know exist or existed that have never been archived. Given your close association both with the government over the last several years and the archival process, where are those archives?The FoIA law does not require annual release of all executive channels in Discord. The standard is any space that the public does not have access to by virtue of only the delegate, cabinet, and individuals being allowed to participate.
I don't believe the office currently has a position on the matter.I understand you’re not the Speaker but I recognized you were a deputy speaker and perhaps might be familiar with the office’s position on this matter.
If we’re thinking of the same channels, they are not subject to automatic disclosure. This is defined by the law and the underlying principle is that if regular staffers can access it, it is sufficiently public that it wouldn’t meet the definition of a private government record under the law.Which would apply to at least, at a conservative estimate, half a dozen channels that I know exist or existed that have never been archived. Given your close association both with the government over the last several years and the archival process, where are those archives?
I don't believe the office currently has a position on the matter.
Thank you for raising this, Sanctaria. Personally, I have always found five days for a routine vote such as an EC appointment too much, but I can understand that having shorter voting periods for any vote would be inconveniencing. It is absolutely not because we believe that only super active people should have the ability to vote. I can assure you that your concerns will be taken into consideration.Can I ask the Speaker why we've had truncated votes lately? A military exemption vote that lasted 3 days, and latterly two confirmation votes that only lasted 4 days (down from the usual 5).
I don't generally miss votes even though I'm only able to log on once a week, but I've missed two now because of shortened voting periods. It's quite inconveniencing, and I feel doesn't give people who are quite busy the time to be able to log on, actually review and read discussion threads, decide how to vote, and then vote. Is it intended only super active people be able to vote?