The Government Officials Achieving Transparency Act

As I said @Praetor I am guilty of not being more on the ball when it comes to this topic. Speaking only for myself, the only contribution I could make to this thread would have been to say that I didn’t agree with FoIA being used for this, but admittedly even saying that could have encouraged a deeper dive and brought some of these issues to light. That is a fair thing to point out, and I think we all agree the SC missed a major opportunity here. Since we agree on that though, it would be nice if the discussion could address the substance of these concerns rather than continuing to beat people up for not speaking up sooner. That point has been more than adequately made and is accepted. How about you consider what we said now?

As for what you said, the SC has disclosed its threads in the past and will continue to do so. And on top of that, as I have pointed out more then once, and as can be seen in the public thread on this topic, the SC has made a commitment to improve this process. It is happening. Your lack of faith and patience is noted however.

Please enlighten me and everyone else regarding these other issues with the SC you have hinted at. In the interest of full transparency we might as well address them, don’t play coy now. Sunlight is the best disinfectant after all, so let’s evaluate all these dark suspicions you’re harboring.

Marcus Antonius:

Even I, a retired person, could not card farm 24/7. I do, however, spend many hours on NS everyday. Like you I hop around, I watch all, and learn the opinions of others.

Click to expand...

You watch all? You sure about that? Because it doesn't seem like you've been watching the RA...

I was very aware of your, now named, GOAT Bill and the quality of the discussion before vote.
Personally I was surprised it got to vote, scary isn't it how a vote can be called when there is so little discussion and so little interest.

Click to expand...

Really, what surprises me is how uninformed you are of how the Regional Assembly does its business. I'm not scared, sorry to hear you are. If you don't like how the RA works you're welcome to suggest changes.

If the bill is that good, there doesn't need to be much discussion. Similarly, all publicly expressed interest in the idea behind the bill was positive. Seems to me like it's logical to go to vote then.

Going how far back in history?
Name them.

Click to expand...

You should be quite aware of this given that the issue of public credibility was raised by a member of the Security Council while you were on the Council. I really shouldn't have to be explaining this to a member of the Security Council as the SC is supposed to be trusted by the region (as you have all been so quick to point out), you should be aware of the actions of members of your body or the organization which negatively impact the perception. Good thing at least one member of the SC has been paying attention enough to be aware (and worked to proactively address it).

I will note that you did not post at all in the thread on public credibility—were you unaware of the discussion there?

Great Bights Mum:

I was unable to weigh in previously as I've been on LOA to deal with family health issues. Presumably, RL illnesses do not apply to NS? My bad.

Click to expand...

Forgive me. I must have missed the notice. Where did you post that again? Your explanation suffices and is reasonable, that is when you explain your absence. While there is no obligation for you to discuss your RL (given it is personal information), if you disappear from what should be part of your duties without an explanation, it is ridiculous that you don't expect there for there to be criticism from those unaware of your circumstances.

Thank you for the explanation.

Marcus Antonius:

Thank you MJ
So in actual fact you are saying we could have had a good moan about it's contents and then it would have still gone to vote regardless?

Click to expand...

You also could have with two other citizens object to the scheduling of the vote if you were familiar with the rules of the Regional Assembly (unlikely) and paying attention to the thread (also unlikely).

Eluvatar:

I do think there's a basis for your concerns. I would be happy to collaborate on a follow-up bill to clean things up.

When I cast my vote in favor of this bill, I considered whether I'd rather the law be as is or as amended, and decided as amended would be better overall. I agree that this bill is imperfect.

Click to expand...

I am not opposed to making further changes to the area of legislation—indeed, when suggestions to change the bill were made, I gladly worked to incorporate them. I'm not opposed to another bill if it were to make changes to make more members of the RA happy (such as changing the title of the section). I am quite hesitant to ever vote against a bill because of some last minute concerns that are only brought up when it is too late to make changes—I don't believe that is healthy for our democracy.

Pallaith:

As I said @Praetor I am guilty of not being more on the ball when it comes to this topic. Speaking only for myself, the only contribution I could make to this thread would have been to say that I didn’t agree with FoIA being used for this, but admittedly even saying that could have encouraged a deeper dive and brought some of these issues to light. That is a fair thing to point out, and I think we all agree the SC missed a major opportunity here. Since we agree on that though, it would be nice if the discussion could address the substance of these concerns rather than continuing to beat people up for not speaking up sooner. That point has been more than adequately made and is accepted. How about you consider what we said now?

Click to expand...

I have considered and addressed the points. What you have not done however is respond to my counterpoints—even though I pointed out that you didn't earlier. Don't pretend that the discussion in this thread has singularly been about members of the SC lack of activity and engagement with the region. I have replied to all the posts working to address concerns. And in a timely manner too I might add.

And it is isn't just a little oopsie that you guys did by not posting in this thread. It's a major one. If this extremely public bill slides under your radar, what else does?

As for what you said, the SC has disclosed its threads in the past and will continue to do so. And on top of that, as I have pointed out more then once, and as can be seen in the public thread on this topic, the SC has made a commitment to improve this process. It is happening. Your lack of faith and patience is noted however.

Click to expand...

While you are taking notes, I would suggest also noting the lack of progress—at least communicated to the region—on this topic. The public topic has had no comment for four and a half months now; I don't think it's the best example to use to show that the SC is progressing to be more transparent. Really, it's a better example that the SC takes a long time to address matters (like how long it took some members to criticize this bill!).

Please enlighten me and everyone else regarding these other issues with the SC you have hinted at. In the interest of full transparency we might as well address them, don’t play coy now. Sunlight is the best disinfectant after all, so let’s evaluate all these dark suspicions you’re harboring.

Click to expand...

Since when have any of these issues members of the community have had concerns about with been a secret? Citizens have been quite open with their concerns and Security Councillors have acknowledged this as well. For reference, you may see what I posted in response to SC. I have not played coy at all in this thread.

It's kind of concerning that despite being a member of the SC, you're apparently ignorant of the persistent criticisms of the SC that exist.

Lastly, might I point out the ridiculous hypocrisy involved with this statement? You want full transparency now? I look forward to your support of the bill now.

@Praetor I am starting to worry you are not actually interested in having a productive discussion, but would rather score rhetorical points. I am sure you would protest that I am mistaken, and in the hopes of that being the case, I will try to explain my previous post in different words. I am inviting you to bring the other concerns to the table, while we're on this topic, so we can reckon with them now. This does not mean we're unaware of previous concerns, or this is some surprising revelation. You're hinting at things without actually going into them. You may very well have different concerns in mind, or maybe you have the full list pulled from critiques many different people offered. I do not know which things you have in mind, but I think if we'e having a good discussion on some of them now, you should keep going. My pointing out that you ought to be clear on this, however, is not hypocritical. The point of this bill is to encourage transparency, something I am not opposed to. My objection has been about the how, not the what. All the rhetorical games in the world won't change that. I was being a tad smarmy, sure, but I am not demanding some sort of transparency standard that I would not apply to the SC. I asked you to elaborate on the other concerns, and I repeat that request now, with the expectation you meant what you said and were not just making a cheap shot at our expense.

Yes, the SC can take a long time to do things. We all have a lot going on, to be fair, and these are very interesting times, but at the very least we could have posted some sort of bump. I can't say enough how I could have stepped up, I agree it is a failing. And that is certainly true of the response to this thread. It sounds like many on the SC did not feel they had to respond to express their opposition in part because they didn't think this would pass. I hope they learned from that experience. But it is wrong to say it was under the radar. Once again, it seems you just want to harp on the slow response. You have most of the SC responding now, and I am asking you to continue engaging on specific points.

I am not sure what you're referring to regarding counterpoints I have not responded to. My previous posts did in fact address these points. I believe that since the SC was privy to the private messages its members sent, they are the only ones who can fairly judge those communications which should not be disclosed due to security reasons and those which should not be disclosed due to privacy reasons. Figuring out a way to do this effectively and more regularly takes a bit of time and effort, especially when in some cases we need the input of people who have since left the council and cannot weigh in on their previous communications. There's no allowance for that in the bill as written, which is due in part to the lack of input you received from the SC during this process, but it's also something that I highly suspect isn't valued by you or some of the people supporting this bill. From what I can tell, several people seem to want to be able to grab whatever thread they want, and as long as real life info or security details aren't there, they feel entitled to see them. As I said in a previous post, given the nature of our ork, I just do not see why that is as essential as it would be if you were requesting it from other government branches (see that post for greater length as why I do not think they are comparable). We may just simply differ on this point, in which case there really isn't any more work you could do to the bill. I would have preferred a wait for the same reason I don't think FoIA is best for this: I would like to defer to the SC on this matter, and the measure before us did not allow for my concerns to be considered. Easy for me to say I guess, as I am part of it, but I feel the implication that the trust cannot be given to us to do that is unfair and unwarranted. Much of my previous posts emphasized that aspect, so perhaps you didn't give enough weight to my explicitly citing the private communications part.

I don't just want to explain my problem with this bill, and work again on disclosure efforts, but want to address the other matters too. If you choose to respond again, I ask that you spare me the debate club theatrics and actually try to have a constructive conversation about this. It doesn't even have to be you, there's plenty of other people who enjoy poking the SC, they should feel free to bring these things up. Maybe you don't think it should be part of this discussion, despite throwing it into the discussion for extra oomph. If so, feel free to start a new thread on it, I will definitely be there.

Pallaith:

From what I can tell, several people seem to want to be able to grab whatever thread they want, and as long as real life info or security details aren't there, they feel entitled to see them.

Click to expand...

I was curious about this and maybe I skimmed over it in the other debate page and I apologize if I did but what is the harm in releasing this information?
Anything said behind closed doors that would make the region lose its trust in you guys (the SC) should most likely not have been said in the first place.
Any insight, even boring, would build the trust in the SC.
Any sizable threat that lasts longer then a year most likely falls under an ongoing operation and thus remains classified.

More or less what I'm getting at is any statement that is made in the SC dealing with regional security should be made with intent to put your name after it. If you were worried about saving your own face and coming out as pretty and perfect you wouldn't have gotten to where you are. Sometimes the hardest decision requires strongest will and ability to stand by your statements.

9003:

I was curious about this and maybe I skimmed over it in the other debate page and I apologize if I did but what is the harm in releasing this information?
Anything said behind closed doors that would make the region lose its trust in you guys (the SC) should most likely not have been said in the first place.
Any insight, even boring, would build the trust in the SC.
Any sizable threat that lasts longer then a year most likely falls under an ongoing operation and thus remains classified.

More or less what I'm getting at is any statement that is made in the SC dealing with regional security should be made with intent to put your name after it. If you were worried about saving your own face and coming out as pretty and perfect you wouldn't have gotten to where you are. Sometimes the hardest decision requires strongest will and ability to stand by your statements.

Click to expand...

That is not the concern. The SC has never been subject to FoIA. All of its members posted with this expectation. I see many of these messages as being equivalent to DMs. If FoIA were a possibility I’m sure many members would have chosen to post differently. Changing the rules after the fact for a lot of people who are not on the SC anymore and in some cases aren’t even in the region anymore would potentially leave them unable to defend themselves if anyone chose to take issue with something they said in the past. In my view these potential issues would be petty and gossipy in nature, not some devious secret ripping faith in the SC to shreds.

Again, nothing we actually do comes close to what the executive government can do, and its impact on citizens. We sit and watch for security problems and we’re reactive. So the insight you would get is mostly steeped in our personal opinions. And these opinions can be voiced in many ways. I’m sure you rely on privacy to gauge how you talk to people, and some people, even if their words are fine, may still have desired to use different ones for an audience.

I stand by everything I said, but not everything I said is actually particularly informative or useful for public consumption considering the nature of the SC. And I’m not even opposed to posting in the future with this in mind. I am opposed to pulling the rug from under the previous councilors who didn’t have a chance to consider public disclosure in how they chose to make their points.

I’m under no illusion about the popularity of my position and the ridicule it subjects me to. But I can’t expect you to really understand what I mean when you don’t know what I have seen. You can get an idea though by looking at the archives of SC discussions that have already been disclosed. Think about how would feel if people wanted to be able to access your DMs with the reasoning that “as a government official you should be willing to stand by everything you said in them.” Context matters. Part of the context of SC discussions is the expectation of privacy. I’m just trying to respect that privacy while finding a way for greater disclosure. That’s why I supported and still support the SC handling that process, and why I feel FoIA is not the appropriate avenue for this.

Thank you to all who supported this bill and voted for it. It is greatly appreciated to see how much the citizens are supportive of promoting transparency.

Unfortunately, the Delegate has vetoed this bill. I find it rather disappointing that the Delegate has vetoed this bill while their administration has not been in compliance with the FOIA law at all.

I do intend to continue to pursue ensuring the SC becomes more transparent. Prior to deciding whether to motion to override the Delegate's Veto (which can be done by any citizen I am informed), I would be interested in hearing @Eluvatar's suggestions for improvement if they have not already been raised by anyone. Also, anyone else who has criticisms of the bill that have not yet been raised, now is the time to do so or you are really going to hear it if you bring up new issues the next time this bill is at vote.

Lastly, I strongly take issue with how the Delegate has characterized the process of those who supported this bill—the aforementioned issues by the Delegate popped up only when members of the Security Council arrived over a month late to the bill and started to want changes made when it was too late for any to be made.

Pallaith:

@Praetor I am starting to worry you are not actually interested in having a productive discussion, but would rather score rhetorical points. I am sure you would protest that I am mistaken, and in the hopes of that being the case, I will try to explain my previous post in different words. I am inviting you to bring the other concerns to the table, while we're on this topic, so we can reckon with them now. This does not mean we're unaware of previous concerns, or this is some surprising revelation. You're hinting at things without actually going into them. You may very well have different concerns in mind, or maybe you have the full list pulled from critiques many different people offered. I do not know which things you have in mind, but I think if we'e having a good discussion on some of them now, you should keep going. My pointing out that you ought to be clear on this, however, is not hypocritical. The point of this bill is to encourage transparency, something I am not opposed to. My objection has been about the how, not the what. All the rhetorical games in the world won't change that. I was being a tad smarmy, sure, but I am not demanding some sort of transparency standard that I would not apply to the SC. I asked you to elaborate on the other concerns, and I repeat that request now, with the expectation you meant what you said and were not just making a cheap shot at our expense.

Click to expand...

It's disappointing that you have now resorted to attempting to cast doubt on my intentions. Throughout this thread, I have attempted to interpret the actions of members of the SC in the best possible light, preferring to interpret the SC's lack of activity from being negligent or unaware instead of alternative interpretations such as deliberately delaying posting criticisms of the bill in order to try to make it fail at vote. It saddens to see you try to cast distrust on me in order to attempt to make yourself look better.

I'm also quite disappointed to see your ignorance of the other concerns that individuals have with the SC. You can find those concerns yourself in the SC chambers as I previously covered. You yourself posting in a thread that had the starting post make a similar statement to mine. You posted in that thread but never questioned the beginning there? Why have you forgotten about the opening sentences in that thread (which you have referenced in this thread a number of times)?

Now, that you know where the concerns are (despite previously being aware of them), I look forward to you seeing you address them. Although, I would add that this whole debacle should be address to concerns individuals have with the SC.

Yes, the SC can take a long time to do things. We all have a lot going on, to be fair, and these are very interesting times, but at the very least we could have posted some sort of bump. I can't say enough how I could have stepped up, I agree it is a failing. And that is certainly true of the response to this thread. It sounds like many on the SC did not feel they had to respond to express their opposition in part because they didn't think this would pass. I hope they learned from that experience. But it is wrong to say it was under the radar. Once again, it seems you just want to harp on the slow response. You have most of the SC responding now, and I am asking you to continue engaging on specific points.

Click to expand...

If the SC was aware of this bill but chose not to respond because they thought it would fail, that is another failing which should be fixed and I look forward to seeing you bring forward a solution.

I am not sure what you're referring to regarding counterpoints I have not responded to. My previous posts did in fact address these points. I believe that since the SC was privy to the private messages its members sent, they are the only ones who can fairly judge those communications which should not be disclosed due to security reasons and those which should not be disclosed due to privacy reasons. Figuring out a way to do this effectively and more regularly takes a bit of time and effort, especially when in some cases we need the input of people who have since left the council and cannot weigh in on their previous communications. There's no allowance for that in the bill as written, which is due in part to the lack of input you received from the SC during this process, but it's also something that I highly suspect isn't valued by you or some of the people supporting this bill. From what I can tell, several people seem to want to be able to grab whatever thread they want, and as long as real life info or security details aren't there, they feel entitled to see them. As I said in a previous post, given the nature of our ork, I just do not see why that is as essential as it would be if you were requesting it from other government branches (see that post for greater length as why I do not think they are comparable). We may just simply differ on this point, in which case there really isn't any more work you could do to the bill. I would have preferred a wait for the same reason I don't think FoIA is best for this: I would like to defer to the SC on this matter, and the measure before us did not allow for my concerns to be considered. Easy for me to say I guess, as I am part of it, but I feel the implication that the trust cannot be given to us to do that is unfair and unwarranted. Much of my previous posts emphasized that aspect, so perhaps you didn't give enough weight to my explicitly citing the private communications part.

Click to expand...

Quite frankly, is there much point in having this debate with you given your unconditional opposition to the SC being mandated to be more transparent?

Anyways, you didn't address how the framework is inadequate for the purposes of the SC.

As to your other concern, what specific content are you concerned about being shared?

Lastly, might I ask which specific people from your perspective are feeling entitled?

I don't just want to explain my problem with this bill, and work again on disclosure efforts, but want to address the other matters too. If you choose to respond again, I ask that you spare me the debate club theatrics and actually try to have a constructive conversation about this. It doesn't even have to be you, there's plenty of other people who enjoy poking the SC, they should feel free to bring these things up. Maybe you don't think it should be part of this discussion, despite throwing it into the discussion for extra oomph. If so, feel free to start a new thread on it, I will definitely be there.

Click to expand...

As the points have been previously raised (multiple times I will add), I would appreciate if you wish to take any discussion about the validity of the concerns (which have been clearly established) to another forum. Ultimately, the premise was to provide context for the purposes of the bill—you are welcome to continue to dispute the merits of the RA encouraging transparency however.

You see @Praetor when you express disappointment that your intentions are doubted, but then you continually claim that I am against the SC being transparent, I get rather confused. Not only are you mischaracterizing my position, you continue to claim that I have not addressed things that I have. I really do not know how else I can say what I have already said. My unconditional opposition was to using FoIA for these purposes, not to transparency. I will say that after much talk on this subject, however, I can support a FoIA approach provided it is not retroactive. This would be fairest to the members of the SC who have previously posted, while allowing this process going forward when everyone is clear on what the rules are. As I have said numerous times already, I am concerned about the private messages members of the SC have posted that contain their candid, unvarnished thoughts that they would not have posted had there been an expectation of public release. I have tried to outline how these messages are different in nature from what you might find in the executive areas due to the vastly different nature of their work. My comment about people feeling entitled to see all the SC's messages refers to the arguments put forward by yourself, Comfed, and 9003, the only ones in the forum to argue such points, but it is a sentiment that I feel is shared by others based n the votes and also comments that were made on Discord. It does not seem that there is a concern for the privacy of the SC members, or any consideration that they operated under a very different set of rules and expectations that what is being advanced with this bill. I personally do not believe there is a need for all those messages to be scrutinized in the name of transparency, but I also accept that not everyone feels that way.

I am not ignorant to the other concerns, I wanted you to be clear about which ones you were invoking. Believe it or not, there are people who do not know what they are, and they were following this bill. That was a good opportunity to educate them, but I believe they're best handled in a different place than this bill since they really aren't germane to it and agree such discussion should happen elsewhere.

I am very surprised that Delegate Prydania vetoed this bill. Considering it had very strong support.

I'd encourage the author to consider an override.

Pallaith:

You see @Praetor when you express disappointment that your intentions are doubted, but then you continually claim that I am against the SC being transparent, I get rather confused. Not only are you mischaracterizing my position, you continue to claim that I have not addressed things that I have. I really do not know how else I can say what I have already said.

Click to expand...

Mind directing me to where I said that you are against the SC being transparent? I noted your opposition to

Indeed, in your first post in this thread, you stated:

Pallaith:

There is no version of this bill that could win my support as a result. I don’t believe FoIA is the appropriate avenue. I can’t speak for other SC members but I would wager that is related to their votes.

Click to expand...

I don't believe I have mischaracterized your position. If I have, feel free to illuminate me (I am aware that you have gone on to change your position).

Lastly, unless I have repeatedly missed it, I remain unsure as to how the framework that permits information to remain classified is still insufficient for the purposes of the SC.

My unconditional opposition was to using FoIA for these purposes, not to transparency. I will say that after much talk on this subject, however, I can support a FoIA approach provided it is not retroactive.

Click to expand...

Glad to see your position has evolved progressively.

This would be fairest to the members of the SC who have previously posted, while allowing this process going forward when everyone is clear on what the rules are. As I have said numerous times already, I am concerned about the private messages members of the SC have posted that contain their candid, unvarnished thoughts that they would not have posted had there been an expectation of public release. I have tried to outline how these messages are different in nature from what you might find in the executive areas due to the vastly different nature of their work.

Click to expand...

Again, what sort of messages from previous SCers should remain classified which are not covered under the proposed exceptions?

My comment about people feeling entitled to see all the SC's messages refers to the arguments put forward by yourself, Comfed, and 9003, the only ones in the forum to argue such points, but it is a sentiment that I feel is shared by others based n the votes and also comments that were made on Discord.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you are getting that motivation from but I do strongly object to you negatively ascertaining the motives of others.

It does not seem that there is a concern for the privacy of the SC members, or any consideration that they operated under a very different set of rules and expectations that what is being advanced with this bill. I personally do not believe there is a need for all those messages to be scrutinized in the name of transparency, but I also accept that not everyone feels that way.

Click to expand...

Who feels differently than you that there is not a need for all messages to be scrutinized in the name of transparency?

This bill has provisions to ensure that there content which could negatively impact the security of the region remains classified (in addition to other categories of information).

I am not ignorant to the other concerns, I wanted you to be clear about which ones you were invoking. Believe it or not, there are people who do not know what they are, and they were following this bill. That was a good opportunity to educate them, but I believe they're best handled in a different place than this bill since they really aren't germane to it and agree such discussion should happen elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Glad to see you'll be getting them addressed but I'm not sure why you feigned ignorance earlier in the thread.

Comfed:

There is a new bill posted in the RA, which the SC seems to support, so I think there is no question of the SC being in favor of transparency.

Click to expand...

I don't believe anyone has commented on the position of the SC as a whole—the SC has quite a number of members, each with different views (indeed a number of them have supported this bill).

mcmasterdonia:

I am very surprised that Delegate Prydania vetoed this bill. Considering it had very strong support.

I'd encourage the author to consider an override.

Click to expand...

I appreciate the support. I am considering all options at this time—I have also been informed that any citizen may begin the override.

A note—I am pausing my legislative efforts at the moment. My time is somewhat limited and I obviously did not anticipate the SC's inactivity and inability to engage with the region nor that the Delegate Prydania would backtrack on his statement. Given Vice Delegate Artemis's newfound interest in transparency as long as with a number of other members of the SC, I will hopefully watch his version pass. In the future, I do intend to work towards full transparency from the SC given that a clear majority of the citizenry has demonstrated interest in such.

Praetor:

...nor that the Delegate Prydania would backtrack on his statement.

Click to expand...

I gave a truthful answer at the time of my ADITO2 interview. The period afterwards was time spent reflecting on the matter. As I noted in my veto I was very torn on the matter and tried to give as thorough an explanation as I could for my change of mind.

I'm truly sorry for that- I considered backing the GOAT Act even after my mind had changed to stay in line with my promise in that interview, but that did not sit well with me.

It's my hope that the North Pacific Security Council Disclosure Act can be what I called for in my veto- an attempt that takes the valid concerns of the SC into account while also increasing transparency.