[PASSED] FoIA Reform Act

Actually, having spent too much time thinking about this again…I feel like there are still issues with the wording. The terms “government records” and “private government records” are mutually exclusive here, which means using the term in clause 30 would not allow private records to be released. So either we go back to the previous wording (which means we’re defining a term that doesn’t actually get used), or make a new definition for “government records” that includes private government records (perhaps something like “those which are kept on any platform utilized by the government and are not open to all residents”). On a separate but related issue, clause 29 says that private government records have to be declassified after a year, but makes no mention of regular government records, so maybe that needs to be changed too? Or is the thinking that it’s unnecessary to mandate the release of non-private records?

Great Bights Mum:

I’m fairly confident I hold a minority opinion here. This proposal should not be retroactive. On principle I believe that, absent consent, any comments made with the expectation of privacy should remain private. I may have quaint notions of common courtesy in that respect, but I really don’t think it’s a nice thing to do to people.

Click to expand...

The internal collegiality of the SC is rather unique to the SC as an institution in TNP. It is also out of step with how our laws have been changing and practices in the region have adapted to new technology and communication methods. And I would say that the fact retroactivity was not contemplated when FoIA was first created has definitely colored how the SC is handled in this effort.

You know how I feel about this. I understand that our experience with disclosure so far hasn’t convinced you that there’s little to no harm having the posts of past SC members disclosed given what that content actually is. I understand this is a principle you hold that you will never yield. I also appreciate that given that content, this isn’t even worth yanking out of the SC’s hands, and that the region has more or less already come to this conclusion having seen what we already disclosed. I know for a fact that this wouldn’t be a comprehensive and satisfactory endeavor if we still tried to carve out the remaining records as untouchable. It was nearly unworkable to do it in the first place and it will keep this an open sore that various people in this region will continue to pick at. I want that to stop. This will stop it.

Gorundu:

Actually, having spent too much time thinking about this again…I feel like there are still issues with the wording. The terms “government records” and “private government records” are mutually exclusive here, which means using the term in clause 30 would not allow private records to be released. So either we go back to the previous wording (which means we’re defining a term that doesn’t actually get used), or make a new definition for “government records” that includes private government records (perhaps something like “those which are kept on any platform utilized by the government and are not open to all residents”). On a separate but related issue, clause 29 says that private government records have to be declassified after a year, but makes no mention of regular government records, so maybe that needs to be changed too? Or is the thinking that it’s unnecessary to mandate the release of non-private records?

Click to expand...

Gorundu…sigh…I have amended the bill once again to explicitly say government record and private government in clause 30. I’m on my phone so I just added it to the proposed text, not the markup. I believe you’re being incredibly…I want to say parsic but I know that’s not a real word. Nevertheless, another potential loophole closed for you.

You are correct about why clause 29 says private records. By definition those are private and not subject to release outside of a FoIA request. The “public” records distinguished from them are available to any member of the executive staff. There is no reason to set up a storing of those logs on the forum and indeed, it would take up all of the government’s time to attempt to do so. The whole reason we did this private vs public distinction was to avoid mandating that disclosure process. I absolutely will not be including that in this bill.

Since Formal Debate ended 38 minutes ago, I am going to consider the bill in the opening post final. Voting thread will be up soon.