Discussion [Draft] Transparency Act (November 2021)

[Domais]

Inspired by TSP's sunshine act: https://tspforums.xyz/thread-4117.html

[size=large]Transparency Act[/SIZE]

Proposed by: @Domais

Preamble

An act to increase government transparency.

Section 1. Public Realse

(1) Any document, discussion of relative importance(within public infrastructure), or vote which is under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister, and is withheld from the public shall be released to the public via a post on the official regional forum by the Prime Minister (and Cabinet) no later than six months following the election of the successor to the person who was Prime Minister at the time of the original publishment except in accordance to the later text of this act.

(2) The Prime Minister may withhold or partially withhold the release of any discussion of relative importance or vote if they are ongoing, relate to an ongoing discussion, or contain sensitive diplomatic information. Furthermore, they may withhold or partially withhold the release of any document if it contains sensitive diplomatic information. But the Prime Minister nor the Cabinet shall not destroy past documents, discussions, or votes. Nor shall they alter the text except in the case of partial withholds.​

​

 

[Clorinda]

Strongly against. It should be the government’s choice on what they choose to publicize and when, even if it results in consequences for those involved.

 

[New Rogernomics]

I tried to pass an idea of an open secrets act or freedom of information act a while back, but that didn't go down well.

You have to ask the PM or the Assembly Speaker to have documents released, is the current way to get information.

Though I don't know any region that releases diplomatic communications made in confidence with foreign governments, even when that correspondence isn't sensitive.

Nor are private discussions of the PM with their cabinet released to the public either really in most regions, even if that is hardly sensitive.

There may also be an issue with a current Prime Minister releasing correspondence of the last one, as things the past one viewed sensitive in discussion with their cabinet, may be used as a means to sully the last PM and thus could be released by the current one.

If this became law, I think most PMs would choose to delete their posts and clear the channel of their messages in a discord channel or forum category, rather than risk revealing something the next administration could use against them politically. This would be a shame, as we'd lose those documents and conversations, out of fear of abuse by political actors.

Also if they can't destroy anything, then what will happen is that future PMs simply won't use our discord, or the forum to discuss with Cabinet or foreign officials. You can't ban folks speaking with each other in DMs.

 

[Domais]

In TSP they don't seem to have said problem. Maybe their law is written better than my proposal. Why don't you look at that law that I am basing this one on?

 

[New Rogernomics]

In TSP they don't seem to have said problem. Maybe their law is written better than my proposal. Why don't you look at that law that I am basing this one on?

The TSP version is much better written as it allows redaction of information, and it does not make a distinction between sensitive and non-sensitive diplomatic discussions, if those are to be withheld.

It is probably best quoting that in full, rather than just linking it. Here is the full text:

Sunshine Act

An act to periodically publish threads in private government forums

1. Documentation

(1) Discussion within a government institution that leads to a motion or a decision by that institution into taking deliberate action or inaction beyond that institution's inner working area is to be considered significant discussion.

(2) All significant private discussions of government institutions must be documented on the regional forums for the purpose of persistence and posterity.

(3) Significant discussions occurring via real-time communication methods may be quoted verbatim or reasonably summarized on the forums, as deemed most reasonable by that institution. If the communication via such a method cannot be saved, meeting minutes must be taken of that discussion.

2. Publishing of Discussions

(1) The significant discussions of an institution shall, in due time, be released for public archival accessible to all members of the South Pacific.

(2) The release of discussions shall occur at the following times:
a. For a Cabinet term, discussions from the Cabinet shall be released no later than 6 months after the completion of that term.
b. For a High Court case, they shall be released no later than 6 months after the ruling or, if appealed, the ruling on the appeal, has been announced.

(3) Discussions may be withheld from release if
a. they are ongoing or directly related to another ongoing discussion,
b. if the public release of information contained therein threatens the security of the region or an ally,
c. if any personally identifiable information is contained therein, or
d. if they contain diplomatic conversations with other regions or organizations.

(4) A discussion may be released in a redacted form by copying the discussion and censoring information not intended for public consumption. The normative copy of the discussion thread must then remain in the private forum.

(5) If reasonably possible, the institution should strive to release discussions containing classified information in redacted form, rather than withholding them. Any personally identifiable information must always be redacted upon release.

3. Audits of Discussions

(1) The High Court, as part of a case, may compel an institution to grant the Court insight into related discussions.

Highlighted some pretty important exclusions.

 

[Wang Yao]

I would rather let our Government the ability to have a pragmatic approach to this kind of things.

 

[Frankender]

Strongly against. It should be the government’s choice on what they choose to publicize and when, even if it results in consequences for those involved.

I would rather let our Government the ability to have a pragmatic approach to this kind of things.

It literally is their choice and it literally is pragmatic according to section 2 of the proposed law:

(2) The Prime Minister may withhold or partially withhold the release of any discussion of relative importance or vote if they are ongoing, relate to an ongoing discussion, or contain sensitive diplomatic information. Furthermore, they may withhold or partially withhold the release of any document if it contains sensitive diplomatic information.

Full support of the idea.

I am on board with adding a clause like Rogernomics said that allows the government to redact certain information, though as long as we provide an avenue to challenge this decision to redact said information via the courts.

Also if they can't destroy anything, then what will happen is that future PMs simply won't use our discord, or the forum to discuss with Cabinet or foreign officials. You can't ban folks speaking with each other in DMs.

I think no doubt people will still destroy evidence, but the point is to make it illegal and discourage such avenues of discussion.

 

[Clorinda]

Who determines if a document is of a sensitive nature?

 

[New Rogernomics]

Who determines if a document is of a sensitive nature?

Yep. That's why I think any wording like sensitive should be removed, as administrations can either abuse it to hide information, or a future administration could redefine what sensitive means - which could as I mentioned be used to sully the past administration for political advantage. I also think our allies and friendly regions would be very guarded talking to us if their private communications at a whim could be flooded into NSGP, which they would likely take as betrayal of confidence.

The TSP version has classified instead, which in our region would mean military activities I would think, but not sure how TSP makes a distinction between classified and non classfied there either.

I think that communications prior to the passage of this proposed act could not be revealed however, without the approval of all parties to that communication. Since infrastructure applies to everything, things were said there under the impression they would never be made public i.e. equivalent to what you'd say discreetly to a friend. Not to mention, going back far enough in certain chats there are some major personally identifiable bits of information, and I don't think I need to overstate the diplomatic fall-out from revealing the Peacekeepers chat from the Con Con days.

Anything after the act though is open to being revealed, as no one can really say "I didn't know this was going to be made public, or have the possibility of being made public".

 

[Domais]

I'll reply again in a bit but "partially withhold" means redactions. They can release parts of discussions.

 

[Wang Yao]

It literally is their choice and it literally is pragmatic according to section 2 of the proposed law:

(2) The Prime Minister may withhold or partially withhold the release of any discussion of relative importance or vote if they are ongoing, relate to an ongoing discussion, or contain sensitive diplomatic information. Furthermore, they may withhold or partially withhold the release of any document if it contains sensitive diplomatic information.

You forget to quote in bold relevant parts of the sentences. "Pragmatism" is allowed in the first case in regard to transparency with discussions if they are "of relative importance", basically not over yet or "contain sensitive diplomatic information". And in regard to documents if it "contains sensitive diplomatic information".

They remain exceptions to a general rule of transparency, I don't want our Government to feel entangled in bureaucracy when it comes to secrecy, that's not "literally pragmatic", that's putting weight on administrations' shoulders that I feel the region cannot afford with its current level of activity. You may argue that these exceptions are pretty large but I disagree, private discussions are one of the central part of politics in Nationstates (Whether it's about Military, Foreign, Diplomatic or even Cultural affairs) and it's important to make sure, not practically sure, that all participants feel like Government matters can be discussed without having to keep in mind that both citizens and foreign eyes will hear about it soon after.

I'm not surprised when RN says that making the Peacekeeper chat public was pretty major diplomatically, all major Governments and Gameplayers take secrecy quite seriously, as secrecy is sometimes ironically more relevant than the revealed conversation itself. I would rather support something that doesn't reduce the trust we are given by allies or make our leadership jobs even harder to attract people (Like Chanku's PMQ suggestion but that's not the place for discussing it).

 

[New Rogernomics]

You forget to quote in bold relevant parts of the sentences. "Pragmatism" is allowed in the first case in regard to transparency with discussions if they are "of relative importance", basically not over yet or "contain sensitive diplomatic information". And in regard to documents if it "contains sensitive diplomatic information".

I think it is really just confusing language, as if something is "sensitive" then that was what redactions are for, to effectively cut out what might be embarrassing or compromising. But the document itself could be released with those redactions. In the TSP Sunshine act, they make this clear through the following:

(5) If reasonably possible, the institution should strive to release discussions containing classified information in redacted form, rather than withholding them. Any personally identifiable information must always be redacted upon release.

The other issue is that unlike the TSP Sunshine act, it doesn't mention what happens with personally identifiable information. If legislation fails to mention this, then it falls to administration discretion to determine what is released. Certainly I would be invoking the part of the mandate that empowers forum and discord administrators, to protect this information, as I don't think OOC stuff should be brought into the public sphere without consent of the person who posted it.

This is also of issue:

or vote which is under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister, and is withheld from the public

As it isn't made clear what it means by the release of a vote, as there are voting statistics i.e. 10 aye, 2, nay, and 1 abstain vs revealing how specific individuals voted and what they said leading up to the vote. We already release the statistics of all votes, just not the specifics around people who voted.

 

[Deadeye Jack]

I've mentioned this on discord but I think I'd rather a law that mandated the Prime Minister reporting on what the government is working on periodically. I'm not particularly interested in the exact private conversations being had, I'd rather know just in general what the government is up to and what it's working on for some accountability to their activity. Other regions that have sunshine/declassification laws it always seems like it's a burden on the Prime Minister to release a backlog of information.

I suppose the question is would we rather effort by the new PM be spent releasing records from the old PM or would we rather them spend their effort carrying out their agenda and hopefully keeping Lazarus engaged in activity.

 

[Clorinda]

I've mentioned this on discord but I think I'd rather a law that mandated the Prime Minister reporting on what the government is working on periodically. I'm not particularly interested in the exact private conversations being had, I'd rather know just in general what the government is up to and what it's working on for some accountability to their activity. Other regions that have sunshine/declassification laws it always seems like it's a burden on the Prime Minister to release a backlog of information.

I suppose the question is would we rather effort by the new PM be spent releasing records from the old PM or would we rather them spend their effort carrying out their agenda and hopefully keeping Lazarus engaged in activity.

Seconding this, multiple GCRs have legislation like this and I personally find it to be more successful. Plus, it puts pressure on the PM to deliver an explanation as to what they’ve been doing and possibly even increases their productivity.

 

[New Rogernomics]

Seconding this, multiple GCRs have legislation like this and I personally find it to be more successful. Plus, it puts pressure on the PM to deliver an explanation as to what they’ve been doing and possibly even increases their productivity.

Mostly right now the issue with revealing things is time, as it takes time to determine what should be out there, and then to write the statistics, and publish the discussions or votes.

Just moving topics into public after they are no longer in use i.e. like after 2 months, might be an alternative too.

 

[Clorinda]

Mostly right now the issue with revealing things is time, as it takes time to determine what should be out there, and then to write the statistics, and publish the discussions or votes.

With Jack’s proposal it would be a case-by-case monthly or bimonthly basis simply describing what the cabinet has accomplished or worked on. It doesn’t have to include juicy or incredibly detailed info. Let me direct you to the Government Accountability Act of The Rejected Realms.