Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Oct 28, 2018 16:59:24 GMT -6
I very simply made a request under D.8 for public disclosure of applications made for public funds. Can I ask - sorry, derailing the thread, but I can't find an appropriate place - why you have not "made public" the text of the Coalition Agreement which you applied for under Lex D.8.? The Seneschál seems to have erred in allowing you your own private copy but not making it public. Sorry, I only just looked up the law and realised that you've been playing fast and loose with what you've been entitled to.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 28, 2018 17:12:20 GMT -6
I plan to do so in the paper, actually. Publishing the coalition agreement seems like a valuable public service. But just as a matter of law, I'm not obligated to do so. There is no burden at all on the petitioner to do anything with the information they receive, and in fact no provision requiring that supplied information be posted publicly. I have no intention of keeping it secret, though, don't worry!
I am much obliged to the Government for fulfilling their duties here in relatively short order, and everyone in the country can look forward to this week's issue of Beric'ht Talossan!
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Oct 28, 2018 17:27:31 GMT -6
I plan to do so in the paper, actually. Publishing the coalition agreement seems like a valuable public service. But just as a matter of law, I'm not obligated to do so. There is no burden at all on the petitioner to do anything with the information they receive, But you're not supposed to "receive" information. It's supposed to be made public. Did you misinform the Seneschál of what Lex D.8 actually says?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 28, 2018 17:38:21 GMT -6
The law states that I may "request access to information" that may or may not be "disclosed." The government may make this information public in any way they wish, either by publishing it for all or disclosing it to the person making the request. This is further established beyond the plain language by the fact that D.8.4.1 and D.8.4.2 specify specific recipients for specific forms of this information. If it were a binary distinction that required public notice, then we'd expect to see it qualified or otherwise specified as in D.8.5 and D.8.6.
If you disagree with my interpretation of the law and think that your Government has been breaking it, then you probably should be taking that up with the Avocat-Xheneral, since it's pretty much one of his main jobs to make these determinations. If that is insufficient, I recommend that you ask for a legal consult from someone such as Sir Cresti or a justice. I decline to give you guys legal advice at this time.
If you wish to establish a new policy of public notice for all disclosure requests, I would be delighted beyond measure and I strongly encourage this change.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Oct 28, 2018 17:50:22 GMT -6
As the original primary author of the law in question I can tell you that its intention was that information being disclosed was to be passed directly to the petitioner. The government could satisfy that by putting it on a billboard if it wanted, but a letter or an email to the petitioner alone would be sufficient.
It wasn't a matter of "information must be known by everybody", but rather "everybody has a right to access the information".
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Oct 28, 2018 17:59:56 GMT -6
If you wish to establish a new policy of public notice for all disclosure requests, I would be delighted beyond measure and I strongly encourage this change. Really? You seemed grumpy that the Initiative Support Funding applications were published.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 28, 2018 18:09:20 GMT -6
If you wish to establish a new policy of public notice for all disclosure requests, I would be delighted beyond measure and I strongly encourage this change. Really? You seemed grumpy that the Initiative Support Funding applications were published. Governance by spite is not a great thing to see, but I would adore this general policy. Wait... governance by spite... I would hate this new policy and you should not do it. You wouldn't dare do it!
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Oct 28, 2018 18:38:46 GMT -6
So: transparency in government records is a great thing when AD asks for it.
When he doesn't ask for it, it's SPITE.
The important thing in any State initiative is its impact on AD personally and his agenda.
See also: "when the FreeDems don't agree with me, it's personal abuse" in the OrgLaw Convention thread.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 28, 2018 18:47:07 GMT -6
Well, no, really the only things motivated by spite are those things that are motivated by spite. This is not a subtle point. and it is possible for something to be a great idea in general but spiteful when done for spite.
I do admit that this puts you between a rock and a hard place. Do you make public notice and disclosure a general policy, even though I think it's a great idea? Do you continue to just disclose to the people who request information, as intended by the law, even though it is what I prefer in this specific case?
My suggestion would be to actually think about what would be the best thing for the country. Do that :-)
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Oct 29, 2018 1:00:16 GMT -6
I think the same thing as I've always thought: if we get a valid Lex D8 request, then those documents should be made public, not delivered privately to a private citizen who may then continue to shield them from public view, or - let's say - delay their publication until it makes political, personal or journalistic advantage to publish them. (The exception would be genuinely private information, which already has special legislative provisions.) Regardless of what the person who wrote the law thinks, to act that would not promote transparency; it would just allow a private citizen to assume the Government's decision of whether to publish Government information. Speaking of which, you really don't understand me or anything I do in Talossa if you think I get in your way out of "spite". I think it betrays a shocking lack of empathy on your part, that you honestly can't think that anyone would oppose you for other than the basest of motives. Now Viteu Marcianüs, on the other hand, I think he really does want to spite you, so watch out.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 29, 2018 4:24:46 GMT -6
I'm not sure there's any legal backing for this theory, but neither is there any law saying you guys can't do that. I would advise that you start a single page where such disclosures are made, like with the culture grants.
It is apparent to all that you are a pillar of self-control, don't worry.
|
|