While I’m not opposed to FOIA, the advantage of Sunshine over a FOIA system is that there’s more friction to not release a topic with Sunshine since it always (in theory <_<) has to be considered, while with FOIA it’s only on request.
These aren’t mutually exclusive though and could work together, e.g. there’s a timeframe for Sunshine in general, and specific requests can be made beforehand. That technically doesn’t even need a law (the Assembly can always make a request anyway) but it may be nice to have it codified. Probably something for a new thread, though?
Anyway, some edits to address pronouns valid concerns:
[quote]
Resolution to Address Missing Sunshine Reports
(1) This resolution takes effect on the day of passage of 2438.AB.
(2) Affected institutions for the purpose of this resolution are those who, prior to the passage of the above bill, did not have a mandated time frame for discussion release as per the Sunshine Act and now, with the passage, do.
(2) All affected institutions who had not previously had a specific time frame for release of discussions as per the Sunshine Act must now review and release any eligible discussions within one calendar month of passage.
(3) If any affected institution is now defunct, its successor institution insofar as it exists, or otherwise Cabinet, shall be responsible for its discussion release within two calendar months of passage.[/quote]
Perfect time to take a break from looking at the forum over the weekend, apparently…
I’ll be perfectly honest that I personally prefer a FOIA model over a Sunshine Act model just because of inertia, but I understand the concerns re: “unknown unknowns” as well.
If we’re all doing our best Rumsfeld impression — I think the Sunshine Act is prone to “unknown knowns” if you want to enforce it maximally and the reality is that people don’t care. When has anybody anywhere ever demanded the release of discussions from the office of the Delegate? From the Local Council? From the office of the Chair? These institutions are known, yes, but nobody acts like it. Maybe it’s better to just use a FOIA system or to explicitly name relevant institutions in the Sunshine Act.
Also, I don’t think looking for releases from defunct institutions is that meaningful. See, for example, the absence of any demands for Sunshine Act releases during, what, the entire existence of the Local Council? If there are particular defunct institutions we care about, we can just name them explicitly. (And frankly if it’s something like the Superior Court of the South Pacific from a decade ago now, if anybody cares, maybe it’s easier to just directly ask a forum admin…?)
How much of this is “people don’t care,” and how much of this is “people don’t know?” I’ve got to be honest, I wasn’t really aware of the Sunshine Report until it was brought up in an argument, and that’s on me for not doing enough to familiarize myself with our resolutions. But somewhere down the line we dropped the ball on this, and because of that the people who joined after the last report (which was the High Court Sunshine Report from a full year ago as far as I’m aware) are even less likely to know about it.
There is a real problem here of information not being released to the public, and I don’t think the solution to that is to make a FOIA system the sole way of gaining access to that information.
I don't know if I would portray the issue with that level of urgency.
Yes, there is a compelling public interest in ensuring that government institutions are diligent in complying with the Sunshine Act both for historical and accountability reasons, but at the same time 99% of the time the content that would be disclosed is fairly mundane and would serve for little beyond historical study and interest.
I don’t mean to minimise the importance of disclosures but I do want to suggest that sunshine disclosures are generally a “nice to have” rather than an issue of “information not being released to the public”. It is more important for our day-to-day to know, and demand that the government tell us, what it’s doing now in terms of policy rather than it disclosing what it did six months ago.
No, people don’t care. The Sunshine Act requires that all significant private discussions be documented on the forums. It has done so since 2018. Nothing has changed. Did anybody — even when the act was amended, when every legislator should be aware of its existence — ask the Local Council to please keep a record of all their significant discussions on the forums? I’m sure it will be fun for the Cabinet to chase down all the former Local Councillors they can find asking for their telegrams. Did anybody demand the release of discussions from the office of the Delegate? Even when the law was actively being amended and debated, there were many institutions never needled about disclosure.
The reality is that applying the Sunshine Act to all institutions, existing or defunct, is a novel construction. Its application to only specific institutions has deep historical roots. The earliest disclosure law I could find dates back to 2007 and applies only to the Cabinet and only in response to specific requests for information.[1] The ‘sunshine’ name (which I quite like, thanks Glen!) originates in 2013, the first the time we adopted an ‘automatic’ disclosure approach, and applied only to the Cabinet.[2] Credit to Kris for apparently having largely the same thoughts then as he does now, I guess! The Court was only added in 2015.[3] The current wording, referring to all ‘government institutions,’ only originated in 2018.[4] Maybe Roavin always intended that wording to apply to all government institutions, but I don’t think that intent is actually obviously reflected in the legislative record.
We did not drop the ball ‘down the line’ on institutions other than those listed in the Sunshine Act, because disclosure provisions have historically long targeted specific institutions. If we want that to include the CRS, we can do that; I just think trying to get disclosures from every institution ever is misguided.
According to the Sunshine Act topic that amendment happened in May of 2023, before even the High Court Sunshine Report. I don’t see how that’s evidence that all legislators who joined the Assembly, or even the game, after the most recent Sunshine Report were in fact aware of it.
I fail to see why us not caring in the past is means we can’t care now. I see it as us making a mistake and seeking to correct said mistake, our hands aren’t exactly tied here. Even if we change the law to a Freedom Of Information Act-style system, I don’t know that it retroactively means that the missing Sunshine Acts are no longer required.
I’d like to remind you, there are other members of the CRS who believe that it is responsible for releasing Sunshine Reports. I do not so much see this as “including the CRS” as I do “picking out a government institution that most certainly should be releasing those reports and using them as a springboard to get the ball rolling again.” There is no specific mention about the CRS in the proposed amendment, because this is not just about the CRS. I think it’s better for the Sunshine Act to take more inspiration from the IRL Sunshine Law rather than only applying to a specific institution.
I can definitely be annoyingly stubborn, even infuriating, when I feel strongly about something. In my defence, I can also be pretty good at my job if it’s something I enjoy.
That wasn’t my point. Now is a great time to pay more attention to Sunshine Act compliance. But if it matters to us, I think it should be easy to list what institutions we want disclosures from. If we can’t even name what institutions the Sunshine Act applies to, how could we know who to demand disclosures from?
I mean, the current Sunshine Act says it applies to all government institutions, by merit of applying to all significant discussions within a government institution (this is all paraphrased of course). In a draft here, it’s all government institutions, excluding “x institution.” I don’t foresee any problems with people knowing what is or isn’t a government institution, but if there is the better solution would be posting said list outside of the law, rather than inside of it. While I don’t think it likely for new government institutions to be created or old ones to be dissolved, having the blanket statement means the law still works as intended while having specific lists means that without amendments the law either doesn’t cover something or covers something that no longer exists.
I heavily disagree, I think we should get disclosures from every institution, no matter what institution it is.
I just want to say, I joined three months ago, today. Why should I know of a amendment that was done years ago, let alone know the entire law, or Sunshine reports in the first place, since it wasn’t done in ages.
@Legend, this was very inspirational, and also your right, if we weren’t caring in the past, it doesn’t mean we can’t care now, and if we did see it as making a mistake then, we correct it.
I am not sure, why we should be naming institutions, we should know already every single institution we should place this on, no matter of it’s again amending the Sunshine Act or creating a new FOIA type system.