NationStates

Cretox State wrote:

Flying Eagles wrote:We are just concerned that 2ci would allow personal info for all officers who simply come up in a report to be leaked, perhaps the subject officer’s supervisor for example, instead of just the officer that is the subject of the report

OOC: 2c is the redaction part. 2ci allows personal info to be redacted.

We were just concerned that if Officer A discharges a firearm, Officers B through J’s work info would be released, but this is probably necessary for context.

Flying Eagles wrote:

Cretox State wrote:OOC: 2c is the redaction part. 2ci allows personal info to be redacted.

We were just concerned that if Officer A discharges a firearm, Officers B through J’s work info would be released, but this is probably necessary for context.

OOC: Sure, or their information could be redacted if it's an invasion of privacy.

OOC: This has been submitted. I'll send out a campaign once it's clear that this isn't illegal for some reason.

"This resolution, among other issues, prevents departments from accessing or releasing information such as the promotion or transfer of officers within an organization in an investigation of illegal practices by superior officers. If management improperly or even illegally moves an officer through or across the ranks, this resolution prohibits investigation of that act, since it doesn't concern the conduct of that officer."

The Ambassador takes a seat in his personal bathroom stall on the third floor of World Assembly Headquarters. He looks at the complaint. He looks at the proposal. He looks at the complaint again. After wiping what he sincerely hopes is chocolate off his pen, he begins to write.

Wallenburg wrote:"This resolution, among other issues, prevents departments from accessing or releasing information such as the promotion or transfer of officers within an organization in an investigation of illegal practices by superior officers. If management improperly or even illegally moves an officer through or across the ranks, this resolution prohibits investigation of that act, since it doesn't concern the conduct of that officer."

"This proposal would prevent no such thing. Were a superior officer to be investigated criminally or administratively for moving a more junior officer through or across the ranks, such an investigation would undeniably concern the conduct of said officer. This means that personnel records under that officer's name would not be confidential. The definition of a "personnel record" explicitly includes any information concerning "employment-related advancement, appraisal, discipline, or benefits." It doesn't matter whose employment-related activities those are. Were an officer to illicitly move another officer around, that record of promotion/movement would not be confidential.

Furthermore, this proposal neither mandates nor prohibits investigations into any matter.

We would also be interested to hear what these "other issues" are. Additionally, this proposal is specifically written to allow for future resolutions to provide for greater transparency. If you feel that this proposal is too restrictive, you would receive our full support in writing a resolution to provide for greater access to police records. Much of the intention of this proposal is to facilitate future resolutions on the subject, and to address the utter lack of such legislation in the World Assembly."

Cretox State wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:"This resolution, among other issues, prevents departments from accessing or releasing information such as the promotion or transfer of officers within an organization in an investigation of illegal practices by superior officers. If management improperly or even illegally moves an officer through or across the ranks, this resolution prohibits investigation of that act, since it doesn't concern the conduct of that officer."

"This proposal would prevent no such thing. Were a superior officer to be investigated criminally or administratively for moving a more junior officer through or across the ranks, such an investigation would undeniably concern the conduct of said officer. This means that personnel records under that officer's name would not be confidential. The definition of a "personnel record" explicitly includes any information concerning "employment-related advancement, appraisal, discipline, or benefits." It doesn't matter whose employment-related activities those are. Were an officer to illicitly move another officer around, that record of promotion/movement would not be confidential.

"But it wouldn't concern the conduct of the officer being moved through the organization, only their superiors and those involved in HR. Thus, it would remain confidential."

Furthermore, this proposal neither mandates nor prohibits investigations into any matter.

"It does, however, mandate what is and isn't published and to whom. An investigation that cannot access crucial information isn't much of an investigation."

We would also be interested to hear what these "other issues" are. Additionally, this proposal is specifically written to allow for future resolutions to provide for greater transparency. If you feel that this proposal is too restrictive, you would receive our full support in writing a resolution to provide for greater access to police records. Much of the intention of this proposal is to facilitate future resolutions on the subject, and to address the utter lack of such legislation in the World Assembly."

"This resolution constricts transparency more than it broadens it. I think we best resolve the flaws in your proposal by voting against it and seeing what your or another delegation can come up with the next time around."

I’m inclined to agree with Wallenburg here, and I suggest withdrawing it to save 4 days of voting time

Honeydewistania wrote:I’m inclined to agree with Wallenburg here, and I suggest withdrawing it to save 4 days of voting time

OOC: If I resubmit with "World Assembly resolution" changed to "law", would that fix things?

Edit: This would allow member nations to permit additional transparency with things like investigations into corrupt movement of other officers.

Edit 2:

Wallenburg wrote:"But it wouldn't concern the conduct of the officer being moved through the organization, only their superiors and those involved in HR. Thus, it would remain confidential."

There would be a record of movement in the name of the individuals authorizing/doing the movement. I am agreeable to resubmit, but I don't see this as an issue.

OOC: Sorry for the double post, but I think this is definitely a non-issue (clause 2biii):

LEO personnel records must be made non-confidential and readily available for public consumption where they relate to an incident in which a final finding was made of dishonesty by a LEO in the course of their official duties;

Shady transferring certainly counts as dishonesty. Taken together with my prior post, I don't think this impedes investigations into transferring. However, I would be willing to resubmit should I be wrong about this.

Cretox State wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:"But it wouldn't concern the conduct of the officer being moved through the organization, only their superiors and those involved in HR. Thus, it would remain confidential."

There would be a record of movement in the name of the individuals authorizing/doing the movement. I am agreeable to resubmit, but I don't see this as an issue.

I'm not necessarily finding the text to support that, which is not to say that every possible case needs to be preconceived, but you've already provided a definition in this case. The definition of "personnel record" written here starts and ends at the individual and their personal employment data, which makes sense.

But I don't see where there would be a need, or if it would even be permissible, to record someone else's personnel records in this type of file. Even were that the case, if an officer's superior is not also a law enforcement officer as it's defined in 1a, they're under no obligation to provide those records - they would be a civilian.

There is no way to assess whether hiring standards are met in this framework. If there is favouritism/nepotism taking place within the department that would warrant a an investigation into HR practices, it would not even be possible for an officer to willingly provide their own personnel records in such an investigation.

Refuge Isle wrote:I'm not necessarily finding the text to support that, which is not to say that every possible case needs to be preconceived, but you've already provided a definition in this case. The definition of "personnel record" written here starts and ends at the individual and their personal employment data, which makes sense.

"c. a "personnel record" as any file maintained under an individual’s name by a department, which contains any information concerning:

1. employment-related advancement, appraisal, discipline, or benefits; or
2. complaints or investigation of complaints regarding an incident which that individual participated in or perceived, pertaining to their conduct with regards to said incident;"

But I don't see where there would be a need, or if it would even be permissible, to record someone else's personnel records in this type of file. Even were that the case, if an officer's superior is not also a law enforcement officer as it's defined in 1a, they're under no obligation to provide those records - they would be a civilian.

There is no way to assess whether hiring standards are met in this framework. If there is favouritism/nepotism taking place within the department that would warrant a an investigation into HR practices, it would not even be possible for an officer to willingly provide their own personnel records in such an investigation.

OOC: No one else's personnel records are being recorded here; I'm simply stating that information on corrupt demotion, etc. would not be considered explicitly confidential by this. Nepotism in the administration of government services is a far broader issue which would best be handled by a separate resolution, something which this one explicitly permits.

Edit: I think everyone's missing the point here. The point of this proposal is not to dictate what can and cannot be investigated. The point is not to address nepotism or administrative coverups. If such a culture is so deeply entrenched that it would render this proposal ineffective, it would render every police proposal ineffective. Nepotism and toxic culture are topics best directly addressed by other resolutions.

Edit 2: Regarding non-LEO supervisors, this proposal would simply not apply to them. Member nations may release records at their discretion.

Cretox State wrote:The point of this proposal is not to dictate what can and cannot be investigated. The point is not to address nepotism or administrative coverups.

I understand that this was not your goal, however I would like you to realise that your legal text can have unintended consequences. When you place restrictions on records and say "These may ONLY be released in certain circumstances," if other circumstances arrive where that information is necessary, it would be illegal to release them under your international law. I'm not talking about broad issues with problems in the government, I'm saying that, under your law, any kind of investigation of an officer or their department that doesn't relate to LEO misconduct cannot use personnel records (even if the LEO wants it to).

OOC: I have decided to pull this and make emergency fixes, including allowing for laws to mandate additional transparency, and removing the "name" loophole.

If there are no issues, I will resubmit at minor. Better to have a functional resolution than one that passes a bit earlier.

OOC: I won't have time later today, so I've decided to resubmit a bit earlier: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1595335464

Cretox State wrote:OOC: I won't have time later today, so I've decided to resubmit a bit earlier: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1595335464

(OOC: Good luck.)

“This proposal has my support, currently.”

OOC: I'll wait for assurance that I didn't accidentally make the proposal illegal before I send out a campaign

"The Imperium sees no concerns with this draft, though, I do apologize that we were apparently unable to assist in its reaching that point. In any case, the proposal will have the support of the Imperium."

I'd like to apologize for my 11th hour criticisms, by the way. I couldn't much help when I got around to really looking through the text, but that doesn't make the author's experience any less exasperating. Good job with your GA work. As I currently understand the resubmitted proposal, I look forward to supporting it.

Wallenburg wrote:I'd like to apologize for my 11th hour criticisms, by the way. I couldn't much help when I got around to really looking through the text, but that doesn't make the author's experience any less exasperating. Good job with your GA work. As I currently understand the resubmitted proposal, I look forward to supporting it.

OOC: No apologies are necessary. I appreciate anything that makes for a better submission, and had it not been you, someone else would've certainly brought up these concerns (most likely after voting started and I would be unable to withdraw it).

“The Federal Republic of Newenken has paid attention to the arguments of the different nations and will support this Resolution, understanding that its approval will contribute to improving the transparency of the acts carried out by the security forces in the exercise of their functions, as well as to deter officers from committing abuses of authority”.

Guybrush Threepwood.
Ambassador to the General Assembly and the Security Council.

I personally support this. As founder and now delegate of Astrolin, I hope that my counterparts there think the same way.

Does this apply to private police departments? we don't bother funding a public department

Wealthatonia wrote:Does this apply to private police departments? we don't bother funding a public department

Clause 1 a wrote:a "law enforcement officer" (LEO) as an individual acting in an official capacity to prevent or investigate potential offenses against a criminal law, with the powers to apprehend or detain individuals suspected or convicted of offenses against a criminal law, as authorized by a government;

So long as such forces are given permission to operate by the government, I would presume so based on the definition.

From: Oscar Lancaster, Anistrian Representative to the World Assembly

The Government of Anistria supports this resolution.

Whovian Tardisia wrote:

Wealthatonia wrote:Does this apply to private police departments? we don't bother funding a public department

Clause 1 a wrote:a "law enforcement officer" (LEO) as an individual acting in an official capacity to prevent or investigate potential offenses against a criminal law, with the powers to apprehend or detain individuals suspected or convicted of offenses against a criminal law, as authorized by a government;

So long as such forces are given permission to operate by the government, I would presume so based on the definition.

OOC: That is correct.