[AMENDMENT] Public Disclosure Form Act

The Magisterium
1

SECTION V. EXCEPTIONS.

…5.1-Interpersonal relationships that are unrelated to governmental associations do not have to be disclosed.

…5.2-In order to withhold a Position of Interest or an alias from a disclosure, permission must be attained by at least two of the following officials: The Delegate, Provost, Grand Vizier, and/or the Viceroy.

…5.2.1-If approved under 5.2, notification of approval alongside disclosure of said position of interest or alias must be sent by the applicant to all public officials listed above. Withheld positions of interest or aliases must be held in the strictest confidence by all threefour public officials, regardless of whether or not an individual public official which officials approved of the withholding and which did not.

…5.2.2-The public disclosure thread for that public official must include this statement, “ADDITIONAL POSITIONS OR ALIASES HAVE NOT BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE [INSERT APPROVING PUBLIC OFFICIALS].”

I’m making this amendment as I understand the general idea of why the Provost is the one listed in here, however, it isn’t the job of the Provost to be in charge of regional Security and things that are adjacent to this. It is the job of the Grand Vizier, in their capacity as the person in charge of the Praesidium, to carry out security, and withholding a previous alias would fall under such line.

I’m willing to hear critiques or complaints about this.

NOTE: This isn’t going to be going to a vote for a while. So do not fret about being timely, but I do at least want a conversation started about this.

Thank you for your time.

2

Regional security is also not the Delegate’s job, nor the Viceroy’s. The Delegate could be considered adjacent ig, but idk about the Viceroy. I could understand having all branch leaders represented, putting aside for a moment my personal interests as it would advance the power of my current position (and for that reason I will abstain), but I don’t see the need for excluding any one leader.

3

My rationale for the choice given was the following:

Grand Vizier = Regional Security. Should know of former aliases

Delegate = FA direction and assuming there is any FA blowback, or if another region is looking for specified person.

Viceroy = in the event that there is any outstanding Warrants that need to be served to them, verification of votes (in the event that an alias changes mid-election), making sure no former court trial was against said person, or various other legal IC reasons.

That was my general idea when I was thinking about this amendment.

4

The Provost does require access to withheld information in the Public Disclosure Forms in order to effectively enforce § 1.4 of the SOM which states the following:

…1.4. The Provost may deny applicants convicted of any crime and applicants who have committed subversive acts in TEP or abroad.

I believe § 7.4.1 of the SOM which additionally covers the removal of Magisters, would also fall under this information access requirement.
…7.4.1. The Magister is found to have supplied falsified information in their Magister’s Pledge or official Public Disclosure Form; or

6

Between what Cyberium said, my unease at giving only 3/4 of branch leaders the info here, and a general opinion that branch leaders should know who’s in their branches especially if they plan to be Deputies or smth, idk, I say make it all 4 branch leaders.

8

I agree with this suggestion.

9

I will add the proposal to let all Leaders of the branch be in on this decision.

14

I nudge you to carry this idea forward.

15

I propose this amendment considering the above discussion.

16

i believe you’re missing a preposition between “notification of approval” and “said position of interest or alias”. additionally the first instance of “public officials” in 5.2.1 seems unclear to me. perhaps “notification of approval, alongside disclosure of said position of interest or alias, must be sent by the applicant to all officials listed above.”

also the wording of “regardless of whether or not an individual public official approved of the withholding” feels wrong, so maybe we could change that too. perhaps “regardless of whether or not an individual public official which such officials approved of the withholding and which did not.”

17

Done.

18

updated the draft

Not sure how I like the phrasing at 5.2.1 at the end. it feels clonky. the old phrase made more sense without all the words.

19

Maybe this would work better?

20

Or we could say “[…] by alleach of the threefour public officials, regardless of whether or not an individual public official they approved of the withholding.”

21

I like Provost CyberiumShadow’s wording best. This is what I would like best:

22

I think my suggested wording is more straightforward and clear, whereas the streamlined version makes prose out of law. “listed officials” which list? section iii defines public officials as all Viziers, Arbiters, Magisters, Ministers, Deputy Ministers, and the Delegate. That’s a different list to 5.2’s list. “Positions of interest” is also a list of officials. Idk. It’s relatively easy to infer but I’d prefer clarity in all cases. “irrespective of any lack of approval” is also just a fancy way of saying “regardless of whether they approved of the withholding”. it’s barely shorter and it takes an air of oversophistication which we don’t really need.