I've spent a week debating the value of commenting on this with myself, but responsibility wins out.
Any official government meeting, especially one held to comply with law, should be held on public land and have an official public record.
That is transparency. That has been the standard for CDS over the years, supported in a number of discussions recorded in the forums. It has even been a desire of the populace to see transcripts of NON-government groups made public and there is value in having a public record to address misunderstandings or misrepresentations of what has been said- most recently the transcripts of LUC meetings demonstrated that need.
That is how the accuracy of statements can be checked; how something forgotten as time passes can be confirmed;how government officials, committee members etc are kept accountable to the citizenry.
A summary is just one person's version of an event, subject to their personal filters. If it is to be the only official record of a meeting, those in attendance would need to post a confirmation that it is a true reflection of what occurred ( much as approval of minutes does for RA meetings). There is no way to insist or ensure that citizens do this, making the summary inappropriate as an accurate record.
'Optional' keeping or posting of transcripts and the freedom to choose 'in whole or in part' is, in my opinion, totally inappropriate. This allows a member of government to choose what is or is not 'on the record' and when it becomes so; the option is there to not document questions or discussions that they do not like, or to choose the optimum time, whether for positive or negative intentions, to post a transcript. This personal selectivity is not how government should behave. The suggestion that people will not be comfortable speaking on the record has not been applied to RA or SC meetings; it should not be applied to any other official government meeting either. In discussing scheduling of gov't question hours, both Ranma and Rosie pointed out that they are always reachable by IM; if a citizen does not want their questions answered in public and recorded, they have the option of approaching any member of government privately.
In the past we have had a government member conduct a meeting on private land where controversial comments were made - but refuse to publish a transcript since it was private land. We have had a 'transcript' - actually a recording of a conversation held after a meeting was cancelled as inquorate- published a year later, because the publisher felt it to be relevant to a current debate. We have had multiple discussions and debates, both positive and negative, where there was a need for 'proof' of past statements. These examples all point to a need to specify what is recorded and when and how it is published.
All of that said, I suggest the following wording might be usable (changes in bold):
code - Government Question Hour Act ( replaces NL 7-1 Government Question Hour Act)
Rationale:
In order to make the government more accessible this Act establishes an informal Government Question Hour with at least one government ‘official’ from each branch of government present, once per month. The Chancellor may schedule additional Government Question Hours based on public demand. These meetings will be open to all CDS residents to come and ask questions. The hours will rotate to suit the RL hours of our community.
1. The Chancellor is charged with organizing a Government Question Hour at least once per month. All members of the government (Executive, Legislative and Philosophical branches) will be invited to attend with at least one official from each attending.
2. The Chancellor is charged with facilitating representation from all three branches.
3. The Chancellor will rotate the hours of the Government Question Hour to take into account the different time zones of the CDS community and to ensure representation from the different branches of government.
4. Meetings will be chaired by one of the government officials present and will be open to all citizens to attend.
5. The Chair will keep a transcript of the meeting and post it to the CDS forums. The Chair may also choose to include a summary of the content of the meeting.
Calli
Addendum: I have hosted two of the Hours so far. I have both transcripts and summaries - along with permission to post a summary instead of a transcript. Once this law is passed, in whatever form, I'll post them accordingly.