I hope your constituents will respect you all the more for this courageous act!

There is a broad array of different kinds of information that could be more available to the public. The one that is the current subject of conversation is pretty narrow — non-personnel spending by the legislature. Currently there is no disclosure of what was bought with the taxpayers’ money. The legislature has exempted itself from the procedures and disclosure requirements that are applicable to all executive branch agencies. It seems to me that spending, at a bare minimum, should be fully visible to the public. It’s a long way from disclosure of spending records to disclosure of personal reflective notes as Tino worried about. We can start with the basics and then see what’s next in line.

I will also say that increased transparency raises some concerns, as well. To echo an earlier poster, the feeling of always “being on the record” may have an impact of the way that ideas naturally evolve.

I do support more transparency. I will be interested to see how the House approaches this issue and navigates between the need for openness and the need for legislators to feel comfortable presenting ideas that at first pass may be potentially “extreme” or unpopular.

We’d have thought that the educated and thoughtful would prevail, but there are people out there that really believe end of life counseling means the govt will tell you when you die. With all the arguing that has taken place over public health care option when the opposition turns a line item into something it clearly isn’t there isn’t only going to have to be full explanation on money spent where, but what each line item is and it’s purpose.

For instance, is money going to a foundation? What does the foundation do? Who works for that foundation? Is there a union contract? Is it religious? Did one of it’s members have the middle name of a terrorist? Of course this all sounds silly but when you see what’s happened, just be prepared for attacks on things that aren’t even there by whatever the opposing want to make it into or some writer who thinks he’s going to get his name out there.

Yes, I support transparency and think it has to be there. Just be prepared for the extra time it’s going to take to defend every detail and have an explanation that runs deep.

As for arguments against too much of it, unbridled transparency has potential to chill the creative process. I’m sure we have all had the experience of making sketchy and incoherent notes at a meeting, or dashing off initial drafts of various documents. If you knew all this would be open to public inspection, you might spend so much time worrying about what people will think that you’ll never say anything.