Skip to main content

The Importance Of Being Transparent

Someday -- hopefully soon -- transparency will come to Connecticut, and it will change the whole political landscape. Transparency opens government of any kind – state, municipal and federal – to as many people as are affected by political transactions, which is to say all citizens of the state.

The concept is shockingly simple: Put on the internet all governmental transactions, including pricing, and the flow of information will be enhanced between the government and the people, the government and its vendors, the government and intergovernmental agencies and the government and the media. It is crucial to require that no legislation shall be passed until five days have elapsed after the posting. In this way, any possible disadvantages in bills may be corrected though input provided by watchful citizens.

It is often said that the media is our public watchdog, which is true enough. But transparency turns every citizen who has access to a computer into a public watchdog.

There are three kinds of transparency: opaque transparency, semi-transparent transparency, and transparent transparency. The opaque version is simply pretense at true participatory democracy; the semi- transparent kind creates the illusion of transparency; and then there is the genuine article.

The key to transparency is that all governmental functions should be included in the mix. Would that include teacher contracts or contracts between towns and any vendor that accepts tax money from the state or municipalities?

It would. “All” means all.

Florida is a true transparent state. According to Florida records, House Bill 971, passed in March of this year “requires the posting of ALL expenditures, regardless of amount, and now requires the posting of all salaries, revenues and agency indebtedness.” The bill “provides access to up-to-date information on state government revenues and expenditures through a single searchable website, accessible on” The website includes information “on the date, amount, and source of each expenditure, affording Floridians an unprecedented level of access to information on government spending.” The bill also establishes “a process for integrating information on local government revenues and expenditures into the Transparency Florida site.”

Apart from providing important information to citizens that permits them to rate the effectiveness and necessity of bills and contracts, such open government sites present advantages to state and municipal governments as well. Public information of this kind serves as advertisements for out of state vendors who may be able to provide lower cost materials and services to state and town governments. And the streaming of information into one site, provided with a search engine that can find the answer to any query, makes the business of government simpler and less intimidating.

The Florida bill passed with overwhelming public support, which is not to say that it had the support of what one might call the “permanent government,” status quo politicians and their hangers on in municipal and state government. The press – or what is left of it – supported the idea because the media generally believes that exposure is cleansing.

To push through the idea in hidebound Connecticut would require some support among good government types not particularly attached to any specific political party, the media and politicians who believe in transparency for the right reason. Transparency is important because it opens information floodgates that adjust and correct the political messages of backroom politicians who depend upon secrecy and closed door politics to advance their narrow interests over the interests of the general public.

The idea, revolutionary in its simplicity, simply needs a push. In Florida, it proved to be a winning campaign issue for politicians previously unable to break the incumbent glass ceiling that prevents good men and women with good government ideas from winning seats in the legislature, municipal governments and gubernatorial offices.

Once established, it opened a window on the political world for a whole host of people who subsequently shed their apathy and became involved in government. The only losers were a few nay-sayers who surrendered their positions to candidates for office who argued that secrecy distorts democracy and is the enemy of a government unafraid to include the people in their deliberations. Thomas Jefferson’s notion that a democracy is that form of government in which governors fear the people was quoted, as well as its corollary: that in a monarchy, people fear the government.

Should some enterprising politician fashion a like bill for Connecticut, it will be vigorously and underhandedly opposed.

The opposition will be defeated.


JimB said…
I would love to see my state, Oregon, adopt measures similar to Florida's.

One point I'd like to make is that government transparency isn't a red or blue cause. Whether it's the government itself voluntarily adopting rules that provide visibility, or investigative reporters forcing scandals out into the open, transparency is the only thing that has ever kept corruption in check. Liberals see more roles for government than conservatives, but that just makes it that much more important to ensure that the work is done right.

These measures will find support across the spectrum.
Don Pesci said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Don Pesci said…

I agree with you.

There's something of a national movement going on right now towards total transparency -- even in benighted Washington DC. Initially, the incumbency throws up some resistance, but that is quickly overcome; there are just too many advantages involved, and states that do not adopt such a system – cost saving in the long run – find themselves at a disadvantage when contiguous states adopt it.

It engages a broad swath of the public that has been rendered apathetic by impenetrable politics. To me, that is its great advantage. But it will take people like you to push through the idea.

I’ve broached it with some politicians here, and they see the benefits, once the system is laid out. You could do the same in your state. You have my permission to use this blog any way you’d like. If you make it possible for people to join the game, they will play the game.

Good luck to you.

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p