The New York Times wrote a good argument against open government. The gist is that shining a light on the back corridors of government will force politicians to act as if they’re always on the political stage. This is particularly bad in the extreme partisan environment of US federal politics, but it’d be a problem to some extent everywhere.

I believe that representatives should be free to represent without having to answer to the electorate between elections. I worry that “open government” is a veiled call for direct democracy. If you don’t like how your representation works, the problem is the electoral system, not the concept of representation.

On the other hand, the people need to be able to measure the performance of their representatives so they know whether or not to reelect them. The statements representatives make direct courts and bureaucrats in interpreting legislation – they’re literally part of our laws. And people have a right to know what government is doing, even if it is anonymized at the level of individual legislators.

Therefore, I approve of the system where committees can meet behind closed doors but the business of the House must be public. The problem with local government is that the business of Council, including how individual Councilors vote, is not made public.