Ep. 6 Transparency Isn't a Team Sport

Ep. 6 Transparency Isn’t a Team Sport

[AI VO] (0:00 - 0:31)

Before we start, a quick heads up. Some of the voices you'll hear reading documents in this podcast are AI generated, but the words are real. They come straight from public records, produced by real people inside government. 

Further, if you're a public employee who's been asked to bend the rules, or if you've seen something that just doesn't sit right, we want to hear from you, confidentially, off the record. Your identity stays with us. You can reach out to us at contact at the public records officer.com. 

[AI VO] (0:36 - 0:45)

You're listening to the public records officer podcast, where we fight for your right to know. Now, here's your host, Jamie Nixon. 

[Nixon] (0:52 - 2:46)

Hello, and welcome. This is the public records officer podcast. I am your host, Jamie Nixon. 

As mentioned in our last episode, we are not staying parked forever in the land of Microsoft Teams audit deletions. We are now going to include some other topics while remaining heavily ensconced in the world of open government and transparency. You can think of it probably as like a tasting menu of government dysfunction, curated by your friendly neighborhood records nerd.

You're welcome, America. 

[Cuoio (WaTech)]

Get it gone. 

[Nixon]

Here's what's on tap today. 

First, WaTech just suspended a nearly $300 million labor and industries modernization project after a decade of planning. We'll get into how 10 years and zero deliverables somehow equals business as usual for WaTech. We'll then pivot to a fish and wildlife story where commissioners weren't just texting, they were coaching each other to delete texts about state business.

And finally, a segment where, hold on to your hat, I agree with Brandi Kruse. We'll talk about why transparency isn't a team sport and why turning it into one torpedoes the efforts of those who are trying to advance the cause. We'll zoom out to recent examples that prove both parties hide when in power and shout sunshine when they are not. 

If you came for receipts you'll get receipts. If you came for jokes, I've got at least three, I'm sure that probably won't get me sued. So let's roll.

Breaking news in the August 27th, 2025 edition of the Seattle Times. After 10 years and more than $30 million spent and not a single deliverable to show for it, WaTech has officially suspended the $292 million workers' compensation systems modernization project. Here's an AI reading from Paul Roberts' piece in the Times discussing this issue. 

[AI VO] (2:47 - 3:43)

On Friday, WaTech, the state's information technology oversight office, suspended all project activities and expenditures for the $292 million upgrade due to a continued lack of progress and ability to execute by the state department of labor and industries, according to a WaTech memo on the state IT dashboard. Since 2015, labor and industries has worked to modernize the aging technology used to manage medical claims by workers injured on the job. A decade later, the upgrade hasn't left the planning stages and was still another nine years and at least $240 million from being done, according to state reports in April. 

In a statement Tuesday, Governor Bob Ferguson said his office will work closely with WaTech and L&I to get this project on track. Asked whether he still backed labor and industries director Joel Sachs and WaTech director William Kehoe, Ferguson said through a spokesperson that every member of my cabinet is working hard and has my full support. 

[Nixon] (3:44 - 4:07)

Let's put that into perspective. A decade of work, six different project directors since 2019, and they're still stuck in the planning phase. According to WaTech's own memo, the project lacked measurable progress and an ability to execute. 

Sounds to me like another WaTech-associated mess. The story goes on to give more context about the depth of the IT problems WaTech was created and funded to solve. 

[AI VO] (4:08 - 4:52)

The state's IT dashboard currently lists 56 ongoing IT projects at 24 agencies, with a total estimated cost of $2.3 billion. But that effort, which began more than a decade ago, has yielded mixed results. Of those current projects, eight, representing 37% of the total expected cost, are considered to be at significant risk and in need of immediate attention, according to assessments by WaTech. 

Some employees also complained that WaTech, which oversees state IT systems, was adding to problems by trying to micromanage the upgrade. They said WaTech frequently changed the guidance and directives it gave L&I about how to get the upgrade back on track, and often seemed to be trying to control L&I's large IT operation and budget. 

[Rose (SAO)] (4:53 - 4:55)

Uh, you guys don't get this, I don't think. 

[Nixon] (4:55 - 5:39)

This story alone is headline grabbing, but from my perspective, for WaTech, it's just another day that ends in Y. Now if this is just one big IT boondoggle, you know, maybe you could chalk it up to government growing pains of some kind. But WaTech doesn't just trip over the projects, right? 

They trip over the truth. Failure here isn't an accident, it's the habit. The only surprise here is that they're talking about it because they normally don't.

That same culture shows up everywhere. WaTech helped engineer the mass auto-deletion of your public records, er, Microsoft Teams chats, destroying millions of public records. They accidentally deleted 1.5 terabytes of Teams data in 2020. 

[Rose (SAO)] (5:39 - 5:43)

Uh, you guys don't get this, I don't think. And I don't think you take it seriously. 

[Nixon] (5:43 - 5:51)

There's the inactive mailbox fiasco. That's when Microsoft's e-discovery tool simply wasn't searching inactive mailboxes for months in 2023. 

[Rose (SAO)] (5:51 - 5:54)

And I don't know if you, how could you not even realize that? 

[Nixon] (5:54 - 7:02)

Entire inboxes, invisible, not searched. Evidence that should have been discoverable was affected. The attorney general's office later admitted that it affected about 60 live legal cases. 

60! 

Now let's compare that to what just happened at the Department of Fish and Wildlife, DFW. In a piece by Emily Fitzgerald at the Washington State Standard, we learned that the executive director of DFW, Kelly Sueswine, I hope I'm getting that right. 

My apologies if I'm torturing that last name. Looks like Sueswine to me. Kelly Sueswine requested the governor's office investigate the conduct of members of the Washington State Fish and Wildlife Commission after recently revealed public records raised questions about their actions.

A spokesperson for Ferguson's office said, the governor takes concerns from an agency director very seriously. The governor has directed Washington State Human Resources to conduct an investigation. Here's an AI reading of a bit of that Washington State Standard story. 

[AI VO] (7:02 - 7:30)

Sueswine wrote that an independent investigation into the commissioner's communications and possibly removing members if they are found to have acted inappropriately would demonstrate the standard of accountability necessary to allow WDFW to maintain a level of service that the public expects and deserves. The commission is unable to do its job without the public's trust. He said, adding, it is simply not reasonable to expect that level of trust under the cloud of uncertainty created by the current controversy. 

[Nixon] (7:30 - 8:53)

There is some backstory here. The Sportsman's Alliance is a hunters advocacy group that, according to their website, works to, quote, guarantee hunting, fishing and trapping for the American sportsman now and forever, unquote. So they submitted a public records request at DFW regarding the loss of spring bear season that the commission voted to end. 

The alliance appeared concerned that there may have been some shenanigans involved in how the events around that vote went down. And some of the stuff they got is pretty shocking. They found text between DFW commissioners where some are openly discussing the deletions of their work-related communications, telling each other to delete this, please, et cetera.

Remember, purposely deleting a public record before it has met retention could find one being prosecuted for a felony. If there was ever a prosecutor in the state of Washington, that would be willing to charge that felony, which there has never been one. The point remains, the law allows for it. 

You should definitely go to our website, thepublicrecordsofficer.com. There you will find a transcript for this episode with links to all the documents we discussed on the show. And you will find a link to some of the documents the Sportsman's Alliance received as a result of their public records requests into this matter.

Dr. Todd Adkins, the senior vice president at the Sportsman's Alliance, says, quote, the point is you're not supposed to be conducting business in the dark, unquote.

[Rose (SAO)] (8:54 - 8:57)

And I don't know if you, how could you not even realize that?

[Nixon] (8:57 - 9:22)

Hell yes, Dr. Adkins, thank you. The Sportsman's Alliance sued, uncovering what they call egregious violations of the Public Records Act and petitioned Governor Bob Ferguson to remove four commissioners for cause. Ferguson's office is now reviewing their petition and he just ordered a formal investigation into the commission's conduct. 

So what's the big deal here? Why do these two stories have my backup the way that they do? 

[Rose (SAO)] (9:23 - 9:25)

They want an explanation. We don't have to give them an explanation. 

[Nixon] (9:26 - 10:17)

I'm seeing a double standard. When it's fish and wildlife, Ferguson acts like the transparency cop, right? He's on the job. 

He's going to get to the bottom of all that. When it's WaTech, the agency destroying millions of records, botching systems, and undermining live court cases for the Attorney General's office, when it repeatedly fails with these IT upgrade projects, Ferguson gives WaTech's director, Bill Kehoe, his quote, unquote, full support. The difference is staggering.

Ferguson has known about the auto deletion since they began. According to WaTech anyway, Ferguson's AG's office was made aware of the 1.5 terabyte deletion event. But Ferguson's office knew about the inactive mailbox fiasco as well. 

And he knows about Al Rose's accusations of a cover-up. 

[Cuoio (WaTech)] (10:17 - 10:23)

Well, with all due respect, we did meet with this and we agreed with our current process. I know that. 

[Rose (SAO)] (10:23 - 10:40)

I think you guys do this intentionally sometimes, like the cover-up about stuff for over a year that you knew hadn't been kept. I think intentionally sometimes the organization WaTech doesn't talk to its lawyers because they've got a thing going on. And that's my concern.

[Nixon] (10:40 - 11:06)

Because he was Attorney General during all of this. And now as governor, he'll investigate the rogue DFW commissioners, but he won't touch WaTech? If WaTech's record of failure and interagency frustration and resentment building aren't enough to lose his confidence, then what is? 

I mean, my Lord, if Bill Kehoe took a dump on Ferguson's desk, would Bob simply hand him the toilet paper? 

[Rose (SAO)] (11:06 - 11:09)

That's a request for information and you don't have to answer those questions.

 [Nixon] (11:12 - 12:02)

That line delivered by, again, the Director of Legal Affairs at the auditor's office, Al Rose, for me has become the defining motto of Washington's government under its current leadership. They don't have to answer your questions. This is how WaTech operates. 

It's how Ferguson governs. 

[Cuoio (WaTech)]

Get it gone.

It has now been nearly two weeks since the governor's review and suspension of the auto-deletion of Teams chats was to end. 

And here's what he has said about that. And Washington's taxpayers, who know their state is dealing with severe budgetary issues, could do nothing but watch as WaTech costs their state yet more. Not just in dollars, but in erosion of trust, accountability, and the people's right to know. 

WaTech needs oversight. Any leaders in Washington willing to say the same? 

[Rose (SAO)] (12:03 - 12:06)

That's a request for information and you don't have to answer those questions. 

[Nixon] (12:06 - 13:42)

You know, at this point, I wouldn't let the tech nerds at WaTech fix a printer jam for me. Shit, at least my printer admits when it has no juice. 

Before we get to Brandi's latest and mostly wholly justifiable outrage about lawmakers deleting their emails after 30 days, I should pause and give you some background. 

According to an ex-post from Brandi, I am a quote, crazy person, online stalker, fake open government advocate, unquote. It's just too funny. Think about it. 

Someone who makes her living online, who wants people to watch her online, is calling a person who's never reached out to her anywhere except on X, you know, commenting and stuff on her content, an online stalker. Uh, okay. So I guess your entire fan base are online stalkers?

And fake open government advocate? Okay, well, you know, let's give that some thought. Do fake advocates break stories like the legislature's 30-day auto deletion policy thing that she's talking about here?

I discussed that issue in episode two of the podcast, five days before the Seattle Times published on it. Fake advocates don't find and uncover Al Rose's cover-up accusation he leveled at WaTech. Fake advocates don't expose the seven-day auto deletion policy of Microsoft Teams chats.

And fake advocates sure as hell don't drag legislative privilege into the sunlight. And fake advocates don't spend Saturday nights editing audio clips of government officials saying things like, we don't answer informational requests instead of, you know, going on dates. 

[Rose (SAO)] (13:43 - 13:46)

And I don't know if you, how could you not even realize that?

[Nixon] (13:46 - 14:27)

So if that's what being fake looks like, guilty as charged, Brandi. With that said, let's dive in and hear where on an issue of small d democratic importance. She and I actually agree on something. 

Quick setup. 

Brandi learned that Washington House lawmakers are auto deleting emails every 30 days from the August 4th, 2025 Seattle Times story written by Shauna Sowersby. In that story, Shauna Sowersby reports that an internal email sent to members and staff of the Washington State House explained that a new policy allows your House representatives to auto delete your public records within 30 days. 

And while that's bad enough, it gets worse. 

[Rose (SAO)] (14:29 - 14:31)

Uh, you guys don't get this. I don't think. 

[Nixon] (14:32 - 15:13)

Under the new policy, only prime sponsors of legislation are required to retain emails sent to or from their office regarding those bills. If a member is not the main sponsor, those emails are considered transitory. There's that damn word again. 

So those emails are considered transitory and therefore can be deleted as soon as the member no longer needs or wants them. The policy change means that communications amongst lawmakers and from lobbyists could be gone for good. It allows lawmakers and aides to move emails into folders that are then set to auto delete after 30 days.

 Provided the lawmaker is not the prime sponsor of the bill in question. 

[Rose (SAO)] (15:13 - 15:20)

You guys don't get this. I don't think. And I don't think you take it seriously. And I don't know if you hear the fear in people's voices here.

[Nixon] (15:20 - 15:22)

So let's get to Brandi here as she enters the fray. 

[Kruse] (15:23 - 15:32)

Apparently state lawmakers are now going to be able to delete records either immediately or after 30 days. Either way, it's horrifying. Let's talk about it. 

[Nixon] (15:33 - 15:54)

It is horrifying. Brandi's totally right. 30 days isn't transparency.

It's a paper shredder with a timer. The idea that elected officials can just auto delete their own records is just nuts. But I mean, just wait until Brandi hears that agencies in the executive branch have been destroying millions of public records every seven days through auto deletions. 

Good Lord. Back to Brandi here. 

[Kruse] (15:55 - 16:16)

So let me start by saying this is not a surprise. State lawmakers have been undermining the public and transparency efforts for a long time. And including Republicans. 

You go back six, seven years, Republicans were complicit in this too. But then Republicans fell out of power and maybe didn't feel a need to continue to try to hide their records. I don't know. 

But now it's strictly a Democratic issue. It really is. 

[Nixon] (16:19 - 17:16)

This is where she and I are going to disagree on this issue a little bit. Yes, Democrats are in power in Washington now, but let's not whitewash the history here. In 2018, both parties voted overwhelmingly to exempt themselves from the Public Records Act. 

Massive majorities. All four caucuses. I know I was there. 

In 2019, the state Supreme Court said legislators are subject to the PRA. Lawmakers from both parties then turned around and started claiming legislative privilege to keep hiding those documents. Both parties. 

Members of both parties did that. Even GOP leaders like Jim Walsh, the current Washington GOP chair, has invoked privilege. Senate Republican leader John Braun defended privilege publicly during a January 2023 press event, which was the preview to the legislative session that year.

He defended legislative privilege in front of the press and the public. 

[Sen. Braun] (17:16 - 17:52)

I'll just say that legislative privilege is a thing. It's been around for 100 years or more. It should be almost never used. 

I don't use it at all. We use it very infrequently. I think I can count it on less than one hand in the Senate Republican caucus. 

So this is a fine line. Read the Constitution. We have some right to deliberate.

But that is a very, very small group. And we should not abuse or, in my opinion, even use it unless it's extraordinarily clear. 

[Nixon] (17:53 - 18:02)

This isn't just Democratic leadership. It's not just Democrats. It's not a Democratic problem. Big D Democratic problem. It's bipartisan. Back to Brandi.

[Kruse] (18:02 - 18:18)

You have these highly ideological judges up to and including the Washington State Supreme Court. And they are consistently siding with state lawmakers and essentially allowing them to delete, to hide records from members of the media. 

[Nixon] (18:18 - 20:30)

Yeah, this is a tough one. I don't think judges are secretly conspiring with Democrats. I just don't think that's the case.

I understand this. People from both sides of the aisle do this. When they get a court decision they don't like, they start yelling about political bias.

Okay, that's pretty American. I don't think there's anything weird about saying that. I think they've just been weak and more concerned with protecting power over the people's right to know.

A lot of the cases that are done under the Public Records Act are done in Thurston County and in the Thurston County Superior Court. The vast majority of the judges who are seated in that court are Ferguson acolytes. They came out of Ferguson's AG's office.

They see it the way the boss does, which is hide it when you can, destroy it before it gets asked for, right? The courts have been far too willing to let lawmakers of both parties carve out special privileges here. That's not judicial partisanship.

It's judicial cowardice. And it leaves Washingtonians left and right in the dark without resolution. Republicans, Democrats, and independents.

And remember, independents are the largest self-identifying voting bloc in Washington. They all lose when judges decide that agencies can take as long as they want to get records to you. No, seriously, that's pretty much where we are.

Courts have said multiple years to close that records request is fine, as long as they tell you within a month or two that they need more time. As long as they just keep letting you know, hey, we need more time. We need more time.

If it takes five years to get you all 10 records you asked for, the courts will let them get away with that. And that's wrong. But it's not about ideology. 

It's just not. Because again, what the judges are doing isn't hurting just Republicans. I know of someone who has a request with the legislature right now that is two years old. 

And they haven't received a single record in two years. And that request is still open. They just keep sending this person a notice every couple months saying, we're still looking. We'll get back to you. 

It's absurd. So I think Brandi's right to be upset with the way the judges are handling this. But it's not about political ideology. Back to Brandi.

[Kruse] (20:31 - 20:35)

First of all, there is so much of this that's insane. I don't even know how this is lawful to do. 

[Nixon] (20:35 - 20:49)

It isn't. The only reason it works is because the attorney general's office won't enforce the felony statute against destroying records before retention. Their logic is if it's gone before some nosy requester asks for it, it never existed. 

[Kruse] (20:50 - 20:53)

But now you're telling me after 30 days, it's an auto delete?

[Uknown Speaker] (20:53 - 20:54)

And because of space? 

[Kruse] (20:54 - 20:55)

Give me a break. 

[Uknown Speaker] (20:55 - 20:58)

My hotmail's still hanging on to 30-year-old emails. 

[Kruse] (20:58 - 21:02)

No, you got space. The citizens will pay for more storage. 

[Nixon] (21:03 - 21:37)

Exactly. You know, if hotmail can hang on to 30 years of shady forwards from someone's crazy uncle, the Washington legislature can hang on to more than 30 days of emails. Storage is cheap. 

Harming your democracy is really expensive. You want to know what's more burdensome and expensive for your local government? Government corruption that's not exposed.

I promise you that will cost you more out of your taxpayer dollars than a functional, well-run public records delivery system. And here's where Brandi just nails it. 

[Kruse](21:37 - 21:45)

I don't believe you should be able to, as a state lawmaker, even freaking use the delete button. I think we should pry it off of people's keyboards. Shouldn't be able to delete shit. 

[Nixon] (21:46 - 21:50)

Hell yes, Brandi. I'm gonna play that line on repeat. 

[Kruse](21:50 - 21:51)

Shouldn't be able to delete shit. 

[Nixon] (21:51 - 21:56)

I mean, we just agree here. Shouldn't be able to delete shit might just be the transparency slogan we all need. 

[Rose (SAO)] (21:57 - 22:00)

And I don't know if you, how could you not even realize that? 

[Nixon] (22:00 - 22:08)

This is what I'm talking about when I say there is non- or bipartisan consensus on transparency issues. We all instinctively know how this should work. 

[Kruse] (22:08 - 22:09)

Shouldn't be able to delete shit. 

[Nixon] (22:09 - 22:30)

You pay them to work for you, you get to check the receipts. If they're destroying the receipts in 30 days. Get it gone. 

They shouldn't work for you. Period. And if that amount of public accountability makes public employees and public officials uncomfortable, I'm sure there are places within the private sector that would be happy to review your resume. 

[Cuoio (WaTech)](22:30 - 22:31)

Get it gone. 

[Nixon] (22:31 - 23:27)

So yeah, Brandi, lawmakers. Shouldn't be able to delete shit. But that's not a democratic problem.

Like a capital D democratic problem. It's not a capital R Republican problem. It's a power problem. 

And until both sides are forced to come clean, Washingtonians will keep getting robbed of their right to know. Here's the, here's the big truth I'm hoping this segment gets across. This isn't a partisan problem. 

It's not red jerseys versus blue jerseys. It's the political class of both parties. Circling the wagons against the public. When lawmakers in 2018 tried to exempt themselves fromthe Public Records Act, it wasn't just Democrats. Republicans joined in with gusto. When the courts ruled in 2019 that individual lawmakers are subject to disclosure, both parties immediately started testing the limits of

so-called legislative privilege so that they could keep hiding things and working in secret from the people who hired them.

[Cuoio (WaTech)] (23:27 - 23:28)

Get it gone.

[Nixon] (23:28 - 25:07)

This isn't a democratic invention. This is their bipartisan survival instinct, right? And if you think this is just a Washington state problem, it isn't.

Take a look at DC for years. Republicans demanded Hillary Clinton's emails, and they were right to. Then Democrats demanded Trump's Ukraine call notes, right?

They wanted January 6 communications and pandemic response emails, and they were right to. Republicans pushed for Fauci's COVID records. Democrats wanted Trump's.

Republicans demanded IRS records targeting of conservative groups. Democrats wanted IRS records on Trump's political meddling. And now, Republicans want Hunter Biden's records.

Democrats fight back. Different names, different scandals, but the story is the same. Whoever's in power hides, whoever's out of power demands.

Check this out. Literally last week, in a story sourced by American Oversight, you know, another group of fake open government advocates, I'm sure. The Department of Homeland Security admitted it had stopped preserving text messages from top officials, including Secretary Kristi Noem, going back to April. Are you mad about that one, Brandi? Look, we know the public wants transparency. Voters in Washington approved the Public Records Act back in 1972.

It was like 72-28 or something like that. I mean, it was a massive win. Every poll since then has shown the same thing.

People want to know what their government is up to. Yet somehow, decade after decade, those same voters get told, sorry, you can't see that.

[Kruse] (25:08 - 25:08)

You shouldn't be able to believe shit.

[Nixon] (25:09 - 25:16)

As though the voters somehow aren't the bosses. The bosses somehow shouldn't get to check the work of their employees.

[Rose (SAO)] (25:16 - 25:19)

And I don't know if you, how could you not even realize that?

[Nixon] (25:19 - 26:18)

Now, Brandi wants to make it sound like this is a Democratic scheme. And sure, like I said, in Washington state today, Democrats really do have to own this a lot. However, where are the Republicans?

Where is the Republican leadership on this issue? If Republicans are so good on this matter, why are they almost completely wholly silent on it? Where's the statement from Senate Minority Leader Braun or House Minority Leader Soaksberry saying, this is wrong and we refuse to participate.

We will not allow our constituents' public records to be auto-deleted every 30 days. During the 2024 campaign, why didn't Dave Reichert hammer Bob Ferguson and Democrats on this issue during the campaign? That's a request for information and you don't have to answer those questions.

Giving credit where credit's due. I did see a post on X from state representative Chris Corry, a Republican who said that his office won't abide by the 30-day policy. Good on Rep Corry.

Absolutely.

[Kruse](26:18 - 26:19)

Shouldn't be able to believe shit.

[Nixon] (26:19 - 27:44)

Again, Corry and I probably don't agree on much of anything. But Rep Corry understands that to build credibility as a leader and to enrich and legitimize our democracy, transparency is mandatory. It's not something that you get to debate whether or not you're going to do.

This isn't about blaming Democrats or Republicans. It's about blaming Democrats and Republicans. It's about politicians protecting themselves from you, their boss.

 It's about insulating the people in power from the people they serve. That's why this 30-day deletion policy is so dangerous. Because once the records are gone, they are gone. 

You'll never know who lobbied your legislator. You'll never know who got him to change his position. You'll never know what deals are made in back rooms. 

You'll never know who wrote that amendment that mysteriously showed up in that bill because they deleted it. This and the attorney general's argument that as long as they delete it before you ask for it, it's all good, not only lets them get away with it, but those arguments wholly incentivize early destruction before retention is met as a way to legally insulate public entities and officials from legal risk. So here's where Brandi and I agree. 

You. 

[Kruse](27:44 - 27:45)

Shouldn't be able to believe shit. 

[Nixon] (27:45 - 29:36)

Full stop. But here's what I push it a little bit further. We shouldn't let politicians gaslight us into thinking that this is a storage issue or a partisan issue or some obscure legal technicality. 

It is a power issue. Normally, the party in power wants less transparency. The party out of power wants more, but the pattern is clear. 

Right? The purposeful deletion of texts by redistricting commissioner and current head of the Washington State Labor Council, April Sims. The purposeful deletion of records at the Department of Homeland Security under secretary Nome and president Trump that's happening currently. 

There's no shortage of this list. We already, you know, Hillary Clinton's emails, Trump's Ukraine calls, Fauci's COVID emails, the Epstein files, for God's sakes. Different scandals, different years, different parties, same script. 

Whoever's in power hides. Whoever's out of power demands disclosure. And until both parties are forced to come clean, nothing will change. 

Nothing. Because transparency isn't a partisan value. It is a small D democratic value. 

And while we, the people hold the power to make them deliver the receipts that we pay for, it won't happen if we buy into the idea that it's the other party that is to blame here. If we go down