So this is reform

The reformers. They agree generally that reform is needed, but they can't agree to recommend specifics. They can agree on campaign finance reform in principle, but can't agree on numbers, not even ones like Congress did. They can agree that open records are needed, and that the Legislature can be included, but not the specifics of the vast list of exemptions that will weaken the law. They definitely DO NOT want fewer legislators, but it would be nice to lessen the cost. They leave the specifics to others who will be asked to carry the ball, other committ chairs who may or may not have the resolve to be reformers when talking to their leaders behind closed doors. It's lip service people. It's open records as long as there's a call for it. They can't even agree on an appeals process once the record access is denied.

But this is progress. It is an open dialogue. I am not so pessimistic as to think that the promises of many votes won't be the promises of many bills being signed by one governor, who has also played lip service to reform, because that is the buzzword. We play bingo with these words, like approve vs. advance. Gawd Almighty if the reformers stick their necks out and approve something controversial. So they don't recommend firmly, they advance the proposal without approving it...There's no there there. Like in the climax of Woody Allen's The Front. "I am answering, I'm just not replying. They can only get me if I don't answer, but if I reply without answering, I have them." The them is the voters. The newspaper muckracker articles will read that things were discussed, but what was done really.

The proof is in the act number.