What should be scandalous is that the Senate's rules have been secret – in the absence of public rules, how do we know who is following them?
back
2 comments
If you read the documents even a little, you'll see that they're not even as salacious as an employee handbook. Most employee handbooks aren't 90% rules about office supply requisition procedures.
What does it matter who's following these rules? Do you really care whether a senator has properly installed a [Chair (Overstuffed)] in their personal office rather than their front office?
I'd be more worried about the opposite phenomenon. The handbook is apparently used by the Senate Ethics Committee. I'd be worried that a giant book of rules about how exactly to obtain your parking pass or requisition an easel or how to arrange chairs in the rules committee room (note: actual examples) could easily be used as a weapon against individual senators by accusing them of "ethics violations".
Rule violations by senators are a tricky thing. Senators do not in fact serve at the pleasure of the Senate Ethics Committee. They're elected by the people of their state. The Constitution requires the Senate to make its own rules, but those rules are primarily for the orderly conduct of business in the Senate.
I think there is credence to the argument that the damn thing shouldn't have been secret in the first place. The practice of over-classifying stuff just reduces the transparency of the government in general. If it's not secret, don't classify it.
I have not looked into the actual document contents, but based on what you said, I do agree with you. But your poins are orthogonal to the question of whether or not it is appropriate for a manual/handbook for the Senate's conduct of business to be public or secret in a representative democracy.
I'm not sure why we would care. The senate made the rules; they should be the ones to care if the rules are followed. There's not much justification for secrecy, but it's hardly scandalous.