Rockefeller: transparency on a need-to-know basisThe state legislature’s latest moves towards eliminating some of the fat-cat tax breaks highlighted in a recent Seattle Weekly

cover story are encouraging to see – but what, exactly, is it we see? Sen. Phil Rockefeller, D-Bainbridge Island, recently introduced a title-only reform bill (without any text detailing the law being proposed) followed by a 35-second staff briefing to the Senate Ways and Means Committee, a 65-second public hearing, and a 22-second vote to approve the blank bill so text can be added perhaps without further public input. It’s a strange way to run an open government, and only now that the bill is sailing towards approval do we know what’s in it. The measure originally consisted of one line: This act shall be known and cited as the legislative review of tax preferences act of 2010. Now it has become nine pages of “amendments.” In a summary, the bill:Establishes the intent of the legislature that tax preferences be reviewed in the same manner as budget expenditures. Sets standards for what should be included in future tax preference legislation. Establishes a task force to provide a process for the legislature and governor to review and consider tax preferences. Increases the makeup of the Citizen’s Commission on the Performance Review of Tax measures, and adds criteria to be used by the Commission in evaluating tax preferences. Requires the Governor, when submitting tax preference requests to the legislature, to offset the cost of any preferences by reductions or eliminations of existing preferences. Requires the department of revenue to provide the tax exemption report every two years rather than every four years.It’s what advocates of “tax preference” reform were hoping for. But was it necessary for Rockefeller and his co-sponsors to subvert the sunshine process of open and fair debate? Amber Carter of the Association of Washington Business, the one person to speak at the rushed hearing, was left to guess at what the measure might eventually say. “If this bill is intended to be a vehicle to repeal certain tax incentives,” she noted, “that may or may not be ok. We just don’t know what that discussion is yet, and we’d rather be part of that discussion than get surprised at a later point.” Rockefeller, asked to comment, said the text-less bill merely indicated he planned to “take a look” at exemptions. And any changes, he said without apparent irony, would be done “in the interest of fairness, transparency.” Says Jason Mercier of the Washington Policy Center: “Since the bill has already been passed to the Senate rules committee, it is unclear if the public will have an opportunity to participate at a real public hearing or if this amendment will simply be enacted on the floor of the Senate.”